Tag Archives: patent

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pro Hac Vice Admission Challenge to Test Extent of Participation of Litigation Team Member with Knowledge under Protective Order in Covered Business Method Patent Review

In the first covered business-method patent review ever filed (CBM2012-000001), SAP America and Versata Development Group are in a dispute as to whether a litigation attorney for Versata should be admitted pro hac vice in the PTAB trial. Apparently there … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Claim Construction, covered business methods, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, Prosecution Bar, PTAB, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Steady Stream of AIA Post-Issuance Review Petitions Filed in PTAB

It has been a little over one month since post grant patent reviews were authorized by the AIA and the Patent Office Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) shows about 47 petitions on file in the PTAB. Look at it this … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Petitions Filed for AIA Inter Partes Reviews and Covered Business-Method Patent Reviews

Based on a today’s count, the PTAB Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) is now showing 34 petitions for patent review.  There are 10 pending petitions for covered business-method (CBM) patent review and 24 petitions for inter partes review (IPR). What … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Parallel Litigation and PTAB Review Create Complex Interplay of Patentability and Validity

A company called CoreLogic Solutions, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 5,361,201, relating to a process for appraising real estate property.  The ‘201 patent was filed on Oct. 19, 1992 and issued on Nov. 1, 1994.  Absent some kind of patent term extension, the ‘201 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, indefiniteness, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, statutory subject matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More Inter Partes Patent Reviews Filed on the PTAB PRPS

As of 01:00 on September 27, the number of petitions for covered business method (CBM) patent reviews remained at 6, but five more petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs) were filed, making a total of 17 IPRs.  The total number of pending … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, Claim Construction, covered business methods, Damages, estoppel, future damages, inter partes review, intervening rights, Litigation, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTO, PTAB and AIA History in the Making Today, September 16, 2012

Today the PTO received its first petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method patent review (CBM) pursuant to the America Invents Act (AIA).  We are in a kind of second phase of implementation of the AIA that … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment