-
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: patent claims
More Developments in the Patent Battle between SAP and Versata
There has been a lot of activity in the litigations arising from the patent battle between SAP and Versata. You will recall that there are parallel Federal Circuit, PTAB, and Eastern District of Virginia actions. There have been activities in … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Federal Circuit, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Stay in Federal Circuit
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, claims, covered business method, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
SAP Joins PTO against Versata in Eastern District of Virginia
You may recall that Versata sued the Patent Office in the Eastern District of Virginia to challenge the PTAB’s decision to institute a CBM review of Versata’s U.S. 6,553,350 patent. Versata Development Group, Inc. v. Rea, 1:13-cv-00328-GBL-IDD (E.D. VA). It turns out … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, federal circuit, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
PTAB CBM: Versata Patent Claims Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
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
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 Bianchi, CBM, claims, covered business method, estoppel, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
2 Comments
SAP Files Ex Parte Reexamination Request using Prior Art from Ongoing Litigations
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
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
PTAB Publishes Trial Transcript from First Covered Business Method Patent Review
On April 17, 2013 the PTAB heard oral arguments in the first covered business method patent review between SAP and Versata. SAP challenged the validity of Versata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 in the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 101. My … Continue reading
Posted in claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
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 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
PTAB IPR Petition Joinder Practice Gains Momentum
Suppose a patent owner files suit and the defendant wants to file an AIA post-grant proceeding to challenge the validity of the patent. Suppose further that the post-grant challenge is an inter partes review (IPR) filed by the defendant within … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, motion practice, Patent Reform, PTAB, Uncategorized
Tagged 35 USC 315(b), 37 CFR 42.101(b), 37 CFR 42.122(b), Bianchi, claims, inter partes review, IPR, Joinder, patent, patent claims, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
3 Comments
AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination
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