-
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)
Tag Archives: BPAI
Eastern District of Virginia Decides PTAB Decision to not institute IPR is Not Appealable
A patent owner insists that your company infringes a patent and makes a claim of patent infringement. You have settled patent infringement assertions before, but this patent seems invalid over known prior art. You consult with your patent counsel and … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, inter partes review, Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit, Patent Reform, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, BPAI, CBM, covered business method, federal circuit, inter partes review, PTAB, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
PTAB Provides More Guidance on Discovery
On March 5, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided guidance to the bar concerning routine discovery and additional discovery. (See paper 26 in Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001) This decision set forth five factors which are important in … Continue reading
Posted in Depositions, Expert, Federal Circuit, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, BPAI, CBM, claims, federal circuit, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, 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
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 Bianchi, Board, BPAI, burden of proof, claims, clear and convincing, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, Microsoft, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, post-grant review, preponderance of the evidence, presumption of validity, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, reissue, Tim Bianchi
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 appeal, Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, damages, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, SNQ, substantive amendment, Tim Bianchi
1 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
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 Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, claims, damages, doctrine of claim differentiation, federal circuit, intervening rights, issued patent, narrowing, past damages, patent claims, patent litigation, reissue, substantive amendment, Supreme Court, tanaka, Tim Bianchi
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 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
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 →