Arguments in Claim Charts Continue to Plague Petitions

Posted on by

In Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc., IPR2014-01338, Paper 3, IPR2014-01339, Paper 3, IPR2014-01340, Paper 3, and  IPR2014-01341, Paper 3 (September 2, 2014), the Board accorded the petitions a filing date, but objected to the claim charts, because each contained arguments. The Board provided some examples of these “arguments” including saying “To the extent that . . .” and “For the reasons described above . . .” and “well-known methods  . . .”.

 

This entry was posted in Inter Partes Review by Bryan Wheelock. Bookmark the permalink.

About Bryan Wheelock

Education J.D., Washington University in St. Louis B.S.E. in Mechanical Engineering, Duke University Bryan Wheelock's practice includes preparation and prosecution of patent and trademark applications and drafting of intellectual property agreements, including non-compete agreements. He has brought and defended lawsuits in federal and state courts relating to intellectual property and has participated in seizures of counterfeit and infringing goods. Bryan prepares and prosecutes U.S. and foreign patent applications for medical devices, mechanical and electromechanical devices, manufacturing machinery and processes, metal alloys and other materials. He also does a substantial amount of patentability searching, trademark availability searching and patent and trademark infringement studies. In addition to his practice at Harness Dickey, Bryan is an Adjunct Professor at Washington University School of Law and Washington University School of Engineering.