E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Court Report »

March 16, 2014

Comments

In considering Board IPR invalidity statistics, would it not also be important to objectively examine how much better the prior art cited by the IPR requester [presumably the result of a very extensive and expensive prior art search] is, as compared to the prior art considered in the original examination? [An original application examiner would normally have only a few hours of search time, much less the claim charts for detailed analysis of the best art available provided in an IPR.]
The Fed. Cir. reversal rate of ex parte Board unpatentability decisions has been quite low. It will be interesting to see if there really will be a dramatic differences in Fed. Cir. appeals of IPR decisions, especially those in which the patent owner has presented effective evidence of unobviousness. Nor can valid IPR statistical comparisons be drawn vis a vis lay jury decisions made under a "clear and convincing evidence" burden and a presumption of validity.
I have not yet seen specific examples in which the additional difference of BRI claim interpretation would have clearly made a statistical difference? [Even BRI requires consideration of application prosecution history estoppels for claim interpretation.] I hope that someone will provide demonstrations of that BRI result difference, because it is the subject of a pending legislative proposal claiming that alone could be an IPR result difference "cure".]

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31