Invalidating a patent
CBM provides a targeted mechanism for challenging "business method" patents, which to date are the most common patent type asserted by NPEs..action_button.action_button:active.action_button:hover.action_button:focus,.action_button:hover.action_button:focus .count,.action_button:hover .count.action_button:focus .count:before,.action_button:hover .count:before.u-margin-left--sm.u-flex.u-flex-auto.u-flex-none.bullet.
Since its inception in 1982, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has read this provision as requiring that for a party challenging the validity of a granted patent in proceedings before a court to succeed it bore the burden of producing clear and convincing evidence to support of its factual assertions.
To qualify as prior art, a reference needs a verifiable date attached to it.
Depending on the provenance, a blog posting might suffice in and of itself.
Under the new "first-to-file" rule, an IPR may be filed any time after nine months have passed since the patent's issuance or after any and all PGRs pertaining to that patent have concluded, whichever comes later.
An IPR, the most common procedure, may only be instituted on the basis of lack of novelty or obviousness in view of earlier patents or printed publications.
The United States legal system recognizes three different standards of proof that may be required in different situations.