Category: clear and convincing evidence
-
Federal Circuit Employs Phillips Claim Construction to Measure Claims Amended in Reexamination for Possible Intervening Rights
—
by
in Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Phillips claim construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, prior art, reexamination generallyWhen patent owners sue an accused infringer for patent infringement, one way for the accused infringer to avoid liability is to show noninfringement of the patent claims. But if the claims are extremely broad, the accused infringer may find it difficult to prove noninfringement and instead may have to rely on a showing of invalidity to avoid…
-
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 of the claims of a patent. So the set of challenged claims can be less…
-
Federal Circuit Interprets Board’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard – Part I
We know from the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard applies in IPRs, but in a recent appeal decision, the Federal Circuit has announced limits to the application of BRI. Microsoft had filed two separate IPR petitions challenging certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717, which were later…
-
Early PTAB Orders Demonstrate Differences Between AIA Patent Trials and District Court Trials
Patent practitioners are still absorbing some of the differences and advantages that are unique to litigation in the PTAB as opposed to district court litigation. For example, PTAB proceedings only decide questions of validity and are not directed to rule on questions of infringement or damages, as is the practice in traditional litigation. Another example…
-
Parallel Litigation and PTAB Review Create Complex Interplay of Patentability and Validity
—
by
in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, indefiniteness, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, statutory subject matterA company called CoreLogic Solutions, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 5,361,201, relating to a process for appraising real estate property. The ‘201 patent was filed on Oct. 19, 1992 and issued on Nov. 1, 1994. Absent some kind of patent term extension, the ‘201 patent will expire soon. The ‘201 patent is the subject of both a litigation and a covered…
-
Comparative Study of Post Issuance Review Options
—
by
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 examinationToday 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…
-
Claim Interpretation for Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review under the AIA – Part I
—
by
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, UncategorizedToday, 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 conducting post-grant review of patents because of numerous conflicts occuring in practice due to different…