-
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 litigation
Federal Circuit Appeal Decision in Versata Software v. SAP
A detailed discussion of the Versata v. SAP litigation and a timeline was provided in my earlier post. I reported that there are three actions related to this dispute: one in the PTAB, one in the Eastern District of Virginia, … Continue reading
Posted in covered business methods, Damages, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, damages, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Early PTAB Orders Demonstrate Differences Between AIA Patent Trials and District Court Trials
Patent practitioners are still absorbing some of the differences and advantages that are unique to litigation in the PTAB as opposed to district court litigation. For example, PTAB proceedings only decide questions of validity and are not directed to rule … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, estoppel, inter partes review, Litigation, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, burden of, clear and convincing, estoppel, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial, patent trial and appeal board, preponderance of the evidence, presumption of validity, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
PTAB Publishes Trial Transcript from First Covered Business Method Patent Review
On April 17, 2013 the PTAB heard oral arguments in the first covered business method patent review between SAP and Versata. SAP challenged the validity of Versata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 in the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 101. My … Continue reading
Posted in claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Progressive Casualty Litigation Stayed Pending Outcome of Liberty Mutual CBMs
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. sued different insurance companies for patent infringement of 5 of its patents in 2010-2012 in the Northern District of Ohio. (Cases 1:10CV01370 and 1:11CV00082 against Safeco; Case 1:12CV01068 against State Farm; and Case 1:12CV01070 against Hartford.) … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, factors for stay, indefiniteness, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, statutory subject matter, stay, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, PTAB, reexamination, SNQ, stay, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Exhibits for SAP v. Versata PTAB Trial on Wednesday
One of the benefits of the PTAB’s PRPS system that the materials for each trial are accessible online when filed by the parties (unless designated as protected materials). If you intend to listen in on the SAP v. Versata PTAB … Continue reading
Posted in covered business methods, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, covered business method, federal circuit, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
SAP v. Versata: First Covered Business Method PTAB Trial Tests New AIA Trial Provisions
The first ever covered business method patent review stems from a patent litigation between Versata and SAP over two Versata patents relating to pricing products in mulitlevel product and organizational groups. The district court action began in 2007 when Versata … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, indefiniteness, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, statutory subject matter, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, CBM, CBM2012-000001, covered business method, federal circuit, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PTAB, SAP v. Versata, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Patent Challenger Seeks PTAB Jurisdiction over “Involved” Pending Applications
The AIA provides new post-issuance proceedings to challenge issued patents. But can these challenges be used to stop related pending patent prosecution dead in its tracks? One recent inter partes review petition requests just that and time will tell whether … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, PTAB
Tagged Bianchi, claims, ex parte prosecution, inter partes review, IPR, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, petition, PGR, PTAB, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Comparative Study of Post Issuance Review Options
Today I had the pleasure of co-presenting at the Midwest IP Institute on various post-issuance proceedings with Kevin Rhodes, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel and President of 3M Innovative Properties Company. A PDF of our joint presentation is found here. The presentation provides … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, indefiniteness, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, statutory subject matter, supplemental examination
Tagged Bianchi, CBM, claims, clear and convincing, estoppel, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, IPR, litigation, patent litigation, patent reform, petition, PGR, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexam, 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