Comparative Study of Post Issuance Review Options

Today I had the pleasure of co-presenting at the Midwest IP Institute on various post-issuance proceedings with Kevin Rhodes, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel and President of 3M Innovative Properties Company.  A PDF of our joint presentation is found here.

The presentation provides a comparison between IPR (inter partes review), PGR (post grant review), and CBM (covered business method) patent review.  It contrasts these proceedings to ex parte reexamination (EPX).  The goal was to present the available options for review of patents now that inter partes reexamination is no longer available.

The presentation further covered administrative trials in the PTAB.  A hypothetical was used to demonstrate the use of litigation, IPR, PGR, CMB, and EPX depending on strength of 35 USC § 101 and § 112 arguments as opposed to 35 USC § 102 and § 103 prior art invalidity arguments.  Different scenarios were used to demonstrate the complexity of the analysis.

My thanks to Kevin Rhodes and 3M for allowing me to post these slides.

This entry was posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, indefiniteness, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, statutory subject matter, supplemental examination and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Comparative Study of Post Issuance Review Options

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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