-
Archives
Categories
- Adjudicative instead of examinatorial (2)
- America Invents Act (86)
- Aqua Products (1)
- Boardside Chat Report (1)
- Book and Article Reviews (1)
- BRI v. Phillips Construction Issues (1)
- Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard (16)
- claim challenges (40)
- indefiniteness (5)
- patent-eligible subject matter (17)
- prior art (13)
- statutory subject matter (8)
- Claim Construction (18)
- Claim Preclusion (1)
- clear and convincing evidence (7)
- doctrine of claim differentiation (2)
- Ex Parte Prosecution (23)
- Federal Circuit (17)
- Federal Circuit Review of PTAB Proceedings (4)
- inequitable conduct (2)
- inter partes review (73)
- 315(b) One Year Bar (7)
- estoppel (14)
- IPR Joinder (4)
- Motion to Amend (3)
- serial petitions (2)
- IPR (2)
- Issue Preclusion (1)
- ITC (1)
- joint infringement (1)
- Litigation (85)
- Damages (17)
- enhanced damages (1)
- future damages (3)
- intervening rights (5)
- past damages (9)
- estoppel from administrative proceeding (11)
- Expert (2)
- Joinder Post AIA (5)
- Phillips claim construction (1)
- Prosecution Bar (4)
- Protective Order (3)
- stay (11)
- factors for stay (8)
- Damages (17)
- Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit (4)
- Patent Portfolio Management (2)
- Patent Reform (51)
- petitions practice (12)
- Phillips-type construction (7)
- Post Grant Review (71)
- preponderance of evidence (8)
- pro hac vice admission (3)
- PRPS Patent Review Processing System (13)
- PTAB (82)
- PTAB Patent Trials (49)
- PTO Sued Under the APA (11)
- reexamination generally (57)
- Reissue (6)
- Settlements in Post-Grant Proceedings (3)
- software patents (2)
- States rights and sovereign immunity (2)
- supplemental examination (3)
- Supreme Court Review of post-grant issues (2)
- Termination of Post-Grant Proceedings (9)
- Uncategorized (64)
- Webinar (1)
Tag Archives: patent
Lockwood Cert Petition Seeks Clarification of Redress for Alleged “Sham” Reexamination Request
In a Petition for Writ of Certiorari dated April 28, 2011, inventor Lawrence B. Lockwood and his company, PanIP, LLC, requested review of the judgment of the Federal Circuit denying its petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. (The underlying order … Continue reading
Posted in ex parte reexamination, Litigation, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, claims, damages, ex parte reexamination, federal circuit, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, jurisdiction, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Supreme Court, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
The Patent Office Wants Your Ideas for Streamlining Reexamination
On Monday, April 25, 2011, the Federal Register announced a public meeting to solicit opinions on a number of changes being considered at the U.S. Patent Office to streamline both ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination proceedings. Written comments … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, merger, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Reissue, Substantial New Question (SNQ)
Tagged appeal, Bianchi, board of patent appeals, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, patent, patent litigation, petition, reexam, reexamination, reissue, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
Can Post Grant Review Enhance Patent Quality?
We have all heard about the new post grant review (PGR) aspect of the patent reform legislation. It is supposed to provide a mechanism for review of the patent initiated in the first year of the patent’s issue. Please indulge me for … Continue reading
Posted in Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally, Uncategorized
Tagged Bianchi, claims, damages, ex parte prosecution, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, issued patent, litigation, patent, patent claims, patent litigation, patent prosecution, reexam, reexamination, Tim Bianchi
2 Comments
More on Fractus Inter Partes Reexams
Scott Daniels has created a great table summarizing the current status of the Fractus reexams. That table is posted on his blog today with a status of each individual reexamination.
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 … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, Ex Parte Prosecution, inter partes reexamination, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged appealable, Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, central reexamination unit, CRU, director, inter partes reexamination, jurisdiction, patent, patent counsel, petition, reexamination, SNQ, Tim Bianchi
Leave a comment
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 … Continue reading
Posted in Appealable, inter partes reexamination, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized
Tagged 35 USC 312, 35 USC 315, appeal, Bianchi, Board, board of patent appeals, BPAI, director, inter partes reexamination, jurisdiction, nonappealable, patent, patentability, petition, reexam, reexamination, SNQ, substantial new question of patentability, Tim Bianchi
1 Comment
Fractus, S.A. Patent Reexaminations Ordered
In large patent litigations it has become more likely to see defendants request reexamination of the patents asserted. Some of the advantages of doing so were outlined in prior posts. Fractus, S.A., is a company headquartered in Spain that sells and licenses technology … Continue reading
Posted in Litigation, reexamination generally
Tagged Bianchi, Fractus, HTC, inter partes reexamination, Kyocera, litigation, patent, reexamination, Samsung, Tim Bianchi
8 Comments
In re Tanaka
Suppose you issued a patent with several claims, including dependent claims. Now, suppose you wished you had claimed and issued a certain dependent claim, but did not have it in the originally issued patent. That new dependent claim is narrower than your … Continue reading
Posted in Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, reexamination generally, Reissue
Tagged Bianchi, board of patent appeals, BPAI, claims, federal circuit, issued patent, patent, reissue, Tim Bianchi
3 Comments
Introduction: Why all of the interest in reexamination?
How many times have you heard: “They got a patent on that! There’s nothing new about that. It’s been out there for years!”? For those versed in patent matters, that is not a surprising reaction to certain issued patents. The patent issuance procedure in … Continue reading
What is www.ReexamLink.com?
Welcome to www.ReexamLink.com. It is a blog about patent reexamination, reissue, opposition and related patent procedures. ReexamLink.com will include the interplay between ex parte prosecution, reexamination, litigation, and appeals. It is intended to provide useful content for litigators, prosecutors, and anyone interested in patent law. Please send any comments, … Continue reading