Category Archives: pro hac vice admission

AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination

In the past few months, I have had discussions with many different stakeholders about how AIA post-grant review differs from conventional reexamination.  AIA patent trials (post-grant review or PGR, inter partes review or IPR, and covered business method patent review … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, pro hac vice admission, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Guidance on Pro Hac Vice Admissions

The PTAB (“Board”) has already decided some motions for pro hac vice admission in various PTAB case proceedings.  A recent decision in case IPR2012-00035 referenced an earlier decision on motion for pro hac vice admission in case IPR2013-00010.  The relevant part … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, motion practice, pro hac vice admission, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pro Hac Vice Admission Denied in SAP v. Versata CBM Patent Review

My prior post described the pro hac vice admission dispute between SAP and Versata Development Group in PTAB matter CBM2012-00001.  The PTAB wasted no time and issued an order denying the motion for pro hac vice admission of Versata’s litigation … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, motion practice, Post Grant Review, pro hac vice admission, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment