Charlie Steenburg

Charlie Steenburg works with clients in patent litigation, trade secret cases, and other contested matters. He has extensive experience representing clients in district court and also at the International Trade Commission, where he played a key role in securing recent successes for our clients Sony Corporation and BTG plc. He has also worked on a series of reexamination and inter partes review requests while coordinating related litigations and ensuring that the post grant strategy complements the litigation strategy.

Recent Posts

The Significance of Trial (and Error)

Posted by Charlie Steenburg on Jul 31, 2015

Charlie Steenburg

Yesterday’s Federal Circuit decision in Smartflash LLC v. Apple illustrates the difference that even a few months can make when an accused infringer seeks to stay litigation pending covered business method (CBM) reviews of the asserted patent claims. Smartflash is asserting a series of digital rights management patents against Apple and Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. All of Smartflash’s asserted claims are the subject of CBM reviews concerning Section 101 issues. Apple and Samsung sought to stay the litigations pending completion of the CBM process, but the district court denied these requests. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of Apple’s motion, but ordered that Smartflash’s case against Samsung be stayed pending the CBM reviews.

Read More

Topics: CBMs

Federal Circuit Reluctant to Second-Guess PTAB in CBMs, But Asserts the Right to Do So If Warranted

Posted by Charlie Steenburg on Jul 23, 2015

Charlie Steenburg

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc. validates the PTAB’s overall approach to “covered business method” (CBM) proceedings and suggests that patent owners face an uphill battle when appealing the cancellation of claims following CBM review. Significantly, however, the Federal Circuit ruled that it has the power when reviewing a final written decision to consider whether the patent qualified for CBM review at all. The USPTO had disagreed, maintaining that the Federal Circuit lacked authority to review this threshold question because it concerned the PTAB’s decision whether or not to institute CBM review at all—a determination that by law is “nonappealable.” The Federal Circuit’s decision offers hope for other patent owners who face CBM reviews and believe that the PTAB erred in deciding that the challenged patent even qualifies. It also indicates that the Federal Circuit will not always be willing to accept the USPTO’s reading of key language in the America Invents Act.

Read More

Topics: Patent Owners, CBMs

Wolf Greenfield's Post-Grant Blog

Here, the Post-Grant Proceedings Group
at Wolf Greenfield keeps you up to date
on the latest decisions and best practices, and what they mean for you. Learn more about the group and its members.

New Call-to-action
New Call-to-action
New Call-to-action

Subscribe to Email Updates

Recent Posts

Follow Us

This blog is intended to promote thought and debate on developing areas of the law. The opinions, commentary and characterizations of cases provided on this blog are not legal advice and do not represent the opinions of Wolf Greenfield or its clients.