-
Archives
Categories
- Adjudicative instead of examinatorial (2)
- America Invents Act (86)
- Aqua Products (1)
- Boardside Chat Report (1)
- Book and Article Reviews (1)
- BRI v. Phillips Construction Issues (1)
- Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard (16)
- claim challenges (40)
- indefiniteness (5)
- patent-eligible subject matter (17)
- prior art (13)
- statutory subject matter (8)
- Claim Construction (18)
- Claim Preclusion (1)
- clear and convincing evidence (7)
- doctrine of claim differentiation (2)
- Ex Parte Prosecution (23)
- Federal Circuit (17)
- Federal Circuit Review of PTAB Proceedings (4)
- inequitable conduct (2)
- inter partes review (73)
- 315(b) One Year Bar (7)
- estoppel (14)
- IPR Joinder (4)
- Motion to Amend (3)
- serial petitions (2)
- IPR (2)
- Issue Preclusion (1)
- ITC (1)
- joint infringement (1)
- Litigation (85)
- Damages (17)
- enhanced damages (1)
- future damages (3)
- intervening rights (5)
- past damages (9)
- estoppel from administrative proceeding (11)
- Expert (2)
- Joinder Post AIA (5)
- Phillips claim construction (1)
- Prosecution Bar (4)
- Protective Order (3)
- stay (11)
- factors for stay (8)
- Damages (17)
- Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit (4)
- Patent Portfolio Management (2)
- Patent Reform (51)
- petitions practice (12)
- Phillips-type construction (7)
- Post Grant Review (71)
- preponderance of evidence (8)
- pro hac vice admission (3)
- PRPS Patent Review Processing System (13)
- PTAB (82)
- PTAB Patent Trials (49)
- PTO Sued Under the APA (11)
- reexamination generally (57)
- Reissue (6)
- Settlements in Post-Grant Proceedings (3)
- software patents (2)
- States rights and sovereign immunity (2)
- supplemental examination (3)
- Supreme Court Review of post-grant issues (2)
- Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings (9)
- Uncategorized (64)
- Webinar (1)
Category Archives: Litigation
Are Your Patent Procurement Guidelines Outdated?
I saw a bumper sticker that said: “Change is inevitable, but growth is optional.” This is true in many facets of life, and it is true for patent practice. The changes of the past few years are numerous and … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, claims, covered business method, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Target Wins Rehearing of IPR Joinder Decision with Expanded Panel
Last fall, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) interpreted the IPR joinder provision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), to require joinder requests by a non-party to an ongoing proceeding. (Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508 and IPR2014-00509.) Prior to that decision, the Board … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, inter partes review, IPR Joinder, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, Joinder of Parties Post-petition, Joinder Post AIA, Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged 314(d), 315(c), Bianchi, federal circuit, In re Cuozzo, inter partes review, IPR, issue joinder, issued patent, party joinder, patent, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
The Settlement Effect of PTAB Proceedings and Recent Patent Office Trial Statistics
December 29, 2014 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) released statistics for AIA Patent Office trials as of Dec. 18, 2014. Different commentators have recently reported that the institution rate for these proceedings has dropped to about 60-70 percent, depending … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Settlements in Post-Grant Proceedings, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, Early Settlement, inter partes review, IPR, patent, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, settlement, Settlement Effect of Post Grant Proceedings, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Target Corp. Requests Rehearing of Denied IPRs by Expanded PTAB Panel
October 17, 2014 Last month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) interpreted the IPR joinder provision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), to preclude joinder requests by an existing party to an ongoing proceeding. (Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508 and … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, IPR Joinder, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, Joinder of Parties Post-petition, Litigation, Patent Reform, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged Bianchi, Board, inter partes review, IPR, issue joinder, issued patent, party joinder, patent, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, Tim Bianchi, § 315(c)
Leave a comment
Lex Machina’s 2013 Patent Litigation Report Shows Disparity Between Litigated Patents and those under PTAB Review
Litigation and post-grant proceedings often go hand-in-hand. A new litigation report published by Lex Machina summarizes patent litigation data for 2013 and prior years. It is an interesting report and very easy to digest. Two findings caught my eye. The first one … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Joinder Post AIA, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
USPTO Statistics Show Inter Partes Patent Reviews are Frequently Settled Before Final Board Decision
The U.S. Patent Office regularly posts statistics on post-grant proceedings such as inter partes review and covered business method patent review. An excerpt of PTAB statistics for February 13, 2014 is found below. The acronyms “FWD” and “RAJ” stand … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, Early Settlement, inter partes review, IPR, patent litigation, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
SAP’s Cert Petition Denied by Supreme Court in Versata Patent Infringement Suit
In earlier posts, I described the $391 million patent infringement judgment awarded to Versata for SAP’s alleged infringement of US Pat. 6,553,350. I also detailed SAP’s attempts to avoid the judgment by challenging the ‘350 patent in the first covered business … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, software patents, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, claims, covered business method, damages, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, stay, Supreme Court, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment