"The two main proceedings, post-grant review (“PGR”) and inter partesreview (“IPR”), both

prevent parties that have used the proceedings from raising in court an argument they could have raised at the PTO."

===========================================================

"parties that have used the proceedings"....

Would that be defined as the petitionerer or, a patent owner being petitioned? or Both?

As, a patent owner is not allowed to petition itself..does not induce a petiotion....for that.. it's not using the proceeding.

==============================================

Anyway ..a counter connection to that on a similar note....From the IPR schedualing order

"2. DUE DATE 1

The patent owner may file—

a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and

b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).

The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend by DUE

DATE 1. If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent owner

must arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board. The patent

owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the

response will be deemed waived."

================================================

And you all now what I consider of those type issues....regarding the AIA....begins with a p...

With that, of course they are to be considered references of law....bouncing from one legal authority to another....lol

Whatever, lets just reduce thresholds of ownership, thresholds of liability, and cancel out the existence of anything sane.

doni