-
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: estoppel
Board Guidance on its View of Petitioner Estoppel: Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp:
July 21, 2015 Last week, the Board provided an opinion to offer guidance on its view of the scope of petitioner estoppel. The Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp. decision relates to the scope of estoppel to a Petitioner following a final written decision from … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, Post Grant Review, raised or reasonably could have raised, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, estoppel, IPR, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, 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
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
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
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 II
This is the second post in a series of articles on PGR strategies. In my last post I made the point that while patents come in all shapes and sizes, post-grant reviews (PGRs) don’t. PGRs are very different from ex … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, claims, ex parte prosecution, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
New, More Popular Post-Grant Patent Challenges Drive Patent Generation Strategy
Patent Generation and Enforcement Before the Popularity of Post-Grant Proceedings Patent Owners adopt different approaches for drafting patent applications. For large companies a patent production line approach is frequently adopted which limits the cost and the commensurate drafting efforts on any particular … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, estoppel, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, future damages, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally
Tagged Bianchi, claims, damages, estoppel, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, intervening rights, issued patent, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, substantive amendment, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
America Invents Act: Post-Grant Procedures for Patent Challengers
Now that the America Invents Act has become law there are several new provisions for patent challengers to consider. For example, the Act includes: preissuance submissions by third party challengers (Sec. 8 — see the last post); Post-Grant Review (Sec. … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Appealable, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, patent, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PGR, post-grant review, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment