-
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: ex parte prosecution
Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products Decision Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioner to Challenge Amended Claims
On October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a lengthy decision in Aqua Products v. Matal, spanning five opinions and 148 pages, which addressed the proper allocation of the burden of proof when amended claims are offered during inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”). Aqua Prods. v. … Continue reading
Posted in Adjudicative instead of examinatorial, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Federal Circuit Review of PTAB Proceedings, Motion to Amend, preponderance of evidence, reexamination generally, Settlements in Post-Grant Proceedings, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, claims, en banc review, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, Motion to Amend, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, post-grant review, PTAB, reexamination, reissue, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
USPTO to Host AIA Second Anniversary Forum on Sept. 16
The USPTO will host an AIA Second Anniversary Forum on September 16, 2013, at the USPTO’s Alexandria campus in the Madison Auditorium from 1 to 5 pm, and also via webcast. Here is the USPTO announcement: At the Forum, USPTO … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged AIA, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, Forum, inter partes review, IPR, patent prosecution, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, PTAB, Tim Bianchi, US Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO
Leave a comment
Patent Office Guidance for Examiners in wake of CLS Bank Decision: No Change for Now
On May 13, 2013, the Patent Office issued a memo to USPTO examiners after the CLS Bank et al. v. Alice Corp. Federal Circuit en banc decision of last week. The memo instructs examiners to maintain existing examination procedure for … Continue reading
Patent Challenger Seeks PTAB Jurisdiction over “Involved” Pending Applications
The AIA provides new post-issuance proceedings to challenge issued patents. But can these challenges be used to stop related pending patent prosecution dead in its tracks? One recent inter partes review petition requests just that and time will tell whether … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, PTAB
Tagged Bianchi, claims, ex parte prosecution, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Therasense on Remand: Inequitable Conduct Deja Vu?
In 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit en banc reheard the thorny issues of inequitable conduct and announced new intent and materiality standards. Therasense, Inc v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The majority held that … Continue reading
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 Bianchi, claims, damages, estoppel, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, intervening rights, issued patent, litigation, narrowing, past damages, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Do You Want That Post-Grant Review Super-Sized? – Part II
This is the second post in a series of articles on PGR strategies. In my last post I made the point that while patents come in all shapes and sizes, post-grant reviews (PGRs) don’t. PGRs are very different from ex … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, claims, ex parte prosecution, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
New, More Popular Post-Grant Patent Challenges Drive Patent Generation Strategy
Patent Generation and Enforcement Before the Popularity of Post-Grant Proceedings Patent Owners adopt different approaches for drafting patent applications. For large companies a patent production line approach is frequently adopted which limits the cost and the commensurate drafting efforts on any particular … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, estoppel, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, future damages, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally
Tagged Bianchi, claims, damages, estoppel, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, intervening rights, issued patent, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, substantive amendment, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Patent Challengers get additional Preissuance Challenge Option after Leahy-Smith Bill Passes
Pre-Issuance Challenge Option Added Section 8 of the Act provides for additional pre-issuance submissions by third parties by amending 35 U.S.C. 122. Written submission of the relevance of a patent application, patent, published patent application, or other printed publication must … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, preissuance submissions by third parties, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged 35 USC 122, America Invents Act, Bianchi, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, Leahy-Smith, patent reform, Preissuance Submission, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
3 Comments