Category: reexamination generally
-
Preexamination: Seeing the Art Before the Office Does
—
by
in AI assisted patent analysis, AI assisted Patent Generation, America Invents Act, Artificial Intelligence and Patents, Artificial Intelligence for Examination of Patent Applications, Artificial Intelligence for Patents, claim amendments, claim challenges, Examination Automation, inter partes review, IPR, Large Language Model (LLM), Machine Learning (ML), Patent generation to avoid validity challenges, Patent Portfolio Management, Post Grant Review, Preexamination, prior art, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, Synthetic ExaminationFor as long as people have recorded what they know, two capabilities have raced each other: the rate at which we generate information, and the ability to find and make sense of what we already have. Neither has held the lead for long. Every leap in one exposes the inadequacy of the other. The field…
-
Institution Discretion and the 2026 AIA Docket
—
by
in America Invents Act, Ex Parte Prosecution, Federal Circuit Review of PTAB Proceedings, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit, Patent Portfolio Management, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, Prosecution Guidelines, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Director Review of AIA Trials, reexamination generally, serial petitionsSept. 2, 2026 Last September, after John Squires was confirmed as Director, I wrote that we would see whether the then-emerging line of discretionary dismissals of IPR petitions “is to be extended or will itself be tempered.” The Federal Circuit answered the reviewability half on November 6. The 2026 filing and institution numbers supply the…
-
Federal Circuit Weighs in on Exceptional Case Determinations in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV and Dish
A recent Federal Circuit decision provided some additional insight into exceptional case determinations in patent infringement disputes. In Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV, the Federal Circuit reviewed an award of attorneys’ fees granted to DISH and related Sling entities (collectively, DISH) by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Realtime Adaptive…
-
Complex Claim Construction Issues in Knowles Electronics v. Cirrus Logic
—
by
A recent Federal Circuit case demonstrates the complexity of resolving difficult claim construction issues in multiple agency and court proceedings. In Knowles Electronics v. Cirrus Logic the Federal Circuit declined to apply its own prior claim interpretation of the same term of the same claims of the same patent. U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231 (“the ’231 patent”) entitled “Microelectromechanical System…
-
Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products Decision Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioner to Challenge Amended Claims
—
by
in Adjudicative instead of examinatorial, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Federal Circuit Review of PTAB Proceedings, Motion to Amend, preponderance of evidence, reexamination generally, Settlements in Post-Grant Proceedings, Termination of Post-Grant ProceedingsOn October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a lengthy decision in Aqua Products v. Matal, spanning five opinions and 148 pages, which addressed the proper allocation of the burden of proof when amended claims are offered during inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”). Aqua Prods. v. Matal, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19293. The case concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,273,183, relating to…
-
Federal Circuit Employs Phillips Claim Construction to Measure Claims Amended in Reexamination for Possible Intervening Rights
—
by
in Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, claim challenges, Claim Construction, clear and convincing evidence, covered business methods, Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Phillips claim construction, Post Grant Review, preponderance of evidence, prior art, reexamination generallyWhen patent owners sue an accused infringer for patent infringement, one way for the accused infringer to avoid liability is to show noninfringement of the patent claims. But if the claims are extremely broad, the accused infringer may find it difficult to prove noninfringement and instead may have to rely on a showing of invalidity to avoid…
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Affirms Board Finding of Unpatentability in First IPR
The Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination of the Board in the first inter partes review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Garmin petitioned for IPR of claims 10, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 owned by Cuozzo Speed Technologies. The Board found these claims obvious and denied Cuozzo’s motion to amend the…
-
Parties Terminate CBM Before They Settle Dispute to Avoid PTAB Decision
In January of 2013, EZ Shield , Inc sued Harland Clarke Corp. for infringement of U.S. Pat. 8,346,637. The ‘637 patent relates to a system for reimbursement of consumers for losses incurred for specific forms of check fraud. In April of that year Harland Clarke filed a petition for covered business method patent review (CBM2013-00016).…
-
PTAB CBM: Versata Patent Claims Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
—
by
in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, covered business methods, ex parte reexamination, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, reexamination generallyOn June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision holding claims 17 and 26-29 of Versata’s 6,553,350 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This decision arises from a petition filed on Sep. 16, 2012, in a proceeding that was accelerated when SAP agreed to focus its challenge on its proffered 101…
-
A Tale of Two Patent Litigation Stays
This is a story about not one, but two stays. The first stay is a district court stay pending the outcome of a reexamination of a patent in suit. The second is an administrative (PTAB) stay of that same reexamination pending the outcome of an AIA patent litigation proceeding based on that same patent. The…