Unless you have a fair amount of experience reading patent claims it is hard to tell how on-target what you find might be.
Companies can be very tight-lipped about their litigation strategy, even with employees not directly involved in the case.
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.Even if it fails, the content of the blog post might lead to other published material that does qualify as prior art.Also, the proposed prior art has to be "published." Publication means that it is (somehow and reasonably) available to the public.I have lots of ideas and, not expecting them to be unique or profitable (or knowing how to profit from them), I discuss them online, expecting the information to be helpful to others or expecting others to help me develop them further.Later, I've found very similar ideas patented at a date after my public discussions. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) began hearing post-issuance patent challenge proceedings under the America Invents Act in September 2012, the PTAB became one of the busiest patent litigation venues in the country — and the world — virtually overnight. The PTAB's new post-issuance patent challenge proceedings were introduced to address concerns over the types and quality of patents being issued as well as the tactics of so-called nonpracticing entities (NPEs) — entities that hold patents but do not make products or compete in the market. Supreme Court's ruling in , which was decided shortly after the PTAB procedures came into action, made it easier to invalidate U. patents on the basis of unpatentable subject matter. The new PTAB proceedings are the review (IPR), covered business method review (CBM) and post-grant review (PGR).