Archived Podcasts page 3 -

Archived Podcasts

The Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, hosted each week by Craige Thompson (a.k.a., “The Examiner Whisperer”) contains substantive discussion designed to keep you current with what’s going on in the world of patents, encompassing everything from patent prosecution and re-examination to patent licensing and litigation.


EPISODE 23  

The Examiner Whisperer

 Ex Parte Mewherter

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, inventors use the phrase "machine readable storage medium" in their software claim. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board explored the limits of that claim, clarifying what is and is not patentable subject matter. In this case, the inventor's claim was rejected. Craige also talks about how this decision touches on litigation quality patent practice pointers regarding intended use limitation in claims, and how to properly show possession of software claims to meet the written description requirements.

Craige's special guest is Tawfiq Ali, a business litigation attorney with the Ali Law Practice in Chicago.


EPISODE 23  

The Examiner Whisperer

Ex Parte Antor Media

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, Craige warns patent owners facing reexamination procedures to beware of picking the wrong patent counsel! As you're about to hear, choosing counsel lacking experience in overcoming obviousness rejections, in a post KSR world, is a recipe for disastrous consequences. Craige also offers Litigation Quality Patent tips and guidance on how patent owners can check out the capabilities of their reexamination counsel.

Craige's special guest is Richard Bragg, a Patent Attorney practicing in the Minneapolis area.


EPISODE 24  

The Examiner Whisperer

Pronova v. Teva

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, do you want to know how to do your claim to a patent? Try sending samples of a product before the patent gets filed. Today, Craige examines the case where an invalidating public use, sent this fish oil patent into cardiac arrest.

Craige's special guest is, Tawfiq Ali, an experienced business litigation attorney with the Ali Law Practice in Chicago.


EPISODE 25  

The Examiner Whisperer

Skinmedica v. Histogen 

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, discussion concerns claim construction. Patent litigation is often won or lost in claim construction. The use of a single phrase or even a single word, can turn the tables for or against you. Today's case is a prime example because in a split decision, with the Chief Justice dissenting, the federal circuit reached for a narrow claim construction. Craige talks about how patent specifications can be made clear and unambiguous so to avoid expensive and unnecessary fights over claim construction, as seen in this battle.


EPISODE 26  

The Examiner Whisperer

Network Signatures v. State Farm

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, a patent owner fails to pay a maintenance fee on time and then gets a call from a potential licensee. Can the patent be successfully revived? Today's case recently happened, resulting in a patent attorney getting slapped with a charge of inequitable conduct, for filing a petition for revival due to unintentional delay. Craige offers help, explaining a system the patent owner can use to safely manage a portfolio. He also explains the best practice for patent attorneys to avoid the pain and litigation expenses resulting from charges of inequitable conduct.

Craige's special guests are, Richard Bragg, a Patent Attorney practicing in the Minneapolis area and Dr. John Leighton, an associate attorney at Thompson Patent Law.


EPISODE 27

The Examiner Whisperer

 Rambus V. Rea

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, Craige talks about a case where the Patent Office, in an Inter Partes re-examination, rejected a technology patent by correctly construing most claim terms but improperly ignoring evidence of industry praise and licensing. The federal circuit reviewed the case and upheld the anticipation rejections, but reversed the obviousness rejections. This federal circuit decision continued the trend of emphasizing the importance of objective evidence of non-obviousness.

Craige's special guests are, Richard Bragg, a Patent Attorney practicing in the Minneapolis area, Mike Heinrich, an attorney and consultant in engineering and intellectual property areas and Dr. John Leighton, an associate attorney at Thompson Patent Law.


EPISODE 28  

The Examiner Whisperer   

Keurig v. Sturm Foods   

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, discussion bears on any consumer product with a consumable or disposable member to it. But why did a company bring suit for inducing infringement instead of asserting their patent rights directly? Maybe because their patents were dubious or too narrow to begin with. They lost...through an interesting combination of the principles of patent exhaustion and the type of claim they tried to justify.

Guest-hosting this episode for a traveling Craige is Dr. John Leighton, associate attorney with Thompson Patent Law. Joining him is special guest Mike Heinrich, an attorney and consultant in Engineering and Intellectual Property areas.


EPISODE 29  

The Examiner Whisperer

​Ibormeith v. Mercedes Daimler   

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation QualityPatents® Podcast, the decision by the Federal Circuit puts an end to a patent case that survived re-examination andwas brought by the Niro firm which is renowned for representing clients that some call - affectionately or otherwise - "patent trolls." Craige examines a "Mercedes" defense to means plus function claims directed to waking up sleepy drivers! The luxury car makers snuffed out a claim as indefinite because the inventors tried to make it all things to all sleepy drivers.

Joining the conversation is Michael Heinrich, a patent attorney practicing in the Minneapolis area.


EPISODE 30  

The Examiner Whisperer  

​Synthes v. Spinal

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, claims are torn apart when the patent owner tries to stretch them too far to reach a competitor's product. Even when a patent discloses a groove in a plate, the patent owner can't always cover a product that has a hole in the plate, at least not in this medical device. Craige offers help by drawing lessons about written description - especially how a few minutes of quality thinking on the front end can make a patent either a boom or a bust.

Joining the conversation this week are Dr. John Leighton, associate attorney with Thompson Patent Law, and Richard Bragg, a patent attorney practicing in the Minneapolis area.


EPISODE 32 

The Examiner Whisperer

LifeScan V. Shasta

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, find out how manufacturers can get the wrong patent protection for anything from Keurig coffee makers to glucose meters. For the second time this year, things get exhausted again! The Federal Circuit finds a patent on a machine that uses a highly profitable, but unpatented, consumable and disrupts the business model of the patent owner. Craige explains that if you plan to give away a patented machine to make money on selling the consumables, watch out for patent exhaustion.


EPISODE 33 

The Examiner Whisperer 

Motorola v. Microsoft

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, we find out if you can validate a claim without a claim chart. Inexplicably, this is what Motorola tried to do. We discuss how Thompson Patent Law obtained better prior art in 12 minutes of searching than Motorola had after losing an appeal to the Federal Circuit while represented by a big name firm! Also, Microsoft shows how to use different components of a product to satisfy the Domestic Industry Requirement at the International Trade Commission.


EPISODE 34 

The Examiner Whisperer

Kilopass v. Sidense

Summary: In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, we take a look at baseless patent lawsuits. We specifically examine how much protection the Patent Fee Shifting Statute provides to innocent businesses who are dragged into lawsuits even though the owner knows the suit is baseless.

Joining the discussion is Michael Heinrich, a patent attorney practicing in the Minneapolis area.


Page |1| 2| 3|