Category Archives: inter partes reexamination

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

Steady Stream of AIA Post-Issuance Review Petitions Filed in PTAB

It has been a little over one month since post grant patent reviews were authorized by the AIA and the Patent Office Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) shows about 47 petitions on file in the PTAB. Look at it this … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Comparative Study of Post Issuance Review Options

Today I had the pleasure of co-presenting at the Midwest IP Institute on various post-issuance proceedings with Kevin Rhodes, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel and President of 3M Innovative Properties Company.  A PDF of our joint presentation is found here. The presentation provides … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, indefiniteness, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, statutory subject matter, supplemental examination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Claim Interpretation for Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review under the AIA – Part I

Today, USPTO Director David Kappos posted a comment advocating the use of  the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (BRI) for claim interpretation in post grant review and inter partes review under the America Invents Act.  This is a topic of great interest among those … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, clear and convincing evidence, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, Patent Reform, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, reexamination generally, Reissue, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff and Stays Pending Reexamination

In Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (Case No. C 10-04645 RS, Northern District of California), Judge Richard Seeborg was less than persuaded by Interwoven’s attempt to obtain a stay after filing an ex parte reexamination of the patents … Continue reading

Posted in estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Protective Order, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, stay | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New, More Popular Post-Grant Patent Challenges Drive Patent Generation Strategy

Patent Generation and Enforcement Before the Popularity of Post-Grant Proceedings Patent Owners adopt different approaches for drafting patent applications.  For large companies a patent production line approach is frequently adopted which limits the cost and the commensurate drafting efforts on any particular … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, estoppel, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, future damages, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

America Invents Act: Post-Grant Procedures for Patent Challengers

Now that the America Invents Act has become law there are several new provisions for patent challengers to consider.  For example, the Act includes: preissuance submissions by third party challengers (Sec. 8 — see the last post); Post-Grant Review (Sec. … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Appealable, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent Challengers get additional Preissuance Challenge Option after Leahy-Smith Bill Passes

Pre-Issuance Challenge Option Added Section 8 of the Act provides for additional pre-issuance submissions by third parties by amending 35 U.S.C. 122.  Written submission of the relevance of a patent application,  patent, published patent application, or other printed publication must … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, preissuance submissions by third parties, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Strategic Use of Reexamination in view of the Patent Reform Bill

Last week I had the privilege of speaking on reexamination at the AIPLA Electronics and Computer Law Summit.  The title of my speech was “Strategic Use of Reexam after Patent Reform – Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review.”  The powerpoint presentation materials can be found here.  The … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Reissue, stay, Substantial New Question (SNQ), supplemental examination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Estoppel in Post-Grant Review (cont’d)

In the previous post we discussed some aspects of post-grant review (PGR)  in the current bill before the Senate.  The grounds available for petition in PGR are more comprehensive than those available for traditional reexamination and and also for the … Continue reading

Posted in estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment