AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination

In the past few months, I have had discussions with many different stakeholders about how AIA post-grant review differs from conventional reexamination.  AIA patent trials (post-grant review or PGR, inter partes review or IPR, and covered business method patent review or CBM) are substantially different than traditional reexamination.  Some of these differences are summarized in the table below (click on the table to enlarge it):

Other than legacy inter partes reexaminations, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) is currently only charged with processing ex parte reexaminations.  What remains to be seen is how ex parte reexamination will change as the CRU processes the legacy reexaminations and its docket frees up.

This entry was posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, pro hac vice admission, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination

  1. Pingback: Patent Reexamination, Patent Reissue | | Prosecution Bars and PTAB Practice - Patent Reexamination, Patent Reissue |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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