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: IPR
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 … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Joinder Post AIA, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
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 … Continue reading
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
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, inter partes review, IPR, patent claims, patent litigation, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Comments Off on Join Me in San Francisco for PLI’s Post-Grant CLE Program on April 28
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 … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, Early Settlement, inter partes review, IPR, patent litigation, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
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) … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, inter partes review, IPR, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, single petitioner, Tim Bianchi
Comments Off on Patent Office Board Clarifies Petitioner Role for Single Petition by Several Companies
Board Proposes Solution for Petitioner if Expert Witness Not Available for Deposition in Patent Office Trial
In current post-grant practice, most petitions are accompanied by an expert declaration to support the assertions made by the petitioner. If the petitioner successfully obtains institution of a patent office trial (inter partes review, covered business method patent review, or … Continue reading
Posted in covered business methods, Expert Witnesses, inter partes review, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, Cross examination, Declaration, Deposition, ex parte reexamination, Expert, inter partes review, IPR, patent, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, substitute declaration, substitute petition, Testimony, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment