Category: covered business methods
-
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.…
-
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…
-
Dial-in Info to Hear the First Covered Business Method Patent Trial
In my last blog post I described the trial being held on Wednesday in the first covered business method (CBM2012-00001). The PTAB has provided the dial in information to listen in on the trial to be held at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. Paper 61 of the record states: Based upon the facts presented, the Board…
-
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 sued SAP for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,553,350 and 5,878,400 (Versata Software,…
-
Petitions to PTAB at Three Months into AIA Post-Grant Patent Trials
This blog post is at three months past September 16, 2012, the date upon which the PTAB began accepting petitions for inter partes review and covered business method patent review under the America Invents Act. Considering that there are about 15 CBM and 79 IPR petitions currently on file, the PTAB is getting petitions at the rate of roughly…
-
PTAB Provides Convenient Access to Instructive Orders, Notices, and Decisions
The Patent Trial and Appeals Board has provided a web page that compiles instructive orders, notices, and decisions. This is a handy reference site for practitioners to learn from decisions made in various covered business method (CBM), inter partes reviews (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings.
-
Pro Hac Vice Admission Denied in SAP v. Versata CBM Patent Review
My prior post described the pro hac vice admission dispute between SAP and Versata Development Group in PTAB matter CBM2012-00001. The PTAB wasted no time and issued an order denying the motion for pro hac vice admission of Versata’s litigation trial counsel on November 6, 2012. The PTAB essentially found that Versata failed to demonstrate…