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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility »

August 24, 2015

Comments

Re: "There is no statistic in the Director's link to a more detailed description of the data regarding the correlation between petitions being denied and the patentee exercising its right to challenge the petition by filing a Preliminary Response..But logic suggests that the Board might be less likely to grant a petition if the patentee gave them reasons not to do so."
Indeed, and I had that same argument with some of the many patent attorneys who I think wrongly counseled clients against filing preliminary responses to reexamination requests.
[Even though I question the 42% IPR petition denial statistic, and wonder how many were technical/procedural objections overcome by timely IPR re-filings?]

BTW, since IPR petition denials cannot be appealed, that dodges the tough issue of whether an IPR petition filed by a short seller of the patent owner companies stock can be sanctioned by the PTAB for just that reason, as to these two petitions. [But not others.]
But is it possible that the SEC or FTC was also waiting to see if these widely-noted petitions were denied as lacking adequate invalidity ground merits?

Paul: there were many pretty drawings and graphs linked to the Director's blog but none of the info you mention. It might be good to dig deeper into these stats if they are to be found somewhere on the PTO website.

I would say that it might be harder to sanction a short seller if the petitions were granted, because then there would be basis for filing sanctioned by the Board. When last I looked the SEC and FTC had no basis for any action against the Coalition or anyone else.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2017

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