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
Request Filed Against Stryker Patent
| April 22, 2009
The law firm McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff has filed a request for ex parte reexamination of Stryker Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 6,352,559 entitled “ENDOPROSTHETIC BONE JOINT DEVICES.” The request asserts that most of the claims are obvious over a reference (either alone or with other art) which was cited, but apparently not discussed, during the original ‘559 prosecution.
The ‘559 patent was alleged to be infringed in Btg. Int.l. Ltd. v. Zimmer Holdings (1:04cv85). The case ended in 2006 with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.
UPDATE
(May 14, 2009)
The PTO denied the request for reexamination, finding that no substantial new question of patentability was raised. The PTO explained that the primary reference relied upon in the request “was cited and made of record in the previous prosecution.” The PTO added that the reference was cumulative with art “which was applied and discussed during the original prosecution.”
