-
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: Substantial New Question (SNQ)
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
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
Strategic Use of Reexamination in view of the Patent Reform Bill
Last week I had the privilege of speaking on reexamination at the AIPLA Electronics and Computer Law Summit. The title of my speech was “Strategic Use of Reexam after Patent Reform – Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review.” The powerpoint presentation materials can be found here. The … Continue reading
Posted in covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Reissue, stay, Substantial New Question (SNQ), supplemental examination
Tagged Bianchi, covered business method, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion practice, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, post-grant review, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, reissue, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, supplemental examination, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Lockwood Cert Petition Seeks Clarification of Redress for Alleged “Sham” Reexamination Request
In a Petition for Writ of Certiorari dated April 28, 2011, inventor Lawrence B. Lockwood and his company, PanIP, LLC, requested review of the judgment of the Federal Circuit denying its petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. (The underlying order … Continue reading
Posted in ex parte reexamination, Litigation, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, claims, damages, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, jurisdiction, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Supreme Court, 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
Use Petitions to Reverse Determination of No SNQ in Inter Partes Reexaminations
You see a competitor’s patent and believe it is invalid. You perform a prior art search and find prior art that you think would render at least some of the patent claims unpatentable. So after thinking about it some more, you decide to … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, inter partes reexamination, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged 35 USC 312, 35 USC 315, appeal, Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, director, inter partes reexamination, jurisdiction, nonappealable, patent, patentability, petition, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Patent Owner Reexamination Requests with Parallel Litigation
You have worked hard and obtained a patent for your company. You do your homework and believe that your competitor is infringing your patent. You ultimately engage the help of a litigation team and sue the competitor for patent infringement. But … Continue reading
Microsoft v. i4i – Part III: Changing the Presumption of Validity: Impact on Reexamination Practice
Posted March 14, 2011 The prior post discussed only some of the many options the Supreme Court has in the Microsoft v. i4i case (i4i). In summary, the presumption of validity of a patent as we currently know it may … Continue reading