What Should A Jury Be Told About A Concurent PTO Trial?

By Anthony Pisano Patent owners enforcing their rights who seek to exclude testimony about a pending administrative challenge to the patent-in-suit may face a Hobson’s choice – at least in Nevada. Particularly, the price for excluding evidence of pending administrative challenges to a patent may be a loss of the presumption of the patent’s validity … Continue reading What Should A Jury Be Told About A Concurent PTO Trial?

Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen? – PTAB Puts Parallel Reviews By Central Reexam Unit on Hold

By Ben Snitkoff The regulations implementing Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), as well as Post-Grant Review (“PGR”), allow the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to join or stay certain proceedings by motion or sua sponte. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (IPR), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.222 (PGR). This provision seems to make a good deal … Continue reading Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen? – PTAB Puts Parallel Reviews By Central Reexam Unit on Hold

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 Group, Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper 70 (June 11, 2013), the PTAB found Versata’s patent claims ineligible … Continue reading PTAB Renders Its First Decision