Category Archives: Claim Construction

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

Are Patent-Friendly PTAB Decisions On the Rise?

Patent litigation changed with passage of the America Invents Act. Overnight the PTAB became a new venue for challenging patent claims using IPRs, CBMs and PGRs. The initial reaction by the patent bar to the PTAB’s “take charge” approach to … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, Claim Construction, Damages, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, prior art, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Employs Phillips Claim Construction to Measure Claims Amended in Reexamination for Possible Intervening Rights

When patent owners sue an accused infringer for patent infringement, one way for the accused infringer to avoid liability is to show noninfringement of the patent claims.  But if the claims are extremely broad, the accused infringer may find it difficult … Continue reading

Posted in Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Phillips claim construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, prior art, reexamination generally | 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

Divided Federal Circuit Panel Finds Computer System Claims Not Patent-Eligible

Posted:  September 8, 2013 On September 5, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District court holding that a computer system claim was not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., a divided panel … Continue reading

Posted in claim challenges, Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, patent-eligible subject matter, software patents, statutory subject matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WildTangent Files its Supreme Court Certiorari Petition – Part 1

In September of 2009, Ultramercial, Inc. sued WildTangent, Inc., Hulu and YouTube in the Central District of California for alleged patent infringement of U.S. 7,346,545 (the ‘545 patent).  The ‘545 patent claims trading advertisement viewing for access to content over … Continue reading

Posted in claim challenges, Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 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