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: Prosecution Bar
Prosecution Bars and PTAB Practice
In an earlier post we explored many ways that reexamination differs from post-grant review, inter partes review, and covered business method review. The PTAB has been very clear that reexamination and AIA patent trials are very different. For example, in … Continue reading →
Posted in covered business methods, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Post Grant Review, Prosecution Bar, Protective Order, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally
|
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, litigation, patent, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, prosecution bar, PTAB, reexam, Tim Bianchi
|
Leave a comment
Pro Hac Vice Admission Challenge to Test Extent of Participation of Litigation Team Member with Knowledge under Protective Order in Covered Business Method Patent Review
In the first covered business-method patent review ever filed (CBM2012-000001), SAP America and Versata Development Group are in a dispute as to whether a litigation attorney for Versata should be admitted pro hac vice in the PTAB trial. Apparently there … Continue reading →
Posted in America Invents Act, Claim Construction, covered business methods, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, Prosecution Bar, PTAB, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
|
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, claims, covered business method, federal circuit, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, petition, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
|
Leave a comment
Protective Orders in View of Reexamination
In 55 Brake, L.L.C. v. Audi of America, Inc. et. al., (case 1-08-cv-00177, IDD), plaintiff 55 Brake is a patent owner asserting patent infringement of its ‘587 patent by several large automobile manufacturers. The parties entered a protective order to … Continue reading →
Posted in ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Prosecution Bar, Protective Order, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
|
Tagged Bianchi, claims, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, litigation, patent, patent litigation, patent prosecution, prosecution bar, protective order, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
|
Leave a comment
Stays Pending Reexamination and Experts Subject to a Prosecution Bar
In Interval Licensing LLC v. eBay, Inc., et. al., 2-10-cv-01385 (WAWD), Interval Licensing (Interval) filed a motion for reconsideration of an earlier order by the Court to stay the litigation pending reexamination. On July 12, 2011, Judge Marsha J. Pechman denied the motion. … Continue reading →
Posted in ex parte reexamination, Expert, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Prosecution Bar, reexamination generally, stay
|
Tagged Bianchi, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent litigation, patent prosecution, prosecution bar, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, stay, Tim Bianchi
|
Leave a comment