IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.
is a Senior Counsel in Dykema‘s San Antonio, Texas office who concentrates his practice on intellectual property matters. Van specializes in the intersection of technology and law, and was in 2012 named one of “America’s Top 12 Techiest Attorneys” by the American Bar Association Journal. He is an inventor, software developer, and regular speaker on everything from open source community dynamics to graph theory, and has testified in Congressional proceedings as an expert on both copyright and encryption policy. Van’s clients include a “who’s who” of major technology and industrial companies.
For more information or to contact Van, please visit his Firm Profile Page.
The industry reaction to Aqua Products v. Matal has been swift. In IPWatchdog’s Industry Roundup blog post, there was broad acclaim. However, for those involved with post-grant proceedings before the AIA, however, Aqua Products at most means a return to the amending regime allowed under the previous inter partes post-grant procedure, inter partes reexaminations. Given that IPRs were explicitly designed to extend and amend the previous inter partes reexamination procedures, a comparison of amendment practice under the two procedures makes a number of lessons clear.