-
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: inter partes reexamination
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 Bianchi, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, patent, patent litigation, patent reform, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Post-Grant Review and Estoppel in the Current Patent Reform Bill
When the Senate returns from recess next month it will be debating patent reform, and in particular the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. A copy of the redlined version passed by the House is found here. (thanks to Brad Pedersen of Patterson Thuente Christensen … Continue reading
Posted in estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally
Tagged America Invents Act, Bianchi, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Leahy-Smith, patent reform, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Stay of Litigation Pending Inter Partes Reexamination Warranted Despite Possible Lengthy Reexam Pendency
District courts are making increasingly detailed and sophisticated decisions on motions to stay litigation pending reexamination. One example is the analysis performed in N Spine Inc. and Synthes USA Sales, LLC v. Globus Medical Inc., (1-1–cv-00300 (DED)). N Spine and Synthes USA Sales … Continue reading
Posted in factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, stay
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, reexamination pendency, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Fractus SA Gets $23M Verdict Against Samsung in Antenna Patent Litigation
In Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (6:09-CV-203, EDTX), a jury gave a verdict of patent infringement of four different patents owned by Fractus S.A. against Samsung to the tune of $23,129,321 in damages. The jury found that … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, Damages, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, BPAI, claims, clear and convincing, damages, federal circuit, Fractus, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
The Patent Office Wants Your Ideas for Streamlining Reexamination
On Monday, April 25, 2011, the Federal Register announced a public meeting to solicit opinions on a number of changes being considered at the U.S. Patent Office to streamline both ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination proceedings. Written comments … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, merger, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Reissue, Substantial New Question (SNQ)
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, patent, patent litigation, petition, reexam, reexamination, reissue, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
More on Fractus Inter Partes Reexams
Scott Daniels has created a great table summarizing the current status of the Fractus reexams. That table is posted on his blog today with a status of each individual reexamination.
Petitions Practice for SNQ Findings in Inter Partes Reexaminations
A prior post emphasized the importance of a well crafted petition in cases where the examiner determines that there is no SNQ in an inter partes reexamination request. Recall that the BPAI determined it had no jurisdiction to review of a determination that there was no … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes reexamination, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged appealable, Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, central reexamination unit, CRU, director, inter partes reexamination, jurisdiction, patent, patent counsel, petition, reexamination, SNQ, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Use Petitions to Reverse Determination of No SNQ in Inter Partes Reexaminations
You see a competitor’s patent and believe it is invalid. You perform a prior art search and find prior art that you think would render at least some of the patent claims unpatentable. So after thinking about it some more, you decide to … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, inter partes reexamination, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged 35 USC 312, 35 USC 315, appeal, Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, director, inter partes reexamination, jurisdiction, nonappealable, patent, patentability, petition, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment