Tag Archives: reexam

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

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

Liberty Mutual Covered Business Method Patent Review Petition Tailored to Address Prior Art “Mischaracterized” During Reexamination

Liberty Mutual Insurance filed two more covered business method (CBM) patent review petitions dated September 29.  The petitions both relate to U.S. Pat. No. 7,124,088 owned by Progressive Casualty Insurance, that relates to an on-line insurance policy service system as … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, correcting reexamination using post-issuance review, covered business methods, inequitable conduct, inter partes review, Litigation, Patent Reform, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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

Claim Interpretation for Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review under the AIA – Part II

In Part I of this topic, I posted some of the reasons why the Patent Office has taken the position that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard should be used in post-grant review and inter partes review.  Yet another reason for use of … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, inter partes review, Litigation, Patent Reform, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Claim Interpretation for Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review under the AIA – Part I

Today, USPTO Director David Kappos posted a comment advocating the use of  the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (BRI) for claim interpretation in post grant review and inter partes review under the America Invents Act.  This is a topic of great interest among those … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, clear and convincing evidence, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, Patent Reform, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, PTAB, reexamination generally, Reissue, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

En Banc Decision in Marine Polymer v. HemCon: Amended or New Claims are Candidates for Possible Intervening Rights

In my earlier post, I summarized the panel opinion in Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc.  On September 26, 2011, a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, concluding that HemCon had acquired intervening rights in the … Continue reading

Posted in absolute intervening rights, Damages, equitable intervening rights, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Reissue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

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