Category: reexamination pendency
-
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 trial date, SAP agreed to limit its argument to 35 U.S.C. 101 challenges set forth…
-
AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination
—
by
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), UncategorizedIn 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 or CBM) are substantially different than traditional reexamination. Some of these differences are summarized in…
-
Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff and Stays Pending Reexamination
In Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (Case No. C 10-04645 RS, Northern District of California), Judge Richard Seeborg was less than persuaded by Interwoven’s attempt to obtain a stay after filing an ex parte reexamination of the patents in suit. BACKGROUND Vertical owns U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,826,744 and 7,716,629 relating to Internet technologies.…
-
Stay of Litigation Pending Inter Partes Reexamination Warranted Despite Possible Lengthy Reexam Pendency
District courts are making increasingly detailed and sophisticated decisions on motions to stay litigation pending reexamination. One example is the analysis performed in N Spine Inc. and Synthes USA Sales, LLC v. Globus Medical Inc., (1-1–cv-00300 (DED)). N Spine and Synthes USA Sales (Plaintiffs) sued Defendant Globus for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,326,210 (the ‘210 patent) on…