Monthly Archives: November 2013

Differing Approaches to Stays of Co-Pending Litigation

By Griffin Mesmer The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) is quickly becoming a popular forum for parties who have been accused of patent infringement.  A defendant can challenge the validity of an asserted patent by filing a petition … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, District Court, Inter Partes Review, Stays, USPTO | Tagged , , ,

PTAB Nixes Presentation of Video-Recorded Testimony at Oral Hearing as New Evidence

By Tom Engellenner The new AIA procedures for administratively challenging issued patents afford the parties an opportunity to present their cases at a “final oral hearing” before the three Administrative Patent Judge panel that will decide the case.  This is … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Anticipation/Obvious, Covered Business Methods, Experts, Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Review, PTAB Procedure, Trial Tactics, USPTO | Tagged , , , , , ,

What is Inconsistent Information and When Must Such Information be Disclosed?

By Kelly E. Rose As we’ve previously discussed, the inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) procedures in the USPTO allow for parties to take discovery.  Specifically, Rule 42.51 enumerates the permitted categories of discovery, including: (a) mandatory … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Anticipation/Obvious, Covered Business Methods, Experts, Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Review, PTAB Procedure, Trial Tactics, USPTO | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,