Rick Bisenius

About Rick

Rick Bisenius is a principal in the patent group in the Twin Cities office of Fish & Richardson P.C. His practice emphasizes patent post-grant proceedings (IPR and CBM), patent reexamination proceedings, U.S. and foreign patent portfolio strategy and management, and due diligence investigations.

Mr. Bisenius has represented both petitioners and patent owners in over 100 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 and 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.
• “A Slow Year for PTAB Precedential Decisions,” World Intellectual Property Review (March 9, 2022)
• “Depositions for Inter Partes Review: How Do They Work?” Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (August 24, 2020)
• “What is the PTAB and Who are the Judges?” Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (July 13, 2020)
• “Oral Hearings at the PTAB: What to Expect,” Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (June 24, 2020)
• “What Discovery is Available during Inter Partes Review?” Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (May 26, 2020)
• “When Should I File an IPR during Litigation?” Fish’s IP Law Essentials Blog (April 30, 2020)
• “Challenging Patents through Post-Grant Proceedings: What Are Your Options?” 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,” 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.,” Fish Post-Grant News (October 31, 2018)

Speaking Engagements

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

Media Mentions

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

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.

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

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