-
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: Uncategorized
Board Proposes Solution for Petitioner if Expert Witness Not Available for Deposition in Patent Office Trial
In current post-grant practice, most petitions are accompanied by an expert declaration to support the assertions made by the petitioner. If the petitioner successfully obtains institution of a patent office trial (inter partes review, covered business method patent review, or … Continue reading
Posted in covered business methods, Expert Witnesses, inter partes review, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, Cross examination, Declaration, Deposition, ex parte reexamination, Expert, inter partes review, IPR, patent, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, substitute declaration, substitute petition, Testimony, 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
Early Termination of PTAB Proceeding Shows Versatility of PTAB Patent Trials
One of the criticisms lodged against traditional reexamination proceedings is that when a request for reexamination is filed, the proceeding may take on a life of its own and typically cannot be withdrawn even if the parties want to dismiss … Continue reading
Federal Circuit Appeal Decision in Versata Software v. SAP
A detailed discussion of the Versata v. SAP litigation and a timeline was provided in my earlier post. I reported that there are three actions related to this dispute: one in the PTAB, one in the Eastern District of Virginia, … Continue reading
Posted in covered business methods, Damages, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, damages, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Early PTAB Orders Demonstrate Differences Between AIA Patent Trials and District Court Trials
Patent practitioners are still absorbing some of the differences and advantages that are unique to litigation in the PTAB as opposed to district court litigation. For example, PTAB proceedings only decide questions of validity and are not directed to rule … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, estoppel, inter partes review, Litigation, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, burden of, clear and convincing, estoppel, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial, patent trial and appeal board, preponderance of the evidence, presumption of validity, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
PTAB Publishes Trial Transcript from First Covered Business Method Patent Review
On April 17, 2013 the PTAB heard oral arguments in the first covered business method patent review between SAP and Versata. SAP challenged the validity of Versata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 in the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 101. My … Continue reading
Posted in claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Progressive Casualty Litigation Stayed Pending Outcome of Liberty Mutual CBMs
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. sued different insurance companies for patent infringement of 5 of its patents in 2010-2012 in the Northern District of Ohio. (Cases 1:10CV01370 and 1:11CV00082 against Safeco; Case 1:12CV01068 against State Farm; and Case 1:12CV01070 against Hartford.) … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, factors for stay, indefiniteness, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, statutory subject matter, stay, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, reexamination, SNQ, stay, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
PTAB IPR Petition Joinder Practice Gains Momentum
Suppose a patent owner files suit and the defendant wants to file an AIA post-grant proceeding to challenge the validity of the patent. Suppose further that the post-grant challenge is an inter partes review (IPR) filed by the defendant within … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, motion practice, Patent Reform, PTAB, Uncategorized
Tagged 35 USC 315(b), 37 CFR 42.101(b), 37 CFR 42.122(b), Bianchi, claims, inter partes review, IPR, Joinder, patent, patent claims, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
3 Comments
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 appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, patent, patent claims, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Petitioner Allowed to Submit Supplemental Information After Institution of CBM PTAB Trial
In Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC (CBM2012-000007), the Petitioner (Interthinx) was allowed to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 after trial was instituted in this covered business method patent review (CBM). Trial was instituted by the PTAB … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, BPAI, CBM, claims, clear and convincing, covered business method, patent, patent claims, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, reexam, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment