About PostGrant-Counsel.com
PostGrant-Counsel.com is published by members of Pepper Hamilton LLP's patent review team. With backgrounds in patent prosecution and litigation across many industries, the team members concentrate their practices on challenging and defending patents after they have been issued, e.g., in inter partes review and the soon-to-be-implemented “post-grant” review as well as in corresponding proceedings in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. This experience enables the team to provide clients with counseling, advice and representation when they are contemplating a challenge to an issued patent – or when they may need to defend their own patent against a post-grant challenge.Subscribe Via RSS
Subscribe by E-mail
Suggest A Topic
Blogroll
-
Recent Posts
- PTAB Abandons its Practice of Broadly Interpreting Claims of Challenged Patents in favor of Phillips Standard of “Ordinary and Customary Meaning”
- Attorney General’s Office May Weigh In on Constitutionality of IPRs involving Pre-AIA Patents
- CAFC Reverses PTAB on §315(b) Petition Time Bar Interpretation
- CAFC Affirms PTAB’s Decision That Printed Matter Doctrine Can Be Used In Claim Construction
- Once The Federal Circuit Affirms A PTAB Finding Of Invalidity, Collateral Estoppel Prevents Patent Owner From Asserting The Claims In Any Further Proceeding
Past Posts
- October 2018 (1)
- September 2018 (1)
- August 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (2)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (1)
- February 2018 (1)
- January 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (2)
- September 2017 (1)
- August 2017 (2)
- July 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- October 2016 (1)
- September 2016 (1)
- August 2016 (1)
- July 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (2)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (2)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (3)
- December 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (3)
- April 2015 (3)
- January 2015 (1)
- December 2014 (1)
- November 2014 (1)
- October 2014 (1)
- August 2014 (1)
- July 2014 (2)
- June 2014 (1)
- May 2014 (1)
- April 2014 (1)
- February 2014 (5)
- January 2014 (4)
- December 2013 (1)
- November 2013 (3)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (4)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (7)
- June 2013 (5)
- May 2013 (5)
____________________
Category Archives: Patent Eligible Subject Matter
CAFC Affirms PTAB’s Decision That Printed Matter Doctrine Can Be Used In Claim Construction
By Reza Mollaaghababa In an inter partes review proceeding, a challenger cannot raise patent-eligibility as a ground of invalidity. Rather, the invalidity grounds are limited to lack of novelty and obviousness. Notwithstanding, in construing claim terms, the PTAB can decide … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Anticipation/Obvious, Appeals, Claim Construction, Court of Appeals Fed Circuit, Federal Circuit, Mental Steps Doctrine, Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Printed Matter Doctrine, USPTO
Tagged anticipation, claim construction, Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, Federal Circuit, IPR, Mallinckrodt, obviousness, Praxaire, Printed Matter Doctrine, PTAB
PTAB Rejects Covered Business Method Claims
By Ben Snitkoff On January 21, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued its second Final Written Decision in a Covered Business Method (CBM) Proceeding under the America Invents Act. CBM Proceedings allow for the review of a business … Continue reading
PTAB Renders Its First Decision
By Tom Engellenner On June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rendered its first decision in a case under the new AIA procedures for administratively contesting patents. In the case of SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Covered Business Methods, District Court, Federal Circuit, Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Post Grant Review, Trial Tactics, USPTO
Tagged AIA, America Invents Act, claim construction, collateral estoppel, Covered Business Methods, finality of judgments, inter partes review, res judicata, SAP, trial practice, USPTO, Versata
