Category: Post Grant Review
-
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 a first petition. Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176, Paper 28 (PTAB May 14,…
-
Are Your Patent Procurement Guidelines Outdated?
I saw a bumper sticker that said: “Change is inevitable, but growth is optional.” This is true in many facets of life, and it is true for patent practice. The changes of the past few years are numerous and far-reaching. Is your patent portfolio strategy growing with these changes? One Simple Exercise If you are…
-
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 on how you calculate it. Those familiar with PTAB trial practice (IPR, CBM, PGR and…
-
U.S. Bancorp CBM Results in Cancellation of Retirement Capital Access Management Co.’s Patent Claims
In 2011, U.S. Patent 6,625,582, entitled Method And System For Converting A Designated Portion of Future Social Security And Other Retirement Payments To Current Benefits, was assigned to Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC. Benefit Funding Systems LLC asserted the ‘582 patent against U.S. Bancorp in June of 2012. Benefit Funding Systems LLC v. U.S. Bancorp, Case…
-
Lex Machina’s 2013 Patent Litigation Report Shows Disparity Between Litigated Patents and those under PTAB Review
Litigation and post-grant proceedings often go hand-in-hand. A new litigation report published by Lex Machina summarizes patent litigation data for 2013 and prior years. It is an interesting report and very easy to digest. Two findings caught my eye. The first one relates to the overall number of patent litigation cases filed in 2013: Plaintiffs filed 6,092…
-
See You at the AIPLA 2014 Spring Meeting!
I am presenting at the AIPLA Spring Meeting on May 15, 2014 in Philadelphia and hope to see you there. My task is to provide strategies for filing inter partes reviews, covered business method reviews and post-grant reviews. I hope to see you there! I just got back from the PLI Post-Grant Conference held in…
-
Eastern District of Texas Denies SAP’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment in the Versata Patent Infringement Case
SAP recently learned that the Eastern District of Texas denied its motion to set aside or stay a district court judgment in favor of Versata for infringement of its U.S. Pat. 6,553,350 (Versata Software, Inc v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00153 (E.D. Tex)). On April 20, 2014, Judge Roy S. Payne dismissed SAP’s motion despite its…
-
Join Me in San Francisco for PLI’s Post-Grant CLE Program on April 28
I will be presenting at PLI’s “USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2014” CLE Program on April 28th with a number of other post-grant practitioners. Please join us there or attend via webinar! — Timothy Bianchi
-
USPTO Statistics Show Inter Partes Patent Reviews are Frequently Settled Before Final Board Decision
The U.S. Patent Office regularly posts statistics on post-grant proceedings such as inter partes review and covered business method patent review. An excerpt of PTAB statistics for February 13, 2014 is found below. The acronyms “FWD” and “RAJ” stand for “Final Written Decision on the merits” and “Request for Adverse Judgment.” The “Other” category…
-
Patent Office Board Clarifies Petitioner Role for Single Petition by Several Companies
A petition for covered business method review, inter partes review, or post-grant review may be filed on behalf of of several different parties and real parties in interest. Typically, such filings involve one, two, or three named persons (e.g., companies) as the petitioner. However, the Board’s rules do not state a limit on the number…