Tag Archives: estoppel

Board Guidance on its View of Petitioner Estoppel: Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp:

July 21, 2015 Last week, the Board provided an opinion to offer guidance on its view of the scope of petitioner estoppel.  The Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp. decision relates to the scope of estoppel to a Petitioner following a final written decision from … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, Post Grant Review, raised or reasonably could have raised, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AIA Post-Grant Practice Rapidly Integrates Federal Circuit and Board Decisions

AIA post-grant practice has many advantages over other proceedings, but one of the great benefits of AIA post-grant practice that we have not discussed is the speed in which AIA post-grant proceedings adopt recent patent decisions from different sources.  This … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, estoppel, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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is that when a request for reexamination is filed, the proceeding may take on a life of its own and typically cannot be withdrawn even if the parties want to dismiss … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, estoppel, inter partes review, Litigation, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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

PTAB Trial Portal has Eight First Day Filings: 3 CBM and 5 IPR

To kick off covered business method (CBM) and inter partes review (IPR) practice, there were eight post-issuance filings on the first day of the PTAB Trials electronic filing system: You can click on the image to expand it or just go … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Preissuance Submission Final Rules Published July 17, 2012

The Patent Office has published its final rules for preissuance submissions under the AIA. A copy of the final rules can be found here (2012-16710). I briefly summarized the rule requirements in a presentation that can be found here (Preissuance Submissions … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, preissuance submissions by third parties, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff and Stays Pending Reexamination

In Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (Case No. C 10-04645 RS, Northern District of California), Judge Richard Seeborg was less than persuaded by Interwoven’s attempt to obtain a stay after filing an ex parte reexamination of the patents … Continue reading

Posted in estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Protective Order, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, stay | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Do You Want That Post-Grant Review Super-Sized? – Part III

This is the third post in a series of articles on PGR strategies.  In Part I, I made the point that while patents come in all shapes and sizes, post-grant reviews (PGRs) basically come in two sizes.  By statute, the … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Damages, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment