-
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)
Category Archives: America Invents Act
Progressive Casualty Litigation Stayed Pending Outcome of Liberty Mutual CBMs
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. sued different insurance companies for patent infringement of 5 of its patents in 2010-2012 in the Northern District of Ohio. (Cases 1:10CV01370 and 1:11CV00082 against Safeco; Case 1:12CV01068 against State Farm; and Case 1:12CV01070 against Hartford.) … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, factors for stay, indefiniteness, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, statutory subject matter, stay, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, reexamination, SNQ, stay, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
PTAB IPR Petition Joinder Practice Gains Momentum
Suppose a patent owner files suit and the defendant wants to file an AIA post-grant proceeding to challenge the validity of the patent. Suppose further that the post-grant challenge is an inter partes review (IPR) filed by the defendant within … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, motion practice, Patent Reform, PTAB, Uncategorized
Tagged 35 USC 315(b), 37 CFR 42.101(b), 37 CFR 42.122(b), Bianchi, claims, inter partes review, IPR, Joinder, patent, patent claims, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
3 Comments
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 … Continue reading
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
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, patent, patent claims, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Petitioner Allowed to Submit Supplemental Information After Institution of CBM PTAB Trial
In Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC (CBM2012-000007), the Petitioner (Interthinx) was allowed to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 after trial was instituted in this covered business method patent review (CBM). Trial was instituted by the PTAB … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, BPAI, CBM, claims, clear and convincing, covered business method, patent, patent claims, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, reexam, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Dial-in Info to Hear the First Covered Business Method Patent Trial
In my last blog post I described the trial being held on Wednesday in the first covered business method (CBM2012-00001). The PTAB has provided the dial in information to listen in on the trial to be held at 2:00 p.m. … Continue reading
SAP v. Versata: First Covered Business Method PTAB Trial Tests New AIA Trial Provisions
The first ever covered business method patent review stems from a patent litigation between Versata and SAP over two Versata patents relating to pricing products in mulitlevel product and organizational groups. The district court action began in 2007 when Versata … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, indefiniteness, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, statutory subject matter, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, CBM2012-000001, covered business method, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PTAB, SAP v. Versata, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Petitions to PTAB at Three Months into AIA Post-Grant Patent Trials
This blog post is at three months past September 16, 2012, the date upon which the PTAB began accepting petitions for inter partes review and covered business method patent review under the America Invents Act. Considering that there are about 15 CBM … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, inter partes review, IPR, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
PTAB Provides Convenient Access to Instructive Orders, Notices, and Decisions
The Patent Trial and Appeals Board has provided a web page that compiles instructive orders, notices, and decisions. This is a handy reference site for practitioners to learn from decisions made in various covered business method (CBM), inter partes reviews … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, decision, inter partes review, IPR, notice, order, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Tim Bianchi
Comments Off on PTAB Provides Convenient Access to Instructive Orders, Notices, and Decisions
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Guidance on Pro Hac Vice Admissions
The PTAB (“Board”) has already decided some motions for pro hac vice admission in various PTAB case proceedings. A recent decision in case IPR2012-00035 referenced an earlier decision on motion for pro hac vice admission in case IPR2013-00010. The relevant part … Continue reading
Pro Hac Vice Admission Denied in SAP v. Versata CBM Patent Review
My prior post described the pro hac vice admission dispute between SAP and Versata Development Group in PTAB matter CBM2012-00001. The PTAB wasted no time and issued an order denying the motion for pro hac vice admission of Versata’s litigation … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, motion practice, Post Grant Review, pro hac vice admission, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, covered business method patent review, litigation, PGR, pro hac vice, PTAB, SAP, Tim Bianchi, Versata
Leave a comment