Tag: patent trial and appeal board
-
SAP’s Cert Petition Denied by Supreme Court in Versata Patent Infringement Suit
In earlier posts, I described the $391 million patent infringement judgment awarded to Versata for SAP’s alleged infringement of US Pat. 6,553,350. I also detailed SAP’s attempts to avoid the judgment by challenging the ‘350 patent in the first covered business method patent review conducted by the Patent Office under the America Invents Act. (SAP v.…
-
Patent Office Board Takes a Bite out of Apple’s IPR Challenge of VirnetX Patents
In mid-2013 Apple filed seven inter partes review petitions to challenge four VirnetX patents. Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) denied all seven inter partes review (IPR) petitions. This outcome demonstrates the Board’s current interpretation of the one-year bar applied in IPR proceedings and its position on joinder of petitions. Apple’s Interpretation of the…
-
Joint Motions to Terminate Patent Reviews Late in Trial Proceedings
One of the advantages of patent reviews under the America Invents Act is that the parties may settle before completion of the proceedings and file a joint motion to terminate these proceedings. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) may consider the joint motion and terminate the entire proceeding. It has done so…
-
CLE Event: Review of First Year of Patent Office Trials
The America Invents Act provides us several new ways to challenge issued patents. If you are curious about what we have learned in this first year fourteen months of patent office trials, please tune into my hour webinar tomorrow morning (Dec. 12, 2013) at 9 a.m. central. I will be co-presenting with Steve Schaefer of Fish…
-
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).…
-
USPTO to Host AIA Second Anniversary Forum on Sept. 16
The USPTO will host an AIA Second Anniversary Forum on September 16, 2013, at the USPTO’s Alexandria campus in the Madison Auditorium from 1 to 5 pm, and also via webcast. Here is the USPTO announcement: At the Forum, USPTO subject matter experts from the Patents Business Unit and administrative patent judges from the Patent…
-
PTAB Grants Motion for Early Termination of Proceeding Before CBM Trial Institution
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently decided to grant a motion to terminate a CBM proceeding prior to a decision of whether to institute trial in that CBM proceeding. In CBM2013-00015, between Oracle Corporation (Petitioner) and Community United IP, LLC, (Patent Owner) concerning U.S. Pat. No. 5,862,223, the parties filed a joint motion to…
-
PTAB Provides More Guidance on Discovery
On March 5, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided guidance to the bar concerning routine discovery and additional discovery. (See paper 26 in Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001) This decision set forth five factors which are important in determining what constitutes discovery satisfying the “necessary in the interest of justice” standard under 35…
-
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…