How Post Grant Challenges Have Evolved from Proposed Rules to Practice. Prepared by W. Karl Renner Principal & Co Chair of Post Grant Practice
|
|
- Aubrey Lawson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 How Post Grant Challenges Have Evolved from Proposed Rules to Practice Prepared by W. Karl Renner Principal & Co Chair of Post Grant Practice Fish & Richardson May 8, 2013
2 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 2
3 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 3
4 Types of Post Grant Tools Ex Parte Proceedings Several tools available for patent owner to fix problems Other tools allow third parties to instigate challenges Lower success rates Patent Owner interview Third party can only launch; cannot participate Third party not estopped from later challenging validity Anonymous Inter Partes Proceedings Challenger participates after launching challenge Higher success rates Third party is estopped from later challenging validity 4
5 Post Grant Procedures Inter Partes Post Grant Tools Post Grant Review (PGR) All are initiated by third parties Inter Partes Review (IPR) Covered Business Method (CBM) All are governed by Trial Rules These tools differ based on: 1. Timing 2. Grounds 3. Estoppel 5
6 Trial Proceeding Timeline 6
7 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 7
8 Stays of Co-Pending District Court Context and 3 District Court factors: Stage of litigation (discovery) Simplification of issues Undue prejudice or clear tactical disadvantage (speed) In granting stay, one Court recently recognized a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the outcome of IPR proceedings. See SEL v. Chimei Innolux (C.D. of Cal, Dec. 19, 2012) 8
9 Stays of Co-Pending District Court (Survey) Contested motions to stay have largely been granted SEL v Chimei Innolux (C.D. Cal, Dec. 19, 2012) Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. (N.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2013) Star Envirotech Inc. v. Redline Detection LLC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013) Bergstrom, Inc. v. Idle Free Sys., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2013) Many examples of plaintiff patentee consent also granted Stay denied in SRAM, LLC v. HB Suspension Prods., LLC (Mar. 7, 2013 N.D. Ill.); likely revisited 9
10 Stays of Other Proceedings (Survey) IPRx/IPR: Concurrent IPRx stayed CBS Interactive et al. v. Helferich Patent Licensing (USPTO Nov. 6, 2012) EPRx/IPR: Concurrent EPRx stayed based on later filed IPR Invue Security Products Inc. v. Merchandising Technologies, Inc., slip. op. IPR (PTAB April 2, 2013) Supplemental Examination Request preceeded third party IPR While Supplemental Examination granted, USPTO stayed (did not merge) EPRx Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Mobile Scanning Technologies, LLC, slip. op. IPR (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) No stays yet in proceedings before the International Trade Commission or District Courts with speedy dockets (E.D. Virginia) 10
11 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 11
12 Newness Abolished A Willing PTAB Audience Macauto U.S.A. v. Bos GmbH & KG, slip. Op. IPR (PTAB Jan. 24, 2013 Reasonable Likelihood of Success (RLS) standard clarified Relevant Facts The Macauto IPR Petition included multiple references 3 of the references were included in an EPRx that IPR Petitioner had filed on the subject patent In EPRx, the CRU confirmed the patentability of all claims PTAB nevertheless instituted IPR based upon one of the references used in EPRx PTAB agreed with Petitioner that, during EPRx, the CRU Examiner gave improper weight to two declarations that patent owner submitted Shows willingness by PTAB to consider rejections based upon references previously considered by the CRU (and hence, original examiners) 12
13 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 13
14 Construction and PO Initial Response Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., slip op. IPR (PTAB Feb. 2, 2013) First IPR petition denied on all grounds Notable Aspects Which/how many claim terms need construed in initial petition? Effectiveness of preliminary patent owner s response? 14
15 Claim Construction (Synopsys) Petitioner construed nothing (plain meaning) Patent Owner preliminary response advocated construction of a claim term that distinguished petitioner s prior art With no extrinsic evidence, the PTAB construed claim terms in favor of Patent Owner Petitioner was left without any recourse, at this stage, other than to re file (if possible) 15
16 Claim Construction (Synopsys) Lesson: Omit constructions from petition at your peril Availability of preliminary patent owner response means that petitioner cannot hold back arguments and assume he/she can present them later in the proceeding Different from inter partes reexam, where there was no preliminary patent owner response Reinforces broader guidance to bring evidence at the earliest available opportunity 16
17 Patent Owner Preliminary Response Substantively: While largely limited to intrinsic evident, this response provides the patent owner with an opportunity to challenge on substantive grounds Tactically: This provides patent owner with the last word In Synopsis, Patent Owner advanced a favorable construction, based on intrinsic evidence, which the USPTO adopted and reinforced using dictionary definitions 17
18 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 18
19 Petitions Redundancy Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., slip op. CBM (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) Liberty Mutual filed a covered business method patent review of claims 1 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358. The petition included 422 grounds of rejection based on 10 references for these 20 claims. The PTAB required these grounds be substantially reduced. 19
20 Legal Framework for Decision 1 Year Mandate The Director shall prescribe regulations... requiring that the final determination in any post grant review be issued not later than 1 year after the date in which the Director notices the institution of a proceeding under this chapter U.S.C. 326(a)(11). Mandate requires efficiency When promulgating the regulations, the Board considered the effect of the regulations on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings as mandated by 35 U.S.C. 326(b). Rules also require speed 37 C.F.R. 42.1(b) provides that Part 42 of the rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. Burden is therefore on requestor Under 37 C.F.R (c), a petitioner has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 20
21 Holding/Rule Based on this legal framework, the PTAB determined that multiple grounds, which are presented in a redundant manner by a petitioner who makes no meaningful distinction between them, are contrary to the regulatory and statutory mandates, and therefore are not all entitled to consideration. Two types of redundancy require meaningful distinction Horizontal Redundancy Vertical Redundancy 21
22 Horizontal Redundancy PTAB Explanation: All of the myriad references relied on provide essentially the same teaching to meet the same claim limitation, and the associated arguments do not explain why one reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects than another reference, and vice versa. Examples Assume references A, B, and C are addressed in the petition Horizontal redundancy: Claim 1 is rendered obvious by each of A+B and A+C. Claim 1 is anticipated by each of B and C To gain consideration of each, must explain why each is needed Why are B and C based rejections insufficient? Why does each solve the other s deficiency? 22
23 Vertical Redundancy PTAB explanation: there is assertion of an additional prior art reference to support another ground of unpatentability when a base ground already has been asserted against the same claim without the additional reference and the Petitioner has not explained what are the relative strength and weakness of each ground. Examples Assume references A and B are addressed in the petition Vertical redundancy if claim 1 is rejected based on each of A and A+B To gain consideration of each, must explain why each is needed Why are B and C based rejections insufficient? Why does each solve the other s deficiency? 23
24 Avoiding Redundancy Issue: Not all references are equal in quality, so you may not want certain references adopted to the exclusion of others Recommendations: Self select Trim weak references Only apply references that will prevail alone, if needed Present arguments to justify inclusion of multiple grounds, where desired Why are B and C based rejections insufficient, AND why does each solve the other s deficiency? Also, indicate your election, in the event that the USPTO deems them redundant 24
25 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 25
26 Discovery Requests (Garmin) Garmin International Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, slip. op. IPR (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) Patent Owner sought the following production from Petitioner: file histories Interrogatories document requests deposition notice of corporate entity In evaluating these requests, the PTAB did three things: 1 clarified metes and bounds of routine discovery 2 proposed standards for justifying requests for additional discovery 3 reinforced that discovery in PTAB trials will be much more limited than district court discovery 26
27 Discovery Requests (Garmin) Two types of discovery: routine and additional 37 C.F.R (b)(1) defines categories of routine discovery to which party is entitled without prior PTAB authorization or consent of opposing party: Production of exhibits cited in a paper or testimony ( 42.51(b)(1)(i)) Cross examination of opposing declarants ( 42.51(b)(1)(ii)) Non cumulative information that is inconsistent with a position advanced during the proceeding ( 42.51(b)(1)(iii)) File histories: Not contemplated, and readily available to Patent Owner 27
28 Discovery Requests (Garmin) Patent owner interrogatories, document requests, and deposition notice of corporate entity denied Not contemplated by routine discovery categories Not cited by Petitioner Not cross examination of opposing declarant Not inconsistent positions provision of 41.51(b)(1)(iii) Hostile to requests for inconsistent positions If seeking, show motivation for asking and likelihood of existence 28
29 Discovery Requests (Garmin) PTAB must authorize discovery beyond routine discovery 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5) and 37 C.F.R (b)(2): moving party must demonstrate that additional discovery sought is in the interest of justice Garmin reinforces the challenge of this standard 29
30 Discovery Requests (Garmin) PTAB sets forth a 5 part test for establishing in the interest of justice (1) More Than a Possibility and Mere Allegation The mere possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that something useful will be found, are insufficient to demonstrate that the requested discovery is necessary in the interest of justice. The party requesting discovery should already be in possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be uncovered. (2) Litigation Positions and Underlying Basis Asking for the other party s litigation positions and the underlying basis for those positions is not necessary in the interest of justice. (3) Ability to Generate Equivalent Information By Other Means. (4) Easily Understandable Instructions. (5) Requests Not Overly Burdensome to Answer. 30
31 Additional Discovery: Interest of Justice Factor #1 More Than a Possibility and Mere Allegation is key factor. Underscores limited nature of PTAB discovery vs. district court The Essence of Factor (1) is unambiguously expressed by its language, i.e., the requester of information should already be in possession of a threshold amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that something useful will be uncovered. Useful in that context does not mean merely relevant and/or admissible. In the context of Factor (1), useful means favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party moving for discovery. 31
32 Additional Discovery: Interest of Justice PTAB denied patent owner s motion for additional discovery relating to objective evidence of non obviousness for failure to meet threshold showings Commercial success: required patent owner to demonstrate nexus between commercial success and features of claimed invention Failure by others: required patent owner to show that others besides petitioner had tried and failed to show failure was widespread Copying: evidence of a telephone call between inventor and petitioner s lawyer regarding patent infringement insufficient ( Garmin might well have independently conceived of and developed the invention ) PTAB standards for threshold showing similar to standards for relevance of evidence in district court trial, not lower standard in district court for supporting a discovery request. 32
33 Additional Discovery: Interest of Justice PTAB s high standards for interest of justice must be viewed in context of PTAB s mandate to complete patent trials within 1 year of petition decision: [I]n inter partes review, discovery is limited as compared to that available in district court litigation. Limited discovery lowers cost, minimizes the complexity, and shortens the period require for dispute resolution. There is a one year statutory deadline for completion of inter partes review, subject to limited exceptions. 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11); see also 37 C.F.R (c). What constitutes permissible discovery must be considered with that constraint in mind. 33
34 Additional Discovery: Interest of Justice Recent decisions: A survey of the following motions for additional discovery shows conservative treatment of such motions, with a partial grant only once, and denial otherwise IPR , IPR , IPR Petition for IPR by Illumina, Inc., (Request for additional discovery denied on January 9, 2013) IPR , Petition for IPR by Garmin International, Inc., (Request for additional discovery denied on March 5, 2013) IPR , Petition for IPR by Microsoft Corporation (Request for additional discovery denied on March 8, 2013) IPR , IPR , Petition for IPR by Apple Inc., (Request for additional discovery denied on April 3, 2013) IPR , Petition for IPR by Synopsis (Request for additional discovery denied on April 25, 2013) IPR , Petition by patent owner seeking discovery related to identification of the real parties in interest. (Granted in part, April 26, 2013) 34
35 Additional Discovery: Interest of Justice Lessons and questions: In the absence of agreement, parties should assume that only routine discovery will be available/permitted Even if parties agree, will PTAB still limit discovery to meet 1 year deadline? Effect on overall cost vs. district court? Effect on petitioner s choice of forum? Effect on timing of petition relative to co pending district court litigation? 35
36 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 36
37 II. Statistics (IPR) IPR s Filed? 224 filed through May 3rd 27 filed in April Application of Threshold: Reasonable Likelihood of Success IPR has been instituted in all but 1 IPR Petition evaluated In a number of cases where IPR was ordered, it was on only a subset of petitioned claims 37
38 II. Statistics (CBM) CBM s Filed? 21 filed through May 3rd 4 filed in April Application of Threshold: Reasonable Likelihood of Success CBM has been instituted in all but 3 CBM Petitions evaluated In a number of cases, CBM was ordered on only a subset of petitioned claims 38
39 II. Statistics: Who is filing? By industry (IPR + CBM) ~60% software or EE ~20% mechanical ~20% bio/chemical Most challenged patents anchor pending litigations 39
40 II. Statistics (Stays) Granted (8): Bd. Of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois v. Micron Tech., Inc. (C.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2012); Clearlamp LLC v. LKQ Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2012); Semiconductor Energy Lab Co., Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corp. et al. (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012); Network 1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Alcatel Lucent USA Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. March 5, 2013); Bergstrom, Inc. v. Idle Free Sys., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2013); Star Envirotech Inc. v. Redline Detection LLC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013); Achates Reference Pub., Inc. v. Symantec Corp. (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2013); Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. (N.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2013) Denied (1): SRAM, LLC v. HB Suspension Prods., LLC, (Mar. 7, 2013 N.D. Ill.) 40
41 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 41
42 Ex Parte Post Grant Proceedings Post Grant Procedures Ex Parte Reexamination Initiated by patent owner or third party Supplemental Examination Reissue Initiated by patent owner (NOT third party) 42
43 Ex Parte Post Grant Proceedings Proceeding When Does It Apply? Legal standard Grounds (Prior Art) Estoppel? Ex parte Reexam (unchanged) Supplemental Examination Reissue (unchanged) Available now First available on Sept. 16, 2012 Available now Substantial new question of patentability Substantial new question of patentability would result in Ex parte reexam by PTO; otherwise, examination denied and claims are confirmed If more than two years after issuance, error to be corrected (over/under claiming sufficient 112 issue preferred). Otherwise no threshold Patents Published patent apps Printed publications No on sale or use art Any information N/A No Legal Estoppel* N/A N/A 43
44 Inter Partes Post Grant Proceedings Proceeding When Does It Apply? Legal standard Grounds (Prior Art) Estoppel? Post grant review (9 month window) First available on Sept. 16, 2012 Applies only to patents having a claim with a priority date on or after March 16, 2013 PTO can initially limit (e.g., 250/year) More likely than not that at least 1 claim is unpatentable Any invalidity ground Raised or reasonably could have raised Inter partes review (after PGR) First available on Sept. 16, 2012 Applies to all patents PTO can initially limit (e.g., 250/year) Reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail on at least 1 claim Patents Published patent apps Printed publications Raised or reasonably could have raised Covered Business Method First available on Sept. 16, 2012 Applies to all patents related to financial services but excludes technological inventions More likely than not that at least 1 claim is unpatentable Petitioner sued or charged with infringement Any invalidity ground Narrow: Raised (USPTO and Civil) or reasonably could have raised (USPTO)
45 Inter Partes Review vs. Inter Partes Reexam Aspect Inter Partes Review (AIA) Inter Partes Reexam Timing for filing Barred by action/inaction After the later of closing of 9 month PGR window (or termination of PGR) Barred if: (1) Petitioner earlier filed DJ suit; or (2) Petition filed > 1 year after service Any time NA Grounds Patents and printed publications Same Threshold Reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail on at least one claim Same Tribunal PTAB Patent Trial and Appeals Board CRU Central Reexamination Unit Duration Fast. Conclusion within one year of commencement (+6 months for cause) Slow. Open ended Appeal From PTAB to Federal Circuit From CRU to PTAB, then to Federal Circuit Estoppel Immediately after PTAB final written determination Only after final decision (all appeals exhausted)
46 Post Grant Review vs. Inter Partes Review Post Grant Review ( ) Inter Partes Review ( ) When Within 9months of issuance or reissue of patent Basis Any ground of invalidity (not just patents or publications) Threshold More likely than not that at least 1 claim is unpatentable After 9 months of issuance or reissue of patent, BUT before civil allegation of invalidity, and not more than 1 year after being served Only prior art patents or printed publications Reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail on at least 1 claim Who Any person, other than the patent owner Must identify all real parties in interest (no anonymous submissions) Phase in PTO may limit number of PGRs/IPRs for first 4 years after enactment ( ) Other procedures Patentee may respond (deadline to be determined) PTO issues preliminary response w/in 3 months of patentee statement, or lapse of patentee s window Completion w/in one year after institution (+ six month extension for good cause) Limited discovery allowable (to be addressed by PTO regulations) Patentee may amend claims, but amendments cannot expand claims or add new matter Conducted by new Patent Trial & Appeal Board, and appealable to Federal Circuit Preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) standard applies May be settled by parties
47 Post Grant Review Comparison to Oppositions Aspect U.S. Post Grant Review EPO Oppositions Commencement Window 9 months from issuance 9 months from issuance Estoppel Challenger estopped from raising art in district court that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in PGR Prior art raised in the opposition is available in a later invalidity proceeding Duration 1 year (+ 6month extension for good cause) Typically years Discovery Some discovery may be allowed No discovery Consolidation if multiple challengers Director may consolidate Consolidated Settlement Can be settled Opposition proceedings may be continued by the EPO on its own motion
48 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation II. Evolution Moving from Rules to Practice A. Stays of Co pending District Court Likely B. Newness is Abolished PTAB is a Willing Audience C. Petitions Constructions and Patent Owner Preliminary Response D. Petitions The Redundancy Doctrine III. E. Routine and Additional Discovery Requests Scrutinized Background Materials Statistics on IPR/CBM More robust review of USPTO tools Other Resources 48
49 Post Grant for Practitioners F&R Webinars Where? see invitation How often? monthly When? 2 nd Wednesday Topics? Important decisions Developments Practice tips 49
50 Initial Post Grant Webinar Series In an earlier 7 part webinar series titled Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO, we explored details regarding several of the post grant tools, with 3 sessions dedicated to Inter Partes Review (IPR), and a final session walking through several hypotheticals, to help listeners understand how these apply to common situations. Audio and slides for these webinars are posted online at: grant webinar series/ If you listen to these webinars, you will be well positioned to engage in a conversation over whether and when to use those tools and how to defend against them. 50
51 Resources F&R web sites: Post Grant for Practitioners: grant for practitioners/ General: grant practice/ IPR: services post grant ipreview/ PGR: services post grant pgreview/ Rules governing post grant: grant practice/ USPTO sites: AIA Main: Inter Partes: 51
52 Thank you from the Fish & Richardson Post Grant Team! Karl Renner, DC Special thanks to Dorothy Whelan (Practice Co chair), Adam Shartzer, and Josh Pond, for contributions. 52
Post-Grant for Practitioners
Part XII: Inter Partes Review Highlights From the First Year+ Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner Principals and Co-Chairs of Post-Grant Practice Webinar Series January 8, 2014 Agenda @FishPostGrant I. Overview
More informationInter Partes Review: A New Tool for Challenging Patent Validity. Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner
Inter Partes Review: A New Tool for Challenging Patent Validity By Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner Principals and Co-Chairs of Post-Grant Practice, Fish & Richardson Gwilym Attwell Principal, Fish & Richardson
More informationPart V: Derivation & Post Grant Review
Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review Presented By: Karl Renner, Sam Woodley & Irene Hudson Fish & Richardson AIA Webinar Series Date March
More informationStrategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform
Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform October 11, 2011 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249 (technical name of the bill) on June
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Trial Practice
Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant
More informationInter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check
Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Wab Kadaba Chris Durkee January 8, 2014 2013 Kilpatrick Townsend Agenda I. IPR / CBM Overview II. Current IPR / CBM Filings III. Lessons
More informationPresentation to SDIPLA
Presentation to SDIPLA Anatomy of an IPR Trial by Andrea G. Reister Chair, Patent Office and Advisory Practice Covington & Burling LLP February 20, 2014 Outline 1. Overview 2. Preliminary Phase 3. Decision
More informationInter Partes Review Part I: Pretrial
Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Inter Partes Review Part I: Pretrial Presented By: Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Co-Chairs of Post
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck What is included in Post-Grant Reform in the U.S.? Some current procedures are modified and some new ones
More informationNew Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes
More informationCBM Eligibility and Reviewability
CBM Eligibility and Reviewability Karl Renner John Phillips Andrew Patrick Webinar Series March 12, 2014 Agenda #fishwebinar @FishPostGrant I. Overview of Webinar Series II. Statistics III. Covered Business
More informationInter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation
Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Debbie Gibson v. Tiffany
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Various Post-Grant Proceedings under AIA Ex parte reexamination Modified by AIA Sec. 6(h)(2) Continue to be available under AIA Inter partes reexamination
More informationAmerica Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings Wab Kadaba February 8, 2012 1 America Invents Act of 2011 Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011
More informationThe New Post-AIA World
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The New Post-AIA World New Ways to Challenge a US Patent or Patent Application Erika Arner FICPI ABC 2013 Conference New Orleans, LA 0 Third Party Patent
More informationAmerica Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012
America Invents Act Implementing Rules September 2012 AIA Rules (Part 2) Post Grant Review Inter Partes Review Section 18 Proceedings Derivation Proceedings Practice before the PTAB 2 Post Grant Review
More informationPROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)
I. Prior to AIA, there were two primary ways for a third party to invalidate a patent in the patent office: A. Interference under 35 U.S.C. 135 & 37 C.F.R. 41.202, which was extremely limited, as it required:
More informationFriend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Friend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Asserting rights are no longer the province of pencil-pushing technology companies. Many businesses, big and small
More informationThe America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011
The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents
More informationUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB Organization Statutory Members of the Board The Board is created by statute (35 U.S.C. 6). 35 U.S.C. 6(a) provides: There shall
More informationDiscovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act
2013 Korea-US IP Judicial Conference (IPJC) Seminar 1 Discovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act Nicholas Groombridge Discovery in District Court Litigations
More information2012 Winston & Strawn LLP
2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &
More informationPost-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO Erika Arner Advanced Patent Law Institute, Palo Alto, CA December 12, 2013 0 Post-Grant Proceedings New AIA proceedings
More informationInter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court
Inter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court Barbara A. Fiacco Duke Law Patent Institute May 14, 2013 Inter Partes Review 1 Overview Background: IPR by the numbers Standing/Privity
More informationPost-Grant for Practitioners. Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB Part II: "Paper" Witness Testimony. June 8, Steve Schaefer Principal
June 8, 2016 Post-Grant for Practitioners Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB Part II: "Paper" Witness Testimony Steve Schaefer Principal John Adkisson Principal Thomas Rozylowicz Principal Agenda #FishWebinar
More informationAIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions
AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions Christopher Persaud, J.D., M.B.A. Patent Agent/Consultant Patent Possibilities Tyler McAllister, J.D. Attorney at Law
More informationBCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer
BCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer Agenda Overview of AIA Post-Grant Approach More Lenses on Patents After Issuance Section 6 Post-Grant Review Proceedings
More informationFederal Circuit Review of Post-Grant Review-Related Proceedings
Federal Circuit Review of Post-Grant Review-Related Proceedings October 7, 2015 Attorney Advertising Speakers Greg Lantier Partner Intellectual Property Litigation Emily R. Whelan Partner Intellectual
More informationT he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
More informationHow To Fix The Amendment Fallacy
Intellectual Property How To Fix The Amendment Fallacy This article was originally published in Managing Intellectual Property on April 28, 2014 by Patrick Doody Patrick A. Doody Intellectual Property
More informationInter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger
Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger mofo.com Inter Partes Review Key distinctive features over inter partes reexamination: Limited Duration Limited Amendment by Patent
More informationChanges at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP
Changes at the PTO October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP Overview: Changes at the PTO Some Causes for Reform Patent Trial and Appeals
More informationAmerica Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition
America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition Dave Cochran Jones Day Cleveland December 6, 2012 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy
More informationIPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014
IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014 The Governing Statutes 35 U.S.C. 311(a) In General. Subject to the
More informationU.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act
February 16, 2012 Practice Groups: Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Litigation U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents
More informationIntersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing
Intersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing May 28, 2014 R. David Donoghue Holland & Knight LLP 131 South Dearborn
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Proceedings
Post-Grant Proceedings Are You Ready to Practice Before the New PTAB? Bryan K. Wheelock January 30, 2013 USPTO Post Grant Proceedings The AIA created three post grant proceedings for challenging the validity
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald Gibbs LeClairRyan December 2011 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationAIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP
AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr. LeClairRyan January 4 th 2012 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationPOST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP
POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction... 1 II. Post-Grant Review Proceedings... 1 A. Inter-Partes
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More informationKill Rate of the Patent Death Squad, and the Elusory Right to Amend in Post-Grant Reviews - Part I of II
Kill Rate of the Patent Death Squad, and the Elusory Right to Amend in Post-Grant Reviews - Part I of II By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Patent Review Processing System (PRPS)
More informationPatent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview
Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff David Dutcher Paul S. Hunter 2 Overview First-To-File (new 35 U.S.C. 102) Derivation Proceedings New Proceedings For Patent
More informationPreparing For The Obvious At The PTAB
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preparing For The Obvious At The PTAB Law360, New
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC, v. Plaintiff, MILLENIAL MEDIA, INC., Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION infringement of the asserted patents against
More informationAmendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/20/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-20227, and on FDsys.gov [3510-16-P] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United
More informationAmerica Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011
America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor
More informationDISCLAIMER PETITIONS FILED SalishanPatent Law Conference
For 2016 SalishanPatent Law Conference Enhancing The Possibilities Of Success For The Patent Owner In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons From PTAB Denials Of Institution by Deb Herzfeld Copyright Finnegan
More informationAre the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable?
April 2014 Are the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has before it the first appeal from the denial 1
More informationPolicies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform
Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform December 15, 2011 Speaker: Ron Harris The Harris Firm ron@harrispatents.com The USPTO Under Director David Kappos USPTO Director David Kappos
More informationFactors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016
Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016 MARY R. HENNINGER, PHD 404.891.1400 mary.henninger@mcneillbaur.com REBECCA M. MCNEILL 617.489.0002 rebecca.mcneill@mcneillbaur.com
More informationCase: 3:13-cv bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9
Case: 3:13-cv-00346-bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationPost-Grant Patent Proceedings
Post-Grant Patent Proceedings The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, established new post-grant proceedings available on or after September 16, 2012, for challenging the validity of
More informationThe Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings
The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Presented by: Gina Cornelio, Partner, Patent Clint Conner, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation June 20, 2018 The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Gina
More informationEllen Matheson. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 100)
Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 116 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:3544 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Ellen Matheson Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT
More informationThe Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO
The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous
More informationSession 1A: Preparing an IPR Petition Tips from a Petitioner Perspective
2014 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationPTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences 2015 National CLE Conference Friday, January 9, 2015 Presented by Denise
More informationBACK TO THE FUTURE Discovery at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
BACK TO THE FUTURE Discovery at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Oliver R. Ashe, Jr. ASHE, P.C. 11440 Isaac Newton Sq. North Suite 210 Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703-467-9001 Fax: 703-467-9002 www.ashepc.com
More informationNEW US PATENT CHALLENGE PROCEDURES PROMOTE GLOBAL HARMONISATION, BUT CASUALTIES RUN HIGH
NEW US PATENT CHALLENGE PROCEDURES PROMOTE GLOBAL HARMONISATION, BUT CASUALTIES RUN HIGH REPRINTED FROM: CORPORATE DISPUTES MAGAZINE APR-JUN 2016 ISSUE corporate CDdisputes Visit the website to request
More informationAIA: How U.S. PTO Proceedings. are Changing Patent Litigation. Post-Grant Review Under the. Practice. David Hoffman. James Babineau.
December 11, 2014 Post-Grant Review Under the AIA: How U.S. PTO Proceedings are Changing Patent Litigation Practice Matthew Wernli David Hoffman James Babineau Post-Grant Review Under the AIA Agenda I.
More informationA Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination
A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination Webinar Guidelines Participants are in listen-only mode Submit questions via the Q&A box on the bottom right panel
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file
More informationPresented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012
Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association May 23, 2012 Overview A. Most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law in over 60 years; signed into law Sept. 16,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 09, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk NEURO CARDIAC
More informationReal Parties and Privies in PTAB Trials. By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1
Real Parties and Privies in PTAB Trials By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 INTRODUCTION The America Invents Act (AIA) requires Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions to identify the real
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationPOST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER
POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD (PTAB) COMPOSITION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS APJ 2 PATENT
More informationConsiderations for the United States
Considerations for the United States Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm Leahy-Smith America Invents Act First Inventor to file, with grace period Derivation Actions Prior user
More informationJuly 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon
The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its
More informationProtecting Biopharmaceutical Innovation Litigation and Patent Office Procedures
Protecting Biopharmaceutical Innovation Litigation and Patent Office Procedures Janet Gongola, Senior Advisor Office of the Under Secretary and Director Janet.gongola@uspto.gov Direct dial: 571-272-8734
More informationPost-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review
January 10, 2018 Post-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review Karl Renner Principal and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chair Dorothy Whelan Principal and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chair 1 Overview #FishWebinar
More informationPost-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act
Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act Patrick A. Doody, Partner Northern Virginia Office America Invents Act (AIA) S 23 Senate Verison Passed the Senate in
More informationCurrent Developments in Inter Partes Review
Current Developments in Inter Partes Review Speakers: Peter Gergely, Merchant & Gould Current Developments Ryan Fletcher, Ph.D., Merchant & Gould Hot Topics Chris Davis, Merchant & Gould Trends and Statistics
More informationTerry Guerrero. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 23)
Case 8:12-cv-01661-JST-JPR Document 41 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1723 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Terry Guerrero Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
More informationMOTIONS TO AMEND IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PROCEEDINGS A QUICK REFERENCE
MOTIONS TO AMEND IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PROCEEDINGS A QUICK REFERENCE IIPI/BBNA AIA POST-GRANT PATENT PRACTICE CONFERENCE February 19-20, 2014 Christopher L. McKee, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. Statutory Basis:
More informationPaper No Entered: October 12, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9 571-272-7822 Entered: October 12, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD NETAPP INC., Petitioner, v. REALTIME DATA LLC, Patent
More informationPost-Grant for Practitioners. Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB (Part 1) May 11, Thomas Rozylowicz Principal. Steve Schaefer Principal
May 11, 2016 Post-Grant for Practitioners Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB (Part 1) Thomas Rozylowicz Principal Steve Schaefer Principal David Holt Associate Agenda #FishWebinar @FishPostGrant I. Overview
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HTC CORPORATION, et al., HTC CORPORATION, et al., KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., V. PLAINTIFF, KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., SAN JOSE DIVISION
More informationIntellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings
Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings By Ann Fort, Pete Pappas, Karissa Blyth, Robert Kohse and Steffan Finnegan The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created
More informationNewly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense
September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September
More informationNavigating the Limitations on Discovery in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal Volume XI December 3, 2015
Navigating the Limitations on Discovery in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal Volume XI December 3, 2015 MARY R. HENNINGER, PHD REBECCA M. MCNEILL AMELIA FEULNER BAUR,
More informationFactors Affecting Success of Stay Motions Pending Inter Partes & Covered Business Method Review
Factors Affecting Success of Stay Motions Pending Inter Partes & Covered Business Method Review Hosted by The Federal Circuit Bar Association October 21, 2016 Moderator: Kevin Hardy, Williams & Connolly
More informationDecember 17, 2018 Counsel for Amicus Curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association (Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)
No. 17-1594 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RETURN MAIL, INC., v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More informationSughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley 7/2/2012
Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley www.sughrue.com This presentation is for educational purposes only, and it does not provide legal advice or comment on the application of
More informationPaper No Entered: June 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 24 571.272.7822 Entered: June 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. CATR
More informationWilmerHale Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future
Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future June 21, 2017 David Cavanaugh, Partner, Christopher Noyes, Partner, Attorney Advertising Speakers David Cavanaugh Partner Christopher Noyes
More informationAIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Evolution of the Rules. Rachel A. Kahler, Ph.D. Patent Agent General Mills, Inc.
AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Evolution of the Rules Rachel A. Kahler, Ph.D. Patent Agent General Mills, Inc. Christopher B. Tokarczyk Attorney at Law Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC - 1 - I. Introduction
More informationPost-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues
Post-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues Grant Shackelford Sughrue Mion, PLLC 2018 1 Agenda Background: PTAB's partial institution practice SAS Decision Application of
More informationAre Patent Owners Given A Fair Fight? Investigating the AIA Trial Practices
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 30 Issue 4 Annual Review 2015 Article 4 11-29-2015 Are Patent Owners Given A Fair Fight? Investigating the AIA Trial Practices Ryan J. Gatzemeyer Follow this and
More informationWhat is Post Grant Review?
An Overview of the New Post Grant Review Proceedings at the USPTO Michael Griggs, Boyle Fredrickson May 15, 2015 What is Post Grant Review? Trial proceedings at the USPTO created by the America Invents
More informationHow To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes
More informationFenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice
Where Do We Go from Here? - An Analysis of Teva s Impact on IPR Practice and How the Federal Circuit Is Attempting to Limit the Impact of Teva By Rebecca Cavin, Suzanne Konrad, and Michael Abernathy, K&L
More informationPaper 23, IPR ; Paper 23, IPR Entered: February 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 25, IPR2014-00946; 571.272.7822 Paper 23, IPR2014-00947; Paper 23, IPR2014-00948 Entered: February 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND
More informationTrends From 2 Years Of AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Trends From 2 Years Of AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
More informationPost-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus
Post-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus I. CHALLENGING PATENT VALIDITY AT THE PTO VIA POST-GRANT REVIEW, INTER PARTES REVIEW, BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW, AND REEXAMINATION
More informationPaper Entered: May 16, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 54 571.272.7822 Entered: May 16, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD POLYGROUP LIMITED (MCO), Petitioner, v. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY,
More information