News

Joseph Allen, "It's Time to Whack 'IPR Trolls,'" IPWatchdog (June 22, 2015).

Mo Husain, "No Place for Fraud in the Patent System," The Hill (April 30, 2014).

Jason Cassady, "Congress Must Protect Inventors From Strong-Arm Tactics," The Hill (January 24, 2014).

Raymond A. Mercado, "Inventors Deserve Equal Protection, Not Double Standards," The Hill (June 24, 2013).

The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, Interview with Steven J. Moore (October 24, 2011).

Business Valuation Law News, "LA Times Offers a Case Study on How IP Has Little Value if You Aren't Ready to Fight For It," (September 9, 2011).

Professor David Hricik, "Hold Lawyers Liable for Misconduct," The National Law Journal (August 22, 2011).

Hon. Birch Bayh, former U.S. Senator (D-IN), "Patently Unjust," The Hill (July 11, 2011).

Los Angeles Times, "Defending Patents Takes Financial Toll on Inventor," (June 14, 2011).

Fenwick & West, LLP, Intellectual Property Bulletin, pp. 6-7 (Winter, 2010-2011).

Professor Dennis Crouch, "Untouchable: Sham Reexamination Requests," PatentlyO (November 15, 2010).

Staas & Halsey LLP - "Sham Reexamination Request: No State Law Remedies for the Patent Holder" (November, 2010).

Raymond A. Mercado, "Stop Endless Second-Guessing," Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (June 26, 2010).

Research / Case Studies

Gregory Dolin, "Dubious Patent Reform," 56 B.C. L. Rev. 881 (2015) (documenting abuses of inter partes review proceedings).

Raymond A. Mercado, "Ensuring the Integrity of Administrative Challenges to Patents: Lessons from Reexamination," 14 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 558 (2013) (followup study of misconduct in reexamination, presenting results from a survey of more than 100 patent practitioners, 25.5% of whom reported fraud and other misconduct on the part of those challenging patents before the PTO).

Raymond A. Mercado, "The Use and Abuse of Patent Reexamination: Sham Petitioning Before the USPTO," 12 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 93 (2011) (general overview of the problem of fraudulent and baseless attacks on patents, examining three cases of alleged abuses in reexamination).

Ball Corp. v. Xidex Corp., 967 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1992) (state law claims arising from alleged misuse of the reexamination process, holding the duty of candor and good faith in reexamination proceedings extends to the requester, as well as his attorneys and agents).

Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Prods, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 1355, 1375-1378 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (Gawthrop, J.) (finding that a reexamination requester intentionally withheld material information relating to the date and public accessibility of a reference submitted to the PTO).

Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, 403 Fed. Appx. 508 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 181 L. Ed. 2d 26 (Oct. 3, 2011) (litigation history of an important test case).