Overview

Rick Bisenius' patent practice emphasizes patent post-grant proceedings; patent reexamination proceedings; U.S. and foreign patent portfolio strategy and management; and due diligence investigations.

Rick has represented both petitioners and patent owners in over 100 inter partes review, covered business method 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.

Rick 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, Rick 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, Rick 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. Rick 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, the Navy, and the Pentagon) and IBM (including work in hardware design, database programming, and object-oriented language programming).

Experience

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