9 thoughts on “Strategic use by VCs, others, of IPR proceedings?”
9
It’s a shame that you are repeating your claptrap over on the main blog pages Ned and that I am blocked there from calling you on the carpet.
One of your more egregious:
“Regarding business methods, the problem is they are not eligible.”:
Cite please. Your statement is indefensible. Period. Have you forgotten already how I defeated your attempt to pin this notion to Bilski? (with your own source on the difference between Holding and Dicta, no less).
8
I’ll take a look – it sounds like they’re playing by the rules but those rules may need to be changed!
7
David, if Apple actually formed the LLC to file the late IPR they may have been relying on prior Board decision on “privity” that essentially allows this kind of slight of hand. Have you read the petition for mandamus filed by MCM?
Take a look at Chi Mei Innolux v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., IPR2013-00028, Decision to Institute, Paper 14 (Mar. 21, 2013)
The Petitioner’s corporate predecessors were sued and served. Denied because of “lack of control” of the predecessor’s defense of the lawsuit.
6
Yes.
5
Ned,
Doesn’t this go to your position on why scire facias was eliminated long ago?
4
I don’t know (not saying it’s one way or the other — I’d have to really think) whether this info would have to be disclosed — and so don’t know whether, or not, the PTO should look into it.
BUT the PTO should look into this potential enormous loophole/problem
3
I see. You are barred by 315(b) from bringing an IPR. Solution, form a new LLC to file it, then join.
I would note, David, that lead IPRs counsel have to be patent attorneys and the rules require them to be “honest” to the extent of providing full disclosure of potentially harmful information. There are rules for sanctions for violations.
Now, given the fishy circumstances involving the late-filing company and its LLC, do you think the PTO should at least investigate a potential violation of its ethical rules?
2
Exactly. I love creative lawyering, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it!
1
The law of unintended consequences (or is it unintended) wherein more (not less) machinations are possible…
It’s a shame that you are repeating your claptrap over on the main blog pages Ned and that I am blocked there from calling you on the carpet.
One of your more egregious:
“Regarding business methods, the problem is they are not eligible.”:
Cite please. Your statement is indefensible. Period. Have you forgotten already how I defeated your attempt to pin this notion to Bilski? (with your own source on the difference between Holding and Dicta, no less).
I’ll take a look – it sounds like they’re playing by the rules but those rules may need to be changed!
David, if Apple actually formed the LLC to file the late IPR they may have been relying on prior Board decision on “privity” that essentially allows this kind of slight of hand. Have you read the petition for mandamus filed by MCM?
Take a look at Chi Mei Innolux v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., IPR2013-00028, Decision to Institute, Paper 14 (Mar. 21, 2013)
The Petitioner’s corporate predecessors were sued and served. Denied because of “lack of control” of the predecessor’s defense of the lawsuit.
Yes.
Ned,
Doesn’t this go to your position on why scire facias was eliminated long ago?
I don’t know (not saying it’s one way or the other — I’d have to really think) whether this info would have to be disclosed — and so don’t know whether, or not, the PTO should look into it.
BUT the PTO should look into this potential enormous loophole/problem
I see. You are barred by 315(b) from bringing an IPR. Solution, form a new LLC to file it, then join.
I would note, David, that lead IPRs counsel have to be patent attorneys and the rules require them to be “honest” to the extent of providing full disclosure of potentially harmful information. There are rules for sanctions for violations.
Now, given the fishy circumstances involving the late-filing company and its LLC, do you think the PTO should at least investigate a potential violation of its ethical rules?
Exactly. I love creative lawyering, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it!
The law of unintended consequences (or is it unintended) wherein more (not less) machinations are possible…
Comments are closed.