Tag Archives: reissue

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

Federal Circuit Reinforces PTAB’s Authority to Institute Trial on Selected Claims in Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics Appeal

Newcomers to post-grant proceedings are often surprised by the PTAB’s claim-by-claim approach to patent challenges under the America Invents Act.  When reporting statistics about IPRs, commentators tend to ignore these considerations: First, an IPR petition can be drafted to challenge all or some … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, clear and convincing evidence, doctrine of claim differentiation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

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

En Banc Decision in Marine Polymer v. HemCon: Amended or New Claims are Candidates for Possible Intervening Rights

In my earlier post, I summarized the panel opinion in Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc.  On September 26, 2011, a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, concluding that HemCon had acquired intervening rights in the … Continue reading

Posted in absolute intervening rights, Damages, equitable intervening rights, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Reissue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Strategic Use of Reexamination in view of the Patent Reform Bill

Last week I had the privilege of speaking on reexamination at the AIPLA Electronics and Computer Law Summit.  The title of my speech was “Strategic Use of Reexam after Patent Reform – Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review.”  The powerpoint presentation materials can be found here.  The … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Reissue, stay, Substantial New Question (SNQ), supplemental examination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Patent Office Wants Your Ideas for Streamlining Reexamination

On Monday, April 25, 2011, the Federal Register announced a public meeting to solicit opinions on a number of changes being considered at the U.S. Patent Office to streamline both ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination proceedings.  Written comments … Continue reading

Posted in Appealable, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, merger, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Reissue, Substantial New Question (SNQ) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Petition Granted for Rehearing en banc of Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Circuit granted the petition by Akamai Technologies for rehearing en banc its appeal in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.  The order vacated the earlier opinion of December 20, 2010.  The order includes … Continue reading

Posted in Ex Parte Prosecution, joint infringement, Litigation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Decision in In re Tanaka

You might recall that we discussed the BPAI decision in In re Yasuhito Tanaka in an earlier post.  On April 15, the Federal Circuit reversed the BPAI decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.  … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, doctrine of claim differentiation, Ex Parte Prosecution, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Reissue, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In re Tanaka

Suppose you issued a patent with several claims, including dependent claims.  Now, suppose you wished you had claimed and issued a certain dependent claim, but did not have it in the originally issued patent.  That new dependent claim is narrower than your … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, reexamination generally, Reissue | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments