Tag: Board
-
PTAB Relies on the Federal Circuit’s Recent § 101 Decision to Deny CBM Institution
On May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a decision on 101 patent eligibility that overturned a summary judgment finding of § 101 invalidity for software used for databases. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756266 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). The Enfish v. Microsoft decision interpreted the “abstract idea” first prong of…
-
Target Corp. Requests Rehearing of Denied IPRs by Expanded PTAB Panel
October 17, 2014 Last month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) interpreted the IPR joinder provision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), to preclude joinder requests by an existing party to an ongoing proceeding. (Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508 and IPR2014-00509.) In these recent decisions, the Board decided that § 315(c) requires “party joinder” and…
-
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Guidance on Pro Hac Vice Admissions
The PTAB (“Board”) has already decided some motions for pro hac vice admission in various PTAB case proceedings. A recent decision in case IPR2012-00035 referenced an earlier decision on motion for pro hac vice admission in case IPR2013-00010. The relevant part of that decision entered October 15, 2012 (Paper 6) states the rules for pro hac…
-
Claim Interpretation for Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review under the AIA – Part I
—
by
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, UncategorizedToday, 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 conducting post-grant review of patents because of numerous conflicts occuring in practice due to different…
-
Marine Polymer Technologies v. HemCon, Inc. and Intervening Rights
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011) is a widely reported case that raises some questions about the scope of the application of intervening rights. It involves a matter where the literal language of a claim was not amended, yet absolute intervening rights were still found to apply to the accused infringer. Marine…
-
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 to the questions posed by the Office, it reminded me how everyone views reexamination differently: Patent Owners who…
-
Federal Circuit Decision in In re Tanaka
You might recall that we discussed the BPAI decision in In re Yasuhito Tanaka in an earlier post. On April 15, the Federal Circuit reversed the BPAI decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion. The Federal Circuit held that a patent owner that retains original patent claims and adds new narrower claims in…
-
Petitions Practice for SNQ Findings in Inter Partes Reexaminations
A prior post emphasized the importance of a well crafted petition in cases where the examiner determines that there is no SNQ in an inter partes reexamination request. Recall that the BPAI determined it had no jurisdiction to review of a determination that there was no SNQ (for certain claims) in inter partes reexamination control no. 95/001,089 (Belkin International v Optimumpath…
-
Use Petitions to Reverse Determination of No SNQ in Inter Partes Reexaminations
You see a competitor’s patent and believe it is invalid. You perform a prior art search and find prior art that you think would render at least some of the patent claims unpatentable. So after thinking about it some more, you decide to file a reexamination request in the Patent Office. In that request you illustrate that the prior art…