-
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: jurisdiction
PTO Brief Argues Why PTAB Can Issue Decisions On Remand From FedCir
Under the America Invents Act IPRs are supposed to be completed with a final written decision no later than a maximum of 18 mos after institution. But if the FedCir remands for further findings on appeal can the PTAB issue … Continue reading
IPO Article on Misjoinder
My last post was on the America Invents Act amendments to 35 U.S.C. 299 affecting joinder in patent infringement actions. If you are interested in that topic, you should see an article reported in today’s IPO Daily News. The article … Continue reading
America Invents Act Impacts Joinder in Patent Infringement Cases
The America Invents Act brought a lot of changes for patent attorneys. This post will discuss the impact of Section 19 of the Act on joinder of parties in litigation. The amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 299 provide that joinder … Continue reading
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
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