Tag: patent trial and appeal board
-
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…
-
U.S. Bancorp CBM Results in Cancellation of Retirement Capital Access Management Co.’s Patent Claims
In 2011, U.S. Patent 6,625,582, entitled Method And System For Converting A Designated Portion of Future Social Security And Other Retirement Payments To Current Benefits, was assigned to Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC. Benefit Funding Systems LLC asserted the ‘582 patent against U.S. Bancorp in June of 2012. Benefit Funding Systems LLC v. U.S. Bancorp, Case…
-
Lex Machina’s 2013 Patent Litigation Report Shows Disparity Between Litigated Patents and those under PTAB Review
Litigation and post-grant proceedings often go hand-in-hand. A new litigation report published by Lex Machina summarizes patent litigation data for 2013 and prior years. It is an interesting report and very easy to digest. Two findings caught my eye. The first one relates to the overall number of patent litigation cases filed in 2013: Plaintiffs filed 6,092…
-
Eastern District of Texas Denies SAP’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment in the Versata Patent Infringement Case
SAP recently learned that the Eastern District of Texas denied its motion to set aside or stay a district court judgment in favor of Versata for infringement of its U.S. Pat. 6,553,350 (Versata Software, Inc v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00153 (E.D. Tex)). On April 20, 2014, Judge Roy S. Payne dismissed SAP’s motion despite its…
-
Patent Office Board Clarifies Petitioner Role for Single Petition by Several Companies
A petition for covered business method review, inter partes review, or post-grant review may be filed on behalf of of several different parties and real parties in interest. Typically, such filings involve one, two, or three named persons (e.g., companies) as the petitioner. However, the Board’s rules do not state a limit on the number…
-
Board Proposes Solution for Petitioner if Expert Witness Not Available for Deposition in Patent Office Trial
In current post-grant practice, most petitions are accompanied by an expert declaration to support the assertions made by the petitioner. If the petitioner successfully obtains institution of a patent office trial (inter partes review, covered business method patent review, or post-grant review), each declarant making a declaration for the petition must be made available for…