-
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: petitions practice
Board Limits Multiple IPR Challenges in Samsung Electronics v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies
June 22, 2015 Rembrandt Wireless Technologies sued Samsung and Research in Motion for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,457,228 in June 2013. The ‘228 patent relates to data communications, and in particular to a data communication system in which a plurality of modems … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, inter partes review, IPR Joinder, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, Joinder Post AIA, petitions practice, prior art
Tagged Bianchi, denial of multiple proceedings, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, Joinder, PTAB, reasons for subsequent petition, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
The Settlement Effect of PTAB Proceedings and Recent Patent Office Trial Statistics
December 29, 2014 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) released statistics for AIA Patent Office trials as of Dec. 18, 2014. Different commentators have recently reported that the institution rate for these proceedings has dropped to about 60-70 percent, depending … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Settlements in Post-Grant Proceedings, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, Early Settlement, inter partes review, IPR, patent, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, settlement, Settlement Effect of Post Grant Proceedings, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
SAP’s Cert Petition Denied by Supreme Court in Versata Patent Infringement Suit
In earlier posts, I described the $391 million patent infringement judgment awarded to Versata for SAP’s alleged infringement of US Pat. 6,553,350. I also detailed SAP’s attempts to avoid the judgment by challenging the ‘350 patent in the first covered business … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, software patents, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, claims, covered business method, damages, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, stay, Supreme Court, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
AIA Post-Grant Practice Rapidly Integrates Federal Circuit and Board Decisions
AIA post-grant practice has many advantages over other proceedings, but one of the great benefits of AIA post-grant practice that we have not discussed is the speed in which AIA post-grant proceedings adopt recent patent decisions from different sources. This … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, estoppel, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, claims, covered business method, estoppel, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
2 Comments
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 … Continue reading
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
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, claims, clear and convincing, estoppel, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, litigation, patent litigation, patent reform, petition, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Preissuance Submission Final Rules Published July 17, 2012
The Patent Office has published its final rules for preissuance submissions under the AIA. A copy of the final rules can be found here (2012-16710). I briefly summarized the rule requirements in a presentation that can be found here (Preissuance Submissions … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, preissuance submissions by third parties, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, claims, damages, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, narrowing, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, substantive amendment, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Do You Want That Post-Grant Review Super-Sized? – Part III
This is the third post in a series of articles on PGR strategies. In Part I, I made the point that while patents come in all shapes and sizes, post-grant reviews (PGRs) basically come in two sizes. By statute, the … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Damages, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, claims, damages, estoppel, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, intervening rights, issued patent, litigation, narrowing, past damages, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Do You Want That Post-Grant Review Super-Sized? – Part I
Patents come in all shapes and sizes. There are long ones, short ones, ones that are hard to read, and easy ones. Some have 1 claim and some have 200 claims. Some have valid claims, and some not-so-much. But when it comes to … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, motion practice, Patent Reform, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, supplemental examination, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, claims, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, stay, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
The Patent Office Wants Your Ideas for Streamlining Reexamination
On Monday, April 25, 2011, the Federal Register announced a public meeting to solicit opinions on a number of changes being considered at the U.S. Patent Office to streamline both ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination proceedings. Written comments … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, merger, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Reissue, Substantial New Question (SNQ)
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, patent, patent litigation, petition, reexam, reexamination, reissue, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Petitions Practice for SNQ Findings in Inter Partes Reexaminations
A prior post emphasized the importance of a well crafted petition in cases where the examiner determines that there is no SNQ in an inter partes reexamination request. Recall that the BPAI determined it had no jurisdiction to review of a determination that there was no … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes reexamination, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged appealable, Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, central reexamination unit, CRU, director, inter partes reexamination, jurisdiction, patent, patent counsel, petition, reexamination, SNQ, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment