Rick Bisenius

About Rick

Rick Bisenius is a Principal in the patent group at Fish & Richardson’s Twin Cities office. His practice emphasizes patent post-grant proceedings (IPR and CBM), patent reexamination proceedings, US and foreign patent portfolio strategy and management, and due diligence investigations.

Mr. Bisenius has represented both petitioners and patent owners in over 60 inter partes review, CBM review, and reexamination proceedings in the areas of telecommunications, telephony, software, communications systems and hardware, navigation systems, electro-mechanical devices, bio-medical devices, and consumer products.

Mr. Bisenius has counseled clients for patent prosecution, patentability analysis, and freedom-to-operate investigations, in the areas of end user software (including user interface, improved user experience, and digital mapping technology), mobile/Internet technologies (including data communication, data security, and wireless access protocols), business development software, medical devices, medical information storage and communications systems, computer hardware, network communication systems, consumer products, internal combustion engines, electrical component manufacturing, and business methods. In addition, Mr. Bisenius frequently practices in patent reexamination/post-grant proceedings. He has represented both challengers/third party requesters and patent owners in proceedings for patents related to circuit design, end user software, medical devices, mobile/Internet technologies, and consumer products. This experience includes advising clients on patent reexamination strategies/post-grant proceedings during concurrent patent litigation.

Prior to attending law school, Mr. Bisenius worked as a Technology Specialist/Patent Agent for the firm, assisting with domestic and foreign litigation cases, preparing ex parte reexamination requests, conducting both ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, and drafting, filing and prosecuting patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Bisenius previously held engineering positions at Booz Allen Hamilton’s Network Design and Analysis Center (providing telecommunications and telephony system analysis and design services for the National Communications System (NCS), the Navy, and the Pentagon) and IBM (including work in hardware design, database programming, and object oriented language programming).

Publications

Mr. Bisenius is a contributing author to Fish’s IP Law Essentials.
“Depositions for Inter Partes Review: How Do They Work?” co-author, Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (August 24, 2020).
“What is the PTAB and Who are the Judges?” co-author, Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (July 13, 2020).
“Oral Hearings at the PTAB: What to Expect,” co-author, Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (June 24, 2020).
“What Discovery is Available during Inter Partes Review?” co-author, Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (May 26, 2020).
“When Should I File an IPR during Litigation?” co-author, Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (April 30, 2020).
“Challenging Patents through Post-Grant Proceedings: What Are Your Options?” co-author, Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (April 22, 2020).
Navigating Uncertainty—Addressing Purely Functional Claim Limitations in a Post-Williamson World with Ongoing PTAB Climate Change, author, 18 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. | PTAB Bar Assoc. L.J. 117 (2019).
Supreme Court Grants Return Mail’s Petition for Certiorari in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., author, Fish Post-Grant News, October 31, 2018.

Selected Mentions
Interviewed for Law.com, “Skilled in the Art: How PTAB is Boosting the Next Generation of IP Lawyers + Should the Law Discriminate Between AI and Human Inventors?” (May 1, 2020).
Named in Law360, “IP Firms Cheer PTAB Program Giving New Attys Opportunities” (April 29, 2020).
Named in Law360, “PTAB Axes Part Of Deep Sea Fiber-Optic Tech Patent” (November 25, 2019).
Named in Law360, “Google Gets PTAB To Nix Claims Of Traffic Forecasting Patent” (August 10, 2018).
Named in Law360, “Apple, Google, Samsung Get Mapping Patent Win At PTAB” (September 21, 2016).
Named in Law360, “Google, Samsung Get Graphics Patents Axed in AIA Review” (June 17, 2015).

Speaking Engagements
“Post Grant for Practitioners: Post-Grant 101,” co-speaker, Fish Post-Grant Webinar (September 29, 2020).

Mr. Bisenius has counseled clients for patent prosecution, patentability analysis, and freedom-to-operate investigations, in the areas of end user software, mobile/Internet technologies, business development software, medical devices, medical information storage and communications systems, computer hardware, network communication systems, consumer products, internal combustion engines, electrical component manufacturing, and business methods. In addition, Mr. Bisenius frequently practices in patent reexamination/post-grant proceedings. He has represented both challengers/third party requesters and patent owners in proceedings for patents related to circuit design, end user software, medical devices, mobile/Internet technologies, and consumer products. This experience includes advising clients on patent reexamination strategies/post-grant proceedings during concurrent patent litigation.

Practice Examples

Inter Partes Review and Covered Business Method Review Proceedings
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2017-00818
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2017-00817
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2017-00816
Google Inc.. v. Makor Issues, IPR2017-00815
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC., IPR2017-00537
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC., IPR2017-00536
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC., IPR2017-00535
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC., IPR2017-00534
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC., IPR2017-00533
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC., IPR2017-00532
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2016-01537
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2016-01536
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2016-01535
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01300
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01086
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01085
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01084
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01083
Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Inc., IPR2016-00530
Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Inc., IPR2016-00529
Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Inc., IPR2016-00525
Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Inc., IPR2016-00523
Ethicon, Inc. v. EndoEvolution, LLC, IPR2016-00071
Google Inc. v. Porto Technology Co. Ltd., IPR2016-00045
Google Inc. v. Porto Technology Co. Ltd., IPR2016-00022
Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00152
Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00108
Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00107
Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00106
Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2015-01905
Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2015-01904
Google Inc. et al. v. American Navigational Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00851
Google Inc. et al. v. American Navigational Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00849
FFF Enterprises, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, Inc., CBM Case No. CBM2014-00154
Google Inc. v. Virtual Real Estate, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01338
Google Inc. v. Virtual Real Estate, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01339
Google Inc. v. Virtual Real Estate, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01340
Google Inc. v. Virtual Real Estate, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01341
Google Inc. v. MicroGrafx LLC, IPR Case No. IPR2014-00532
Google Inc. v. MicroGrafx LLC, IPR Case No. IPR2014-00533
Google Inc. v. MicroGrafx LLC, IPR Case No. IPR2014-00534
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300395
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300396
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300506
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00034
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Wasica Finance GMBH et. al., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00295
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Wasica Finance GMBH et. al., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-01454
Schrader Int’l, Inc. et. al. v. Wasica Finance GMBH et. al., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00476
Schrader Int’l, Inc. et. al. v. Wasica Finance GMBH et. al., IPR Case No. IPR 2015-00272

Reexamination Proceedings
Nest Labs, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Control No. 95/002,041
Nest Labs, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Control No. 95/002,043
Requester v. Suffolk Technologies LLC, Control No. 90/012,714
Requester v. Suffolk Technologies LLC, Control No. 90/012,427
Requester v. Charles H. Moore, Control No. 90/009,388
Requester v. Charles H. Moore, Control No. 90/009,389
Requester v. Charles H. Moore, Control No. 90/009,457
Requester v. Charles H. Moore, Control No. 90/009,591
Requester v. Xerox Corporation, Control No. 90/011,232
Requester v. Bel Fuse, Inc., Control No. 90/009,202
DPI Inc. et al. v. Bose Corporation, Control No. 95/001,260
Verizon Long Distance LLC v. Center One, Control No. 95/001,184
Verizon Long Distance LLC v. Center One, Control No. 95/001,185