Judge Hudson (E.D. Va.) Agrees with Google that Prosecution Bar Should Cover CBM

The June 2, 2014 order in Buysafe v. Google is here.  I expect there to continue to be lots of litigation over the scope of existing bars, and whether new ones should include CBM/IPR/ABCDEFG.

My article on prosecution bars should be out by now…

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

7 thoughts on “Judge Hudson (E.D. Va.) Agrees with Google that Prosecution Bar Should Cover CBM

  1. 4

    David, I suspect this would argue for two expert witnesses, one for infringement and one for validity. This way, the same validity expert could testify in both proceedings.

    Really, really imposes a major burden on the patent owner.

    1. 4.1

      Why would you need different expert witnesses?

      would they be involved in the shielded information?

  2. 3

    Did not like “we would have to pay two sets of counsel” argument.

    What? the existing counsel would do the second set of work for free…?

    1. 3.1

      anon, it really has to do with all the work any counsel has to do to get up to speed on a patent.

  3. 2

    Good question. The information flow obviously would not be able to include CBI from the litigation lawyer to the IPR lawyer. But even involving the litigation lawyer creates some risk for misuse of information. In that regard, it is important to understand that these bars are put in place only when the usual “use this information only for this lawsuit, and nothing else” is insufficient. So, any involvement would create, I suspect, some misuse issues, at least if it went into the merits very much, rather than simply logistics, etc. Fun.

  4. 1

    David, if there are two sets of counsel, litigation/IPR, what limits are there on communication between the two?

Comments are closed.