Tag Archives: ex parte reexamination

PTAB CBM: Versata Patent Claims Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Posted on June 13, 2013 by Tim Bianchi

On June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision holding claims 17 and 26-29 of Versata’s 6,553,350 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This decision arises from a petition filed on Sep. 16, 2012, in a … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, covered business methods, ex parte reexamination, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, reexamination generally | Tagged Bianchi, CBM, claims, covered business method, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi | 1 Comment

A Tale of Two Patent Litigation Stays

Posted on May 14, 2013 by Tim Bianchi

This is a story about not one, but two stays. The first stay is a district court stay pending the outcome of a reexamination of a patent in suit. The second is an administrative (PTAB) stay of that same reexamination … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, inter partes review, Litigation, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, stay, stay of other administrative proceedings | Tagged Bianchi, claims, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, stay of parallel administrative action, Tim Bianchi | 1 Comment

Prosecution Bars and PTAB Practice

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Tim Bianchi

In an earlier post we explored many ways that reexamination differs from post-grant review, inter partes review, and covered business method review. The PTAB has been very clear that reexamination and AIA patent trials are very different. For example, in … Continue reading →

Posted in covered business methods, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Post Grant Review, Prosecution Bar, Protective Order, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally | Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, litigation, patent, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, prosecution bar, PTAB, reexam, Tim Bianchi | Leave a comment

SAP Files Ex Parte Reexamination Request using Prior Art from Ongoing Litigations

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Tim Bianchi

As you may recall from earlier posts, on September 16, 2012, SAP filed a petition for review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,553,350 to begin the first covered business method patent review (CBM2012-00001) under the America Invents Act. To advance its PTAB … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, prior art, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch | Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi | Leave a comment

Progressive Casualty Litigation Stayed Pending Outcome of Liberty Mutual CBMs

Posted on April 24, 2013 by Tim Bianchi

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 Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, reexamination, SNQ, stay, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi | Leave a comment

AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination

Posted on April 20, 2013 by Tim Bianchi

In the past few months, I have had discussions with many different stakeholders about how AIA post-grant review differs from conventional reexamination. AIA patent trials (post-grant review or PGR, inter partes review or IPR, and covered business method patent review … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, pro hac vice admission, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, patent, patent claims, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi | 1 Comment

Liberty Mutual Covered Business Method Patent Review Petition Tailored to Address Prior Art “Mischaracterized” During Reexamination

Posted on September 29, 2012 by Tim Bianchi

Liberty Mutual Insurance filed two more covered business method (CBM) patent review petitions dated September 29. The petitions both relate to U.S. Pat. No. 7,124,088 owned by Progressive Casualty Insurance, that relates to an on-line insurance policy service system as … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, correcting reexamination using post-issuance review, covered business methods, inequitable conduct, inter partes review, Litigation, Patent Reform, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally | Tagged Bianchi, CBM, claims, correcting reexamination using post issuance review, covered business method, ex parte reexamination, patent reform, PGR, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi | Leave a comment

Preissuance Submission Final Rules Published July 17, 2012

Posted on July 20, 2012 by Tim Bianchi

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 Bianchi, claims, damages, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, narrowing, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, substantive amendment, Tim Bianchi | Leave a comment

Claim Interpretation for Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review under the AIA – Part II

Posted on June 21, 2012 by Tim Bianchi

In Part I of this topic, I posted some of the reasons why the Patent Office has taken the position that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard should be used in post-grant review and inter partes review. Yet another reason for use of … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, inter partes review, Litigation, Patent Reform, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally | Tagged Bianchi, claims, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent litigation, patent reform, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi | Leave a comment

Claim Interpretation for Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review under the AIA – Part I

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Tim Bianchi

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

Tag Archives: ex parte reexamination

Archives

Categories