Tag: motion to stay
-
Are Patent-Friendly PTAB Decisions On the Rise?
Patent litigation changed with passage of the America Invents Act. Overnight the PTAB became a new venue for challenging patent claims using IPRs, CBMs and PGRs. The initial reaction by the patent bar to the PTAB’s “take charge” approach to instituting review and canceling patent claims was met with approval by businesses under attack by…
-
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 Authorizes SAP to file Opposition to Versata’s Rehearing Request
Even though the Rehearing Request filed by Versata last week is confidential, we can glean some insight about what it contained based on the publicly available documents of record. Today the PTAB authorized SAP to file its motion to oppose Versata’s Rehearing Request, stating: Patent owner Versata filed a motion for rehearing [ ] of…
-
More Developments in the Patent Battle between SAP and Versata
There has been a lot of activity in the litigations arising from the patent battle between SAP and Versata. You will recall that there are parallel Federal Circuit, PTAB, and Eastern District of Virginia actions. There have been activities in all of these courts since my last post. Federal Circuit After the Patent Office decided…
-
SAP Moves for a Stay of Parallel Federal Circuit Action After PTAB Win
SAP’s fight to dismiss Versata’s U.S. 6,553,350 patent assertion continues. After SAP’s win in the PTAB on June 11, 2013, SAP filed a motion to stay the parallel Federal Circuit appeal on June 17th. Now the Federal Circuit must decide whether to stay the ongoing appeal after upholding the district court judgment on damages and…
-
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…
-
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.…
-
Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff and Stays Pending Reexamination
In Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (Case No. C 10-04645 RS, Northern District of California), Judge Richard Seeborg was less than persuaded by Interwoven’s attempt to obtain a stay after filing an ex parte reexamination of the patents in suit. BACKGROUND Vertical owns U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,826,744 and 7,716,629 relating to Internet technologies.…
-
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 (Plaintiffs) sued Defendant Globus for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,326,210 (the ‘210 patent) on…