Tag Archives: Post Grant Review

Board Proposes Solution for Petitioner if Expert Witness Not Available for Deposition in Patent Office Trial

In current post-grant practice, most petitions are accompanied by an expert declaration to support the assertions made by the petitioner.  If the petitioner successfully obtains institution of a patent office trial (inter partes review, covered business method patent review, or … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, Expert Witnesses, inter partes review, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SAP’s Cert Petition Denied by Supreme Court in Versata Patent Infringement Suit

In earlier posts, I described the $391 million patent infringement judgment awarded to Versata for SAP’s alleged infringement of US Pat. 6,553,350.  I also detailed SAP’s attempts to avoid the judgment by challenging the ‘350 patent in the first covered business … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, software patents, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Joint Motions to Terminate Patent Reviews Late in Trial Proceedings

One of the advantages of patent reviews under the America Invents Act is that the parties may settle before completion of the proceedings and file a joint motion to terminate these proceedings.  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Parties Terminate CBM Before They Settle Dispute to Avoid PTAB Decision

In January of 2013, EZ Shield , Inc sued Harland Clarke Corp. for infringement of U.S. Pat. 8,346,637.  The ‘637 patent relates to a system for reimbursement of consumers  for losses incurred for specific forms of check fraud.  In April … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

PTAB Provides More Guidance on Discovery

On March 5, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided guidance to the bar concerning routine discovery and additional discovery.  (See paper 26 in Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001) This decision set forth five factors which are important in … Continue reading

Posted in Depositions, Expert, Federal Circuit, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Joinder in Patent Office Proceedings Clarified by PTAB

Several posts ago we explored how the Board perceived joinder of a subsequent petition filed by a petitioner to an ongoing proceeding.  A recent ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) clarifies how the Board views joinder of … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, Joinder of Parties Post-petition, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | 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

Prosecution Bars and PTAB Practice

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment