Year: 2013
-
Early Termination of PTAB Proceeding Shows Versatility of PTAB Patent Trials
One of the criticisms lodged against traditional reexamination proceedings is that when a request for reexamination is filed, the proceeding may take on a life of its own and typically cannot be withdrawn even if the parties want to dismiss the action. The AIA provides for patent office trials with more options for parties, because…
-
SAP Files Ex Parte Reexamination Request using Prior Art from Ongoing Litigations
As you may recall from earlier posts, on September 16, 2012, SAP filed a petition for review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,553,350 to begin the first covered business method patent review (CBM2012-00001) under the America Invents Act. To advance its PTAB trial date, SAP agreed to limit its argument to 35 U.S.C. 101 challenges set forth…
-
Federal Circuit Appeal Decision in Versata Software v. SAP
A detailed discussion of the Versata v. SAP litigation and a timeline was provided in my earlier post. I reported that there are three actions related to this dispute: one in the PTAB, one in the Eastern District of Virginia, and one in the Federal Circuit. On May 1, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed the…
-
Early PTAB Orders Demonstrate Differences Between AIA Patent Trials and District Court Trials
Patent practitioners are still absorbing some of the differences and advantages that are unique to litigation in the PTAB as opposed to district court litigation. For example, PTAB proceedings only decide questions of validity and are not directed to rule on questions of infringement or damages, as is the practice in traditional litigation. Another example…
-
PTAB Publishes Trial Transcript from First Covered Business Method Patent Review
On April 17, 2013 the PTAB heard oral arguments in the first covered business method patent review between SAP and Versata. SAP challenged the validity of Versata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 in the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 101. My earlier posts detailed the events. The PTAB trial transcript has recently been published and the trial…
-
Progressive Casualty Litigation Stayed Pending Outcome of Liberty Mutual CBMs
—
by
in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, factors for stay, indefiniteness, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, statutory subject matter, stay, UncategorizedProgressive Casualty Insurance Co. sued different insurance companies for patent infringement of 5 of its patents in 2010-2012 in the Northern District of Ohio. (Cases 1:10CV01370 and 1:11CV00082 against Safeco; Case 1:12CV01068 against State Farm; and Case 1:12CV01070 against Hartford.) One of the defendants is Safeco Insurance Company, which has Liberty Mutual as its parent.…
-
PTAB IPR Petition Joinder Practice Gains Momentum
Suppose a patent owner files suit and the defendant wants to file an AIA post-grant proceeding to challenge the validity of the patent. Suppose further that the post-grant challenge is an inter partes review (IPR) filed by the defendant within a year of service of process of the complaint. If the IPR petition only alleges…
-
AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination
—
by
in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, pro hac vice admission, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch, Substantial New Question (SNQ), UncategorizedIn the past few months, I have had discussions with many different stakeholders about how AIA post-grant review differs from conventional reexamination. AIA patent trials (post-grant review or PGR, inter partes review or IPR, and covered business method patent review or CBM) are substantially different than traditional reexamination. Some of these differences are summarized in…
-
Petitioner Allowed to Submit Supplemental Information After Institution of CBM PTAB Trial
In Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC (CBM2012-000007), the Petitioner (Interthinx) was allowed to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 after trial was instituted in this covered business method patent review (CBM). Trial was instituted by the PTAB on January 31, 2013. On February 27, 2013, Interthinx filed a Request for Authorization to…
-
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 CBM trial on Wednesday, you might benefit from having the SAP slides and the Versata…