Tag Archives: burden of proof

Federal Circuit Employs Phillips Claim Construction to Measure Claims Amended in Reexamination for Possible Intervening Rights

When patent owners sue an accused infringer for patent infringement, one way for the accused infringer to avoid liability is to show noninfringement of the patent claims.  But if the claims are extremely broad, the accused infringer may find it difficult … Continue reading

Posted in Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Phillips claim construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, prior art, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Parallel Litigation and PTAB Review Create Complex Interplay of Patentability and Validity

A company called CoreLogic Solutions, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 5,361,201, relating to a process for appraising real estate property.  The ‘201 patent was filed on Oct. 19, 1992 and issued on Nov. 1, 1994.  Absent some kind of patent term extension, the ‘201 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, indefiniteness, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, statutory subject matter | 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

Microsoft v. i4i – Part III: Changing the Presumption of Validity: Impact on Reexamination Practice

Posted March 14, 2011 The prior post discussed only some of the many options the Supreme Court has in the Microsoft v. i4i case (i4i).  In summary, the presumption of validity of a patent as we currently know it may … Continue reading

Posted in Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Microsoft v. i4i – Part II: The Supreme Court’s Many Options

Posted March 6, 2011 The previous post included a summary of the facts from the Microsoft petition for certiorari.  The Supreme Court has several options when deciding the outcome of this case.  It can maintain the Federal Circuit’s existing presumption … Continue reading

Posted in Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Microsoft v. i4i and the Presumption of Validity – Part 1

Posted March 5, 2011 In Microsoft v. i4i, which has been granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, Microsoft’s position is that the presumption of validity should not be enjoyed by a patent owner for prior art not considered by an … Continue reading

Posted in Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment