Category Archives: Post Grant Review

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Prosecution Bars and PTAB Practice

In an earlier post we explored many ways that reexamination differs from post-grant review, inter partes review, and covered business method review. The PTAB has been very clear that reexamination and AIA patent trials are very different.  For example, in … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Post Grant Review, Prosecution Bar, Protective Order, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SAP Files Ex Parte Reexamination Request using Prior Art from Ongoing Litigations

As you may recall from earlier posts, on September 16, 2012, SAP filed a petition for review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,553,350 to begin the first covered business method patent review (CBM2012-00001) under the America Invents Act.  To advance its PTAB … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, prior art, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Appeal Decision in Versata Software v. SAP

A detailed discussion of the Versata v. SAP litigation and a timeline was provided in my earlier post.  I reported that there are three actions related to this dispute:  one in the PTAB, one in the Eastern District of Virginia, … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, Damages, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

PTAB Publishes Trial Transcript from First Covered Business Method Patent Review

On April 17, 2013 the PTAB heard oral arguments in the first covered business method patent review between SAP and Versata.  SAP challenged the validity of Versata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 in the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  My … Continue reading

Posted in claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Exhibits for SAP v. Versata PTAB Trial on Wednesday

One of the benefits of the PTAB’s PRPS system that the materials for each trial are accessible online when filed by the parties (unless designated as protected materials).  If you intend to listen in on the SAP v. Versata PTAB … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 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

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment