PTAB Rules That Amendment Date Does Not Qualify a Patent for Post-Grant Review

Jul 27, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The petitioner argued that the effective filing date of the ’890 patent is the date on which the claims were amended, March 17, 2015. The PTAB stated that 35 U.S.C. § 100(i), which defines “effective filing date,” makes no provision for the effective filing date to be later than the actual filing date of the application, even if the application is later amended, and even if that later amendment lacks written description support in the original specification. Therefore, the effective filing date of the ’890 patent cannot be the date the claims were amended. The PTAB held that the effective filing date of the ’890 patent must be either the actual filing date or the date to which the patent claims priority. The PTAB declined to rule on the validity of the claim of priority to the earlier provisional application because both the actual filing date and the earlier priority date claimed are before March 16, 2013, the effective filing date required for post-grant review. As a result, the  PTAB denied the petition. 

Adebimpe v. The Johns Hopkins Univ., PGR2016-00020, (PTAB July 25, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.