Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Honeywell Filed Three Requests
| January 29, 2009
Honeywell International requested the PTO to conduct inter partes reexamination of three BorgWarner patents claiming titanium compressor wheels – U.S. Patent Nos. 6,629,556, 6,663,347, and 6,904,949.
These new requests become part of an ongoing dispute between the two companies, the centerpiece of which is a suit in the Western District of North Carolina in which Honeywell accuses BorgWarner of infringing those three patents. On March 18, 2008, Honeywell requested ex parte reexamination against the same three patents.
Read More/続きを読む
Order in Funai Case
| January 5, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD., No. C-04-01830 JCS Plaintiff, ORDER RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS v. [Docket Nos. 699, 710, 712, 714, 716] DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL., Defendants.
______________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
In its complaint, Plaintiff Funai Electric Company, Ltd. (“Funai”) alleged that various Daewoo entities infringed the following six patents: 1) United States Patent No. 6,021,018 (“‘018 patent”); 2) United States Patent No. 6,064,538 (“‘538 patent”); 3) United States Patent No. RE37,332 (“‘332 patent”); 4) United States Patent No. 6,421,210 (“‘210 patent”); 5) United States Patent No. 5,815,218 (“‘218 patent”), and 6) United States Patent No. 5,987,209 (“‘209 patent”). Two Daewoo entities, Daewoo Electronics Corp., Ltd. and Daewoo Electronics Corp. of America, defaulted and default judgment was entered against them. The remaining defendants, Daewoo Electronics Corporation (“DEC”) and Daewoo Electronics America, Inc. (“DEAM”), continued to defend the action.1
Read More/続きを読む
“Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
| January 1, 2009
Copyright (c) 2007 PTC Research Foundation of Franklin Pierce Law Center
IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review
2007
47 IDEA 343
LENGTH: 6690 words
ARTICLE: WHY WAIT FOR OPPOSITIONS?
NAME: SCOTT M. DANIELS AND KATE ADDISON *
BIO:
* Mr. Daniels is a partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian in Washington, D.C; J.D., Cornell Univ.; B.A., Carleton College. Ms. Addison is an associate at the same firm; J.D., William & Mary School of Law; B.S., Univ. of Michigan. Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian ((c) 2006). This article contains the personal opinions of the authors, which are not to be attributed to the authors’ law firm or its clients.
Read More/続きを読む
序 章
| January 1, 2009
特許発行後の救済手続き
再審査
再審査を利用することについては、未だに、多くの米国法律事務所は積極的ではないと考えられます。しかしながら、弊事務所は、問題の特許が、たとえそれが非常に強いと考えられる場合でも、再審査は有効な手段であると確信しています。その理由は、訴訟手続きにはない再審査の下記の利点があるからです。
Read More/続きを読む
The Basics
| January 1, 2009
Reexaminations
Some law firms are still reluctant to pursue a litigation strategy which includes reexamination requests. The Reexamination Group within our firm has seen from its own experience over the years, however, that reexaminations are often effective in dealing with competitors’ patents, even very strong patents. This belief is based on a familiar list of advantages that reexamination offers over litigation.
Read More/続きを読む
