-
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: patent claims
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 … Continue reading
Posted in estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Protective Order, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, stay
Tagged Bianchi, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, intervening rights, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, stay, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
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
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
Do You Want That Post-Grant Review Super-Sized? – Part II
This is the second post in a series of articles on PGR strategies. In my last post I made the point that while patents come in all shapes and sizes, post-grant reviews (PGRs) don’t. PGRs are very different from ex … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, claims, ex parte prosecution, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Do You Want That Post-Grant Review Super-Sized? – Part I
Patents come in all shapes and sizes. There are long ones, short ones, ones that are hard to read, and easy ones. Some have 1 claim and some have 200 claims. Some have valid claims, and some not-so-much. But when it comes to … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, motion practice, Patent Reform, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, supplemental examination, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, claims, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, stay, 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
New, More Popular Post-Grant Patent Challenges Drive Patent Generation Strategy
Patent Generation and Enforcement Before the Popularity of Post-Grant Proceedings Patent Owners adopt different approaches for drafting patent applications. For large companies a patent production line approach is frequently adopted which limits the cost and the commensurate drafting efforts on any particular … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Damages, estoppel, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, future damages, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, past damages, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally
Tagged Bianchi, claims, damages, estoppel, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, intervening rights, issued patent, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, substantive amendment, 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
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