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 materials assume that the bill currently pending before the Senate is passed substantially intact.  The speech focuses primarily on post-grant review and inter partes review.  It also touches on supplemental examination and the proposal to provide PGR-like review of “covered business methods.”  We shall see how Congress votes on the bill in September.

This entry was 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 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Strategic Use of Reexamination in view of the Patent Reform Bill

  1. The main problems with the patent system stem basically from problems of inefficiency at the USPTO — due in large part to lack of funds. I still fail to see how most provisions of the current so-called patent reform bill address the patent office’s organizational challenges (especially with the potential for fee diversion still being part of the picture).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *