Tag Archives: Board

PTAB Relies on the Federal Circuit’s Recent § 101 Decision to Deny CBM Institution

On May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a decision on 101 patent eligibility  that overturned a summary judgment finding of § 101 invalidity for software used for databases.  Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756266 (Fed. Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in claim challenges, covered business methods, Federal Circuit, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Target Corp. Requests Rehearing of Denied IPRs by Expanded PTAB Panel

October 17, 2014 Last month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) interpreted the IPR joinder provision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), to preclude joinder requests by an existing party to an ongoing proceeding.  (Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508 and … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, IPR Joinder, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, Joinder of Parties Post-petition, Litigation, Patent Reform, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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

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

Marine Polymer Technologies v. HemCon, Inc. and Intervening Rights

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011) is a widely reported case that raises some questions about the scope of the application of intervening rights.  It involves a matter where the literal language of a claim was … Continue reading

Posted in absolute intervening rights, Appealable, equitable intervening rights, ex parte reexamination, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Reexamination Practice: One Size Does Not Fit All

I attended a reexamination roundtable at the Patent Office last week where ideas for reexamination reform were proposed.  The Patent Office listened and took notes.  I thought it was a very productive meeting overall.  As the various speakers presented their comments … Continue reading

Posted in Special Dispatch, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Federal Circuit Decision in In re Tanaka

You might recall that we discussed the BPAI decision in In re Yasuhito Tanaka in an earlier post.  On April 15, the Federal Circuit reversed the BPAI decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.  … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, doctrine of claim differentiation, Ex Parte Prosecution, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Reissue, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment