Tag: patent trial and appeal board
-
Early PTAB Orders Demonstrate Differences Between AIA Patent Trials and District Court Trials
Patent practitioners are still absorbing some of the differences and advantages that are unique to litigation in the PTAB as opposed to district court litigation. For example, PTAB proceedings only decide questions of validity and are not directed to rule on questions of infringement or damages, as is the practice in traditional litigation. Another example…
-
PTAB Publishes Trial Transcript from First Covered Business Method Patent Review
On April 17, 2013 the PTAB heard oral arguments in the first covered business method patent review between SAP and Versata. SAP challenged the validity of Versata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 in the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 101. My earlier posts detailed the events. The PTAB trial transcript has recently been published and the trial…
-
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.…
-
PTAB IPR Petition Joinder Practice Gains Momentum
Suppose a patent owner files suit and the defendant wants to file an AIA post-grant proceeding to challenge the validity of the patent. Suppose further that the post-grant challenge is an inter partes review (IPR) filed by the defendant within a year of service of process of the complaint. If the IPR petition only alleges…
-
AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination
—
by
in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, pro hac vice admission, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch, Substantial New Question (SNQ), UncategorizedIn the past few months, I have had discussions with many different stakeholders about how AIA post-grant review differs from conventional reexamination. AIA patent trials (post-grant review or PGR, inter partes review or IPR, and covered business method patent review or CBM) are substantially different than traditional reexamination. Some of these differences are summarized in…
-
Petitioner Allowed to Submit Supplemental Information After Institution of CBM PTAB Trial
In Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC (CBM2012-000007), the Petitioner (Interthinx) was allowed to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 after trial was instituted in this covered business method patent review (CBM). Trial was instituted by the PTAB on January 31, 2013. On February 27, 2013, Interthinx filed a Request for Authorization to…
-
Exhibits for SAP v. Versata PTAB Trial on Wednesday
One of the benefits of the PTAB’s PRPS system that the materials for each trial are accessible online when filed by the parties (unless designated as protected materials). If you intend to listen in on the SAP v. Versata PTAB CBM trial on Wednesday, you might benefit from having the SAP slides and the Versata…
-
Dial-in Info to Hear the First Covered Business Method Patent Trial
In my last blog post I described the trial being held on Wednesday in the first covered business method (CBM2012-00001). The PTAB has provided the dial in information to listen in on the trial to be held at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. Paper 61 of the record states: Based upon the facts presented, the Board…
-
SAP v. Versata: First Covered Business Method PTAB Trial Tests New AIA Trial Provisions
The first ever covered business method patent review stems from a patent litigation between Versata and SAP over two Versata patents relating to pricing products in mulitlevel product and organizational groups. The district court action began in 2007 when Versata sued SAP for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,553,350 and 5,878,400 (Versata Software,…
-
Petitions to PTAB at Three Months into AIA Post-Grant Patent Trials
This blog post is at three months past September 16, 2012, the date upon which the PTAB began accepting petitions for inter partes review and covered business method patent review under the America Invents Act. Considering that there are about 15 CBM and 79 IPR petitions currently on file, the PTAB is getting petitions at the rate of roughly…