Comments for Patents Post Grant Blog http://www.patentspostgrant.com Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:02:17 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 Comment on Deal Appears Imminent on Patent Reform Legislation by staff http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/02/deal-appears-imminent-on-patent-reform-legislation/comment-page-1#comment-391 staff Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:02:17 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=1502#comment-391 Patent reform is a fraud on America. It is patently un-American. Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform. Patent reform is a fraud on America. It is patently un-American.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

]]> Comment on Seeking a Stay of Patent Litigation: A Factors-Based Analysis by Scott A. McKeown http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/02/seeking-a-stay-of-patent-litigation-a-factors-based-analysis/comment-page-1#comment-258 Scott A. McKeown Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:09:22 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=1228#comment-258 Scott D., (too many scott's here today) I don't necessarily disagree, however, seems to me that many courts are pro-stay for selfish reasons. Whether it is a heavy docket, or just a general aversion for patent cases, there is very little rhyme or reason to some decisions (N.D. CA) comes to mind. Also, the varying claim interprtation standards may affect a court's ability to truly judge the strength of an SNQ. Likewise, court review of such issues could further aggravate the prior art stacking already a problem in most inter partes cases. Still, I would agree that some type of further merit based analysis is in order. Scott D., (too many scott’s here today)

I don’t necessarily disagree, however, seems to me that many courts are pro-stay for selfish reasons. Whether it is a heavy docket, or just a general aversion for patent cases, there is very little rhyme or reason to some decisions (N.D. CA) comes to mind. Also, the varying claim interprtation standards may affect a court’s ability to truly judge the strength of an SNQ. Likewise, court review of such issues could further aggravate the prior art stacking already a problem in most inter partes cases. Still, I would agree that some type of further merit based analysis is in order.

]]> Comment on Seeking a Stay of Patent Litigation: A Factors-Based Analysis by Scott Daniels http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/02/seeking-a-stay-of-patent-litigation-a-factors-based-analysis/comment-page-1#comment-257 Scott Daniels Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:21:33 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=1228#comment-257 The unsettling aspect of this piece is that it is an accurate summary of the District Court case law on stays. Stay decisions recite the familiar list of factors that judges consider in making their decisions on whether to wait for PTO resolution of a reexamination, and yet the decisions vary so much from judge to judge. What's needed is a comprehensive analysis of the effect that reexamination has on litigation, so that stay decisions will be more consistent. One factor that deserves greater consideration, in my view, is the strength of the SNQs proposed by the requester -- just as judges focus on the patentee's "likelihood of success on the merits" in the context of a preliminary injunction motion. Clearly, where the proposed SNQs are weak, the adverse effect of a stay on litigation is unfortunate, and but where the SNQs are strong, the effect can be quite positive. Thank you, Scott, for your good story. Scott Daniels Westerman Hattori Daniels & Adrian The unsettling aspect of this piece is that it is an accurate summary of the District Court case law on stays. Stay decisions recite the familiar list of factors that judges consider in making their decisions on whether to wait for PTO resolution of a reexamination, and yet the decisions vary so much from judge to judge.

What’s needed is a comprehensive analysis of the effect that reexamination has on litigation, so that stay decisions will be more consistent. One factor that deserves greater consideration, in my view, is the strength of the SNQs proposed by the requester — just as judges focus on the patentee’s “likelihood of success on the merits” in the context of a preliminary injunction motion. Clearly, where the proposed SNQs are weak, the adverse effect of a stay on litigation is unfortunate, and but where the SNQs are strong, the effect can be quite positive.

Thank you, Scott, for your good story.

Scott Daniels
Westerman Hattori Daniels & Adrian

]]> Comment on BPAI Reexamination Appeals Statistics for FY 09 by Corrin Drakulich http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2009/12/bpai-reexamination-appeals-statistics-for-fy-09/comment-page-1#comment-243 Corrin Drakulich Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:49:02 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=521#comment-243 Can you please give me the source of the following data? I would LOVE to cite this: "The pendency of BPAI decided appeals from inter partes reexamination filing date was 67.3 months up 16.4 months from FY 08." Thanks! Can you please give me the source of the following data? I would LOVE to cite this:

“The pendency of BPAI decided appeals from inter partes reexamination filing date was 67.3 months up 16.4 months from FY 08.”

Thanks!

]]> Comment on The Rambus Patent Rexaminations by Tweets that mention Do the Rambus Patent Reexaminations Even Matter? | Patents Post Grant Blog -- Topsy.com http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/02/are-the-rambus-patent-rexaminations-irrelevant/comment-page-1#comment-218 Tweets that mention Do the Rambus Patent Reexaminations Even Matter? | Patents Post Grant Blog -- Topsy.com Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:04:54 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=1064#comment-218 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by grantsnow247, Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray said: Patent Do the Rambus Patent Reexaminations Even Matter? | Patents Post ...: Is USPTO on the verge of delivering ... http://bit.ly/aesFym IP [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by grantsnow247, Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray said: Patent Do the Rambus Patent Reexaminations Even Matter? | Patents Post …: Is USPTO on the verge of delivering … http://bit.ly/aesFym IP [...]

]]> Comment on Patent Office Releases 2009 Reexamination Stats by Litigation Drives Demand for Patent Reexamination | Patents Post … Litigation just to Me http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/01/patent-office-releases-2009-reexamination-stats/comment-page-1#comment-154 Litigation Drives Demand for Patent Reexamination | Patents Post … Litigation just to Me Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:17:46 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=993#comment-154 [...] here to read the rest: Litigation Drives Demand for Patent Reexamination | Patents Post … tags: are-known, continued, inter-partes, office, statistics-indicate, the-continued, [...] [...] here to read the rest: Litigation Drives Demand for Patent Reexamination | Patents Post … tags: are-known, continued, inter-partes, office, statistics-indicate, the-continued, [...]

]]> Comment on Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation? (Part II of IV) by Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation … Litigation just to Me http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/01/is-evidence-of-a-concurrent-reexamination-admissible-in-litigation-part-ii-of-iv/comment-page-1#comment-143 Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation … Litigation just to Me Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:31:35 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=964#comment-143 [...] the rest here:  Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation … tags: afforded-leverage, alaskan, alaskan-eskimo, are-forcing, business-group, [...] [...] the rest here:  Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation … tags: afforded-leverage, alaskan, alaskan-eskimo, are-forcing, business-group, [...]

]]> Comment on Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation? (Part I of IV) by Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation? (Part II of IV) | Patents Post Grant Blog http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2010/01/is-evidence-of-a-concurrent-reexamination-admissible-in-litigation/comment-page-1#comment-140 Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation? (Part II of IV) | Patents Post Grant Blog Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:38:17 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=858#comment-140 [...] Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation? (Part II of IV) Posted On: Jan. 27, 2010   By: Robert C. Mattson and Lindsay J. Kile Topics: Concurrent Proceedings, Reexamination [...] [...] Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation? (Part II of IV) Posted On: Jan. 27, 2010   By: Robert C. Mattson and Lindsay J. Kile Topics: Concurrent Proceedings, Reexamination [...]

]]> Comment on Is The Estoppel Effect of Inter Partes Reexamination a Valid Deterrent to Filing? (PART 2 OF 2) by To Search or Not to Search (for prior art) When Contemplating Whether to Provoke an Interference | Patents Post Grant Blog http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2009/12/is-the-estoppel-effect-of-inter-partes-reexamination-a-valid-deterrent-to-filing-part-2-of-2/comment-page-1#comment-127 To Search or Not to Search (for prior art) When Contemplating Whether to Provoke an Interference | Patents Post Grant Blog Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:03:31 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=610#comment-127 [...] a prior blog entry, we discussed why it is important to conduct a thorough prior art search prior to filing a request [...] [...] a prior blog entry, we discussed why it is important to conduct a thorough prior art search prior to filing a request [...]

]]> Comment on Is the Mere Existence of a Newly Filed Inter Partes Reexamination Request Enough to Stay a District Court Litigation? by Forum Shopping for Patent Reexamination? | Patents Post Grant Blog http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2009/12/is-the-mere-existence-of-a-newly-filed-inter-partes-reexamination-request-enough-to-stay-a-district-court-litigation/comment-page-1#comment-68 Forum Shopping for Patent Reexamination? | Patents Post Grant Blog Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:11:59 +0000 http://www.patentspostgrant.com/?p=644#comment-68 [...] recent posts, we have discussed the Northern District of California’s surprising stay of a patent infringement suit in view of an undecided reexamination request.  Likewise, our [...] [...] recent posts, we have discussed the Northern District of California’s surprising stay of a patent infringement suit in view of an undecided reexamination request.  Likewise, our [...]

]]>