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
Merck’s Singular Patent to be Reexamined
| May 20, 2009
The Patent Office has granted reexamination on Merck’s U.S. Patent No. 5,565,473 which covers its extremely successful allergy drug SINGULAIR. Sales of the drug are said to total about $4 billion per year.
The Patent Office concluded that each of seven prior art references cited in the Reexamination Request “raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1, 7 and 18-22 of the ‘473 patent. One of the references was cited during the original ‘473 prosecution, but the others were not.
The Request for Reexamination was filed, not by Teva, but by Article One Partners. Article One styles itself as “a global online community working to legitimize the validity of patents.” It conducts contests by soliciting the public for prior art references against specific patents and then awarding substantial cash prizes to those who submit references that, in the opinion of Article One, renders one of the patents invalid.
The ‘473 patent is currently being litigated in Merck v. Teva (Civ. Act. No. 07-1596) in New Jersey. The parties completed a bench trial in February on the issues of obviousness and inequitable conduct, and are now awaiting a ruling from the court.
One of the references cited in the reexamination grant the “Young 89’ Article” was relied upon Teva for its assertion at trial that the ‘473 patent was unenforceable because of inequitable conduct by Merck.
The request was filed April 27, 2009.
UPDATE:
Shortly after the announcement that reexamination of the ‘473 patent had been granted, counsel for Teva informed the trial judge, noting the PTO’s determination that “[t]here is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider [Young 89] important in deciding whether or not claims 1, 7 and 18-22 are patentable.” According to counsel for Teva, the PTO’s grant of reexamination “is relevant to the defense of inequitable conduct.”
Three days later, counsel for Merck replied that reexamination grant was not significant – that the PTO grants 95% of all requests and that the issues raised in reexamination differ from those before the court.
This case demonstrates the potential impact of reexaminations on pending litigation.
