Invalidating patent claims
What happens to the rest of the claims in the Patent?Can the patentee still assert the rest of the claims, say Claims 2,4,5,7-10, which were not part of the litigation in the Federal litigation?Requests for reexamination are often filed by third parties, who are already involved in an infringement lawsuit concerning the patent at issue.By filing for a reexamination, such parties seek to invalidate the patent while keeping legal fees low. Selector .selector_input_interaction .selector_input. Selector .selector_input_interaction .selector_spinner. Selector .selector_results_container.hover_menu.hover_menu:before,.hover_menu:after.hover_menu.show_nub:before.hover_menu.show_nub:after.hover_menu.show_nub.white_bg:after.hover_menu .hover_menu_contents.hover_menu.white_bg .hover_menu_contents. After a period of high invalidation rates, especially when compared to international jurisdictions, 2016 may see fewer PTAB-invalidated patents, indicating that the post-issuance proceedings may finally be filling the role envisioned for them and further aligning U. NPEs have grown from a cottage industry into the source of the majority of all patent litigation in the United States. This decision, coupled with PTAB proceedings, has led to patent invalidations at a rate that gives pause to even the most outspoken critics of patent quality and "patent trolls." A comparison between PTAB proceedings and their equivalents in other major jurisdictions reveals that the high invalidation rate is unique to the U. While IPR, CBM and PGR procedures are similar in form and substance, each has a somewhat different aim.Importantly, PGR is available only for patents filed after March 2013 under the "first-to-file" system.
For more information, contact the Barnes & Thornburg attorney with whom you work or a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property Law Department in the following offices: Atlanta (404-846-1693), Chicago (312-357-1313), Columbus (614-628-0096), Dallas (214-258-4200), Delaware (302-300-3434), Elkhart (574-293-0681), Fort Wayne (260-423-9440), Grand Rapids (616-742-3930), Indianapolis (317-236-1313), Los Angeles (310-284-3880), Minneapolis (612-333-2111), South Bend (574-233-1171), Washington, D. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.The standard the PTAB is required to use, according to the USPTO, in reviewing these claim constructions is the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) claim construction standard. Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor dissented on this issue by concluding the PTAB’s decision to grant IPR review cannot be immediately appealed, but after the proceeding the PTAB’s findings should be subject to court review. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.Cuozzo was the first company to have its already-issued patent canceled in an IPR proceeding, and it argued the PTAB’s standard of review should align with the more narrow standard used by district courts; the “plain and ordinary meaning” of a claim term construction. The court did, however, comment that Cuozzo’s claim neither implicated a constitutional question nor challenged the interpretation as reaching beyond the statute’s section regarding scope and impact; both situations where judicial review could be warranted. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.Unlike IPR, PGR has a limited window of availability and applies only to newer patents.A PGR must be initiated within nine months of a patent's grant or reissue, and it can only be initiated by a party that has not previously challenged the patent civilly.