Category Archives: Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard

Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products Decision Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioner to Challenge Amended Claims

On October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a lengthy decision in Aqua Products v. Matal, spanning five opinions and 148 pages, which addressed the proper allocation of the burden of proof when amended claims are offered during inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”).  Aqua Prods. v. … Continue reading

Posted in Adjudicative instead of examinatorial, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Federal Circuit Review of PTAB Proceedings, Motion to Amend, preponderance of evidence, reexamination generally, Settlements in Post-Grant Proceedings, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ChanBond Avoids Institution of Six Cisco IPR Petitions

ChanBond sued several cable company defendants alleging patent infringement of three wideband signal distribution system patents in the District of Delaware in 2015.  The defendants included Atlantic Broadband Group, Bright House Networks, Cable One, Cablevision, Cequel Communications, Charter Communications, Comcast … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, Claim Construction, inter partes review, Litigation, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTAB Narrows Its Preliminary Claim Interpretation To Uphold Cellular Patent

In July, 2014 Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8-12 and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 owned by Intellectual Ventures II  LLC (“IV”).  In February, 2015, the Board instituted … Continue reading

Posted in Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, Expert Witnesses, inter partes review, prior art, PTAB, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Reinforces PTAB’s Authority to Institute Trial on Selected Claims in Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics Appeal

Newcomers to post-grant proceedings are often surprised by the PTAB’s claim-by-claim approach to patent challenges under the America Invents Act.  When reporting statistics about IPRs, commentators tend to ignore these considerations: First, an IPR petition can be drafted to challenge all or some … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, clear and convincing evidence, doctrine of claim differentiation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent Trends to Watch in 2016

2016 is starting off with a bang!  A number of interesting new developments have occurred as we enter into this new year: The Supreme Court will review broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), courtesy of the petition for cert in Cuozzo The Federal Circuit … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, Federal Circuit, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Supreme Court Review of post-grant issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Interprets Board’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard – Part II

In Microsoft Corp. v. ProxyConn, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, Intervenor (Fed. Cir. cases 2014-1542 and -1543), the Federal Circuit reversed claim constructions made by the Board in the underlying IPRs.  One of the claim constructions that was reversed related … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, prior art, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Interprets Board’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard – Part I

We know from the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard applies in IPRs, but in a recent appeal decision, the Federal Circuit has announced limits to the application of BRI. Microsoft had … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, PTAB | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Affirms Board Finding of Unpatentability in First IPR

The Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination of the Board in the first inter partes review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).   Garmin petitioned for IPR of claims 10, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 owned by Cuozzo … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit, prior art, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTAB CBM: Versata Patent Claims Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101

On June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision holding claims 17 and 26-29 of Versata’s 6,553,350 patent  unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  This decision arises from a petition filed on Sep. 16, 2012, in a … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, covered business methods, ex parte reexamination, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Parallel Litigation and PTAB Review Create Complex Interplay of Patentability and Validity

A company called CoreLogic Solutions, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 5,361,201, relating to a process for appraising real estate property.  The ‘201 patent was filed on Oct. 19, 1992 and issued on Nov. 1, 1994.  Absent some kind of patent term extension, the ‘201 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, indefiniteness, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, statutory subject matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment