-
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)
Tag Archives: appeal
Therasense on Remand: Inequitable Conduct Deja Vu?
In 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit en banc reheard the thorny issues of inequitable conduct and announced new intent and materiality standards. Therasense, Inc v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The majority held that … Continue reading
En Banc Decision in Marine Polymer v. HemCon: Amended or New Claims are Candidates for Possible Intervening Rights
In my earlier post, I summarized the panel opinion in Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc. On September 26, 2011, a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, concluding that HemCon had acquired intervening rights in the … Continue reading
Posted in absolute intervening rights, Damages, equitable intervening rights, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Reissue
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, claims, damages, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, intervening rights, issued patent, litigation, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, reissue, substantive amendment, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Marine Polymer Technologies v. HemCon, Inc. and Intervening Rights
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011) is a widely reported case that raises some questions about the scope of the application of intervening rights. It involves a matter where the literal language of a claim was … Continue reading
Posted in absolute intervening rights, Appealable, equitable intervening rights, ex parte reexamination, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, damages, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, SNQ, substantive amendment, Tim Bianchi
1 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
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 … Continue reading
Posted in factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, stay
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, reexamination pendency, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Fractus SA Gets $23M Verdict Against Samsung in Antenna Patent Litigation
In Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (6:09-CV-203, EDTX), a jury gave a verdict of patent infringement of four different patents owned by Fractus S.A. against Samsung to the tune of $23,129,321 in damages. The jury found that … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, Damages, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, BPAI, claims, clear and convincing, damages, federal circuit, Fractus, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a 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
Petition Granted for Rehearing en banc of Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks
On April 20, 2011, the Federal Circuit granted the petition by Akamai Technologies for rehearing en banc its appeal in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. The order vacated the earlier opinion of December 20, 2010. The order includes … Continue reading
Reexamination Practice: One Size Does Not Fit All
I attended a reexamination roundtable at the Patent Office last week where ideas for reexamination reform were proposed. The Patent Office listened and took notes. I thought it was a very productive meeting overall. As the various speakers presented their comments … Continue reading →