-
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: clear and convincing
Supreme Court’s Stryker/Halo Decision Makes it Easier for Courts to Award Enhanced Damages In Patent Infringement Cases
The recent Supreme Court decisions in the Stryker and Halo cases just made it easier for courts to award enhanced damages in patent infringement cases, discarding Seagate’s “objective recklessness” test. The Seagate Test In 2007, the Federal Circuit announced a test for enhanced … Continue reading
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
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
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 appeal, Bianchi, burden of proof, CBM, clear and convincing, covered business method, covered business method patent review, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent reform, petition, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Comparative Study of Post Issuance Review Options
Today I had the pleasure of co-presenting at the Midwest IP Institute on various post-issuance proceedings with Kevin Rhodes, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel and President of 3M Innovative Properties Company. A PDF of our joint presentation is found here. The presentation provides … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, indefiniteness, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, statutory subject matter, supplemental examination
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, claims, clear and convincing, estoppel, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, litigation, patent litigation, patent reform, petition, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
1 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
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
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
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