Tag Archives: patent prosecution

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Protective Orders in View of Reexamination

In 55 Brake, L.L.C. v. Audi of America, Inc. et. al., (case 1-08-cv-00177, IDD), plaintiff 55 Brake is a patent owner asserting patent infringement of its ‘587 patent by several large automobile manufacturers.  The parties entered a protective order to … Continue reading

Posted in ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Prosecution Bar, Protective Order, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Stays Pending Reexamination and Experts Subject to a Prosecution Bar

In Interval Licensing LLC v. eBay, Inc., et. al., 2-10-cv-01385 (WAWD),  Interval Licensing (Interval) filed a motion for reconsideration of an earlier order by the Court to stay the litigation pending reexamination.  On July 12, 2011, Judge Marsha J. Pechman denied the motion. … Continue reading

Posted in ex parte reexamination, Expert, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Prosecution Bar, reexamination generally, stay | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can Post Grant Review Enhance Patent Quality?

We have all heard about the new post grant review (PGR) aspect of the patent reform legislation.  It is supposed to provide a mechanism for review of the patent initiated in the first year of the patent’s issue.  Please indulge me for … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Introduction: Why all of the interest in reexamination?

How many times have you heard:  “They got a patent on that!  There’s nothing new about that.  It’s been out there for years!”?  For those versed in patent matters, that is not a surprising reaction to certain issued patents.  The patent issuance procedure in … Continue reading

Posted in Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment