Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
`PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Serial Number: 87745008
`Filing Date: 01/05/2018
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`87745008
`
`IPRIQ
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`IPRIQ
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font
`style, size, or color.
`
`Principal
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`MARK INFORMATION
`
`*MARK
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`MARK STATEMENT
`
`REGISTER
`
`APPLICANT INFORMATION
`
`*OWNER OF MARK
`
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`
`*STREET
`
`*CITY
`
`*STATE
`(Required for U.S. applicants)
`
`*COUNTRY
`
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`
`Kansas City
`
`Missouri
`
`United States
`
`*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`(Required for U.S. and certain international addresses) 64108
`LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
`
`TYPE
`
`limited liability partnership
`
`STATE/COUNTRY WHERE LEGALLY
`ORGANIZED
`
`Missouri
`
`NAME OF ALL GENERAL PARTNERS, ACTIVE
`MEMBERS, INDIVIDUAL, TRUSTEES, OR
`EXECUTORS, AND CITIZENSHIP/
`INCORPORATION
`
`Madeleine M. McDonough, Robert T. Adams, Ann M. Songer, Walter L.
`Cofer, Michael J. Gross, Bruce R. Tepikian, William P. Geraghty, B. Trent
`Webb, Hildy Sastre, and Michael A. Zito, all U.S. citizens
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`041 
`
`*IDENTIFICATION
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`       FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
`
`       FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
`
`       SPECIMEN FILE NAME(S)
`
`Providing online publications in the nature of newsletters in the field of
`intellectual property.
`
`SECTION 1(a)
`
`At least as early as 10/20/2016
`
`At least as early as 03/00/2017
`
`

`

`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (5 pages)
`
`SPE0-1-651644633-20171018164018142147_._IPRIQ_-
`_ENHANCING_YOUR_IPRIQ_-_App_Specimen.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\877\450\87745008\xml1\RFA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\877\450\87745008\xml1\RFA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\877\450\87745008\xml1\RFA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\877\450\87745008\xml1\RFA0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\877\450\87745008\xml1\RFA0007.JPG
`
`       SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
`
`screenshot of electronically distributed newsletter
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
`
`ACTIVE PRIOR REGISTRATION(S)
`
`MISCELLANEOUS STATEMENT
`
`ATTORNEY INFORMATION
`
`NAME
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NUMBER
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`The applicant claims ownership of active prior U.S. Registration Number(s)
`3942969.
`
`Applicant is also the owner of Applications Serial Nos. 87/624,592;
`87/629,312; and 87/629,315.
`
`Patrick J. Koncel
`
`GENC.265296
`
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`
`Kansas City
`
`Missouri
`
`United States
`
`64108
`
`816-474-6550
`
`816-421-5547
`
`EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`pjktmdocket@shb.com
`
`AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL
`
`Yes
`
`OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY
`
`Patrick A. Lujin; Michael J. Gross; B. Trent Webb; Scott B. Strohm; Clinton
`G. Newton; Tawni L. Wilhelm; Jean M. Dickman; Jesse J. Camacho;
`Lawrence E. Carter; Leonard Searcy; Robert H. Reckers; John S. Golian;
`Andrew D. O'Brien; Kelly T. Feimster; Elena K. McFarland; Cory W. Fisher;
`Anthony B. Wingrove; Aaron E. Hankel; Jason O. Howard; Ryan D. Dykal;
`Mary Jane Peal; Ashley N. Sturgeon; Angel A. Mitchell; Beth A. Larigan;
`Lynn C. Herndon; James B. Devaney; David J. Niegowski; Ryan J.
`Schletzbaum; Anne R. Hannah; George L. Ngengwe; Fiona A. Bell; Jordan T.
`Bergsten; Lauren E. Douville; Craig M. Edgar; Angela D. Truesdale; Jennifer
`M. Schroeder; Robert D. Chisholm; D. Bartley Eppenauer; David W.
`Morehan; Jeffrey R. Schnayer; Keith J. Bae; Tanya L. Chaney; John D.
`Garretson; Mark D. Schafer; Ben L. Hubbard; Chris J. Strobel; Amy M.
`Foust; Michael W. Gray; Colman D. McCarthy; Bryan E. Meyer; Charlie
`Zhao; Melissa Marrero; Elizabeth A. Lucas; Palak J. Shah; Daniel M. Staren;
`Christine A. Guastello; Nicholas P. Stadnyk; Heather A. Hedeen; Ryan S.
`Lincoln; Nazish Z. Shabbir; Hugh A. Abrams; David B. McKinney; Jeff
`Patterson; Thomas M. Patton; Bradley W. Thomas; Paul M. Vogel; Reid L.
`Williams; Patrick J. Sullivan; Lydia C. Raw
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`Patrick J. Koncel
`
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`
`Kansas City
`
`Missouri
`
`United States
`
`64108
`
`816-474-6550
`
`816-421-5547
`
`*EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`pjktmdocket@shb.com
`
`*AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes
`
`FEE INFORMATION
`
`APPLICATION FILING OPTION
`
`TEAS RF
`
`NUMBER OF CLASSES
`
`APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION PER CLASS
`
`*TOTAL FEE DUE
`
`*TOTAL FEE PAID
`
`SIGNATURE INFORMATION
`
`SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`1
`
`275
`
`275
`
`275
`
`/CGN #42,930/
`
`Clinton G. Newton
`
`Equity Partner and Co-owner
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`(816) 474-6550
`
`01/05/2018
`
`

`

`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
`PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Serial Number: 87745008
`Filing Date: 01/05/2018
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`MARK: IPRIQ (Standard Characters, see mark)
`The literal element of the mark consists of IPRIQ.
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.
`
`The applicant, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., a limited liability partnership legally organized under the laws of Missouri, comprising of
`Madeleine M. McDonough, Robert T. Adams, Ann M. Songer, Walter L. Cofer, Michael J. Gross, Bruce R. Tepikian, William P. Geraghty, B.
`Trent Webb, Hildy Sastre, and Michael A. Zito, all U.S. citizens, having an address of
`      2555 Grand Blvd.
`      Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`      United States
`
`requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register
`established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.), as amended, for the following:
`
`       International Class 041:  Providing online publications in the nature of newsletters in the field of intellectual property.
`
`In International Class 041, the mark was first used by the applicant or the applicant's related company or licensee or predecessor in interest at
`least as early as 10/20/2016, and first used in commerce at least as early as 03/00/2017, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is
`submitting one(or more) specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of listed
`goods/services, consisting of a(n) screenshot of electronically distributed newsletter.
`
`Original PDF file:
`SPE0-1-651644633-20171018164018142147_._IPRIQ_-_ENHANCING_YOUR_IPRIQ_-_App_Specimen.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (5 pages)
`Specimen File1
`Specimen File2
`Specimen File3
`Specimen File4
`Specimen File5
`
`Claim of Active Prior Registration(s)
`The applicant claims ownership of active prior U.S. Registration Number(s) 3942969.
`
`Miscellaneous Statement
`Applicant is also the owner of Applications Serial Nos. 87/624,592; 87/629,312; and 87/629,315.
`
`The applicant's current Attorney Information:
`      Patrick J. Koncel and Patrick A. Lujin; Michael J. Gross; B. Trent Webb; Scott B. Strohm; Clinton G. Newton; Tawni L. Wilhelm; Jean M.
`Dickman; Jesse J. Camacho; Lawrence E. Carter; Leonard Searcy; Robert H. Reckers; John S. Golian; Andrew D. O'Brien; Kelly T. Feimster;
`Elena K. McFarland; Cory W. Fisher; Anthony B. Wingrove; Aaron E. Hankel; Jason O. Howard; Ryan D. Dykal; Mary Jane Peal; Ashley N.
`Sturgeon; Angel A. Mitchell; Beth A. Larigan; Lynn C. Herndon; James B. Devaney; David J. Niegowski; Ryan J. Schletzbaum; Anne R.
`Hannah; George L. Ngengwe; Fiona A. Bell; Jordan T. Bergsten; Lauren E. Douville; Craig M. Edgar; Angela D. Truesdale; Jennifer M.
`Schroeder; Robert D. Chisholm; D. Bartley Eppenauer; David W. Morehan; Jeffrey R. Schnayer; Keith J. Bae; Tanya L. Chaney; John D.
`Garretson; Mark D. Schafer; Ben L. Hubbard; Chris J. Strobel; Amy M. Foust; Michael W. Gray; Colman D. McCarthy; Bryan E. Meyer;
`Charlie Zhao; Melissa Marrero; Elizabeth A. Lucas; Palak J. Shah; Daniel M. Staren; Christine A. Guastello; Nicholas P. Stadnyk; Heather A.
`Hedeen; Ryan S. Lincoln; Nazish Z. Shabbir; Hugh A. Abrams; David B. McKinney; Jeff Patterson; Thomas M. Patton; Bradley W. Thomas;
`Paul M. Vogel; Reid L. Williams; Patrick J. Sullivan; Lydia C. Raw of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.      2555 Grand Blvd.
`      Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`
`

`

`      United States
`      816-474-6550(phone)
`      816-421-5547(fax)
`      pjktmdocket@shb.com (authorized)
`The attorney docket/reference number is GENC.265296.
`
`The applicant's current Correspondence Information:
`      Patrick J. Koncel
`      Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`      2555 Grand Blvd.
`      Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`      816-474-6550(phone)
`      816-421-5547(fax)
`      pjktmdocket@shb.com (authorized)
`E-mail Authorization: I authorize the USPTO to send e-mail correspondence concerning the application to the applicant, the applicant's
`attorney, or the applicant's domestic representative at the e-mail address provided in this application. I understand that a valid e-mail address
`must be maintained and that the applicant or the applicant's attorney must file the relevant subsequent application-related submissions via the
`Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Failure to do so will result in the loss of TEAS Reduced Fee status and a requirement to
`submit an additional processing fee of $125 per international class of goods/services.
`
`A fee payment in the amount of $275 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1 class(es).
`
`Declaration
`
`Basis:
`If the applicant is filing the application based on use in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a):
`
`The signatory believes that the applicant is the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered;
`The mark is in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application;
`The specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; and
`To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, the facts recited in the application are accurate.
`
`And/Or
`If the applicant is filing the application based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), § 1126(d),
`and/or § 1126(e):
`
`The signatory believes that the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce;
`The applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the
`application; and
`To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, the facts recited in the application are accurate.
`
`To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the
`mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the
`goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.
`
`To the best of the signatory's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the
`allegations and other factual contentions made above have evidentiary support.
`
`The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §
`1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration
`resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and
`belief are believed to be true.
`Declaration Signature
`
`Signature: /CGN #42,930/   Date: 01/05/2018
`Signatory's Name: Clinton G. Newton
`Signatory's Position: Equity Partner and Co-owner
`Payment Sale Number: 87745008
`Payment Accounting Date: 01/08/2018
`
`Serial Number: 87745008
`
`

`

`Internet Transmission Date: Fri Jan 05 14:31:24 EST 2018
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/BAS-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20180105143124073
`323-87745008-510daf8f77989be4eb54124014a
`19e1aee86f6449a2e25ae3214e3955f1d526dd9-
`CC-828-20180105133955123622
`
`

`

`IPRIQ
`
`

`

`o 6
`
`Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser.
`
`MARCH 2017
`
`a
`
`IPRiQ
`ENHANCING YOUR IPR low
`
`SHOCK
`
`PR: The "R" is for "Review" (More Than _
`
`,,
`.
`.
`Reexamlnatlon )
`
`SHARE WITH TWITTER | LINKEDIN
`
`s u B s c R I B E
`
`_ I
`
`,,
`
`Regarding an IPR (Inter Partes Review) as less of a patent-
`reexamination process and more of a petition-review proceeding
`will make for stronger petitions requesting review and crisper
`responses opposing institution. Either way, appreciating the
`difference will increase your IPRiQ.
`
`If you have questions aboutthis ale“)
`please contact:
`
`The burden to show patentability
`never shifts to the patent owner in an
`IPR.
`
`‘ ¥
`
`Jesse Camacho
`
`816-559-2173
`Unlike the initial examination of a patent application, the burden
`to show patentability never shifts to the patent owner in an IPR. mm
`In Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, the Federal Circuit confirmed this
`when it overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
`obviousness finding because the Board improperly shifted the
`
`burden from the petitioner to the patent owner to show that the
`
`challenged patent was obvious.[i]
`
`

`

`

`

`is less like a judicial proceeding and more like a specialized agency
`
`proceeding” and “the purpose of the proceeding is not quite the
`same as the purpose of district court litigation.”[x]
`
`Thus, at least the Supreme Court is not convinced that Congress
`meant inter partes review proceedings to have a different basic
`purpose from the earlier inter partes reexamination
`procedure. Even so, the Federal Circuit’s second key takeaway
`
`will shape the prudent practitioner’s petition.
`
`The Board may review only
`arguments in the petition (and cannot
`set forth its own).
`
`Prior to Magnum, the Patent Office presumed that the Board
`
`could make an obviousness argument on behalf of a petitioner if
`the argument “could have been included in a properly-drafted
`petition.”[xi] That is incorrect. It “is the petitioner that bears the
`
`burden of proof in IPRs[.]”[xii]
`
`Yes, the IPR process is designed to be an efficient way to challenge
`patents, but “it is still a system that is predicated on a petition
`
`followed by a trial in which the petitioner bears the burden of
`proof.”[xiii] Thus, the Court found no support for the PTO’s
`position that the Board was free to adopt arguments on behalf of a
`petitioner that could have been, but were not, raised by the
`petitioner during an IPR. “Instead, the Board must base its
`decision on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to
`
`which the opposing party was given a chance to respond.”[xiv]
`
`In IPRs, the petitioner must demonstrate obviousness. The PTO
`does have broad authority to establish procedures for revisiting
`earlier-granted patents in IPRs, but “that authority is not so broad
`that it allows the PTO to raise, address, and decide unpatentability
`theories never presented by the petitioner and not supported by
`record evidence.”[xv]
`
`Because the Patent Office may not properly consider any
`arguments or evidence outside of the petition, the petition must
`stand on its own.
`
`Conclusions
`
`Before July 2016, practitioners may have thought that patent
`
`owners might have to prove nonobviousness at some point during
`an IPR, or that the Board could rely on arguments outside of the
`
`petition.[xvi] That is not so.
`
`

`

`Wise IPR petitioners will:
`
`-
`
`Prepare petitions that independently include sufficient
`argument and evidence for the Board to find challenged
`claims invalid.
`
`- Appreciate that at all times, it is their burden to show
`unpatentability.
`0 Avoid relying on cross-citing arguments that should be
`independently made.
`Ensure that they themselves set forth a primafacie case of
`anticipation 0r obviousness in the petition.
`
`-
`
`[i] In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd, 829 F.3d 1364,2016 U.S.
`
`App. LEXIS 13461 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`[ii] In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`[iii] Magnum Oil Tools, 2016 US. App. LEXIS 13461 at *15-16
`
`(internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`[iv] Id. at *15 (quotation omitted).
`
`[v] Id. at *18 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
`
`[vi] Id. at *15-16 (internal citations omitted).
`
`[vii] Id. at *16.
`
`[viii] Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2143 (US.
`2016).
`
`[ix] Id. at 2143.
`
`[x] Id. at 2144.
`
`[xi] Magnum Oil Tools, 2016 US. App. LEXIS 13461 at *29.
`
`[xii] Id. (emphasis added).
`
`[xiii] Id. at *30.
`
`[xiv] Id. (emphasis added).
`
`[xv] Id. at *31.
`
`[xvi] Or other proper portions of the record, such as, potentially,
`
`the patent owner’s preliminary response, opposition, etc.
`
`

`

`SHB.COM
`
`