-
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: reexamination
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
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 Bianchi, claims, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent litigation, patent reform, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
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 Bianchi, Board, BPAI, burden of proof, claims, clear and convincing, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, litigation, Microsoft, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, post-grant review, preponderance of the evidence, presumption of validity, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, reissue, Tim Bianchi
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 appeal, Bianchi, claims, damages, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, intervening rights, issued patent, litigation, past damages, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, reissue, substantive amendment, Tim Bianchi
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 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
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
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
America Invents Act: Post-Grant Procedures for Patent Challengers
Now that the America Invents Act has become law there are several new provisions for patent challengers to consider. For example, the Act includes: preissuance submissions by third party challengers (Sec. 8 — see the last post); Post-Grant Review (Sec. … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Appealable, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, patent, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, petition, PGR, post-grant review, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment