-
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
Patent Challengers get additional Preissuance Challenge Option after Leahy-Smith Bill Passes
Pre-Issuance Challenge Option Added Section 8 of the Act provides for additional pre-issuance submissions by third parties by amending 35 U.S.C. 122. Written submission of the relevance of a patent application, patent, published patent application, or other printed publication must … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Ex Parte Prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, preissuance submissions by third parties, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged 35 USC 122, America Invents Act, Bianchi, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, Leahy-Smith, patent reform, Preissuance Submission, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
3 Comments
Strategic Use of Reexamination in view of the Patent Reform Bill
Last week I had the privilege of speaking on reexamination at the AIPLA Electronics and Computer Law Summit. The title of my speech was “Strategic Use of Reexam after Patent Reform – Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review.” The powerpoint presentation materials can be found here. The … Continue reading
Posted in covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Reissue, stay, Substantial New Question (SNQ), supplemental examination
Tagged Bianchi, covered business method, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion practice, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent reform, patent trial and appeal board, PGR, post-grant review, PTAB, reexam, reexamination, reissue, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, supplemental examination, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Estoppel in Post-Grant Review (cont’d)
In the previous post we discussed some aspects of post-grant review (PGR) in the current bill before the Senate. The grounds available for petition in PGR are more comprehensive than those available for traditional reexamination and and also for the … Continue reading
Posted in estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally
Tagged Bianchi, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, issued patent, patent, patent litigation, patent reform, PGR, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Post-Grant Review and Estoppel in the Current Patent Reform Bill
When the Senate returns from recess next month it will be debating patent reform, and in particular the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. A copy of the redlined version passed by the House is found here. (thanks to Brad Pedersen of Patterson Thuente Christensen … Continue reading
Posted in estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally
Tagged America Invents Act, Bianchi, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Leahy-Smith, patent reform, post-grant review, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Stay of Litigation Pending Inter Partes Reexamination Warranted Despite Possible Lengthy Reexam Pendency
District courts are making increasingly detailed and sophisticated decisions on motions to stay litigation pending reexamination. One example is the analysis performed in N Spine Inc. and Synthes USA Sales, LLC v. Globus Medical Inc., (1-1–cv-00300 (DED)). N Spine and Synthes USA Sales … Continue reading
Posted in factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, stay
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, motion to stay, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, reexamination pendency, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Patent Owner Stay Motion Successful Based on Defendants’ Reexam Requests Filed on Eve of Markman
In Fifth Market, Inc. v. CME Group Inc, et al., (1-08-cv-00520, D. Del), the Patent Owner/Plaintiff (Fifth Market, Inc.) sued multiple Defendants on two patents (U.S. Pat. No. 6,418,419 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,024,387) in 2008. Three amended complaints were … Continue reading
Fractus SA Gets $23M Verdict Against Samsung in Antenna Patent Litigation
In Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (6:09-CV-203, EDTX), a jury gave a verdict of patent infringement of four different patents owned by Fractus S.A. against Samsung to the tune of $23,129,321 in damages. The jury found that … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, Damages, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, BPAI, claims, clear and convincing, damages, federal circuit, Fractus, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Reexamination Practice: One Size Does Not Fit All
I attended a reexamination roundtable at the Patent Office last week where ideas for reexamination reform were proposed. The Patent Office listened and took notes. I thought it was a very productive meeting overall. As the various speakers presented their comments … Continue reading →