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
McNeil Attachment
| July 31, 2009
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-1546 (Re-examination No. 90/006,467)
IN RE MCNEIL-PPC, INC.
Dianne B. Elderkin, Woodcock Washburn, LLP, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for appellant. With her on the brief were Wendy A. Choi and William F. Smith.
Of counsel was Ruben H. Munoz.
Read More/続きを読む
McNeil Vindicated at CAFC
| July 31, 2009
McNeil-PPC, Inc. filed a request for reexamination of its U.S. Patent No. 6,310,269 in November 2002, and today, after more than six years and a series of adverse decisions at the PTO, it finally prevailed at the CAFC.
Read More/続きを読む
Claims Lack Written Description Support
| July 27, 2009
The CAFC has affirmed a Patent Office ruling that the patent specification in the reexamination application, In re Reiffin Family Trust, failed to provide written description support for certain claims sought to add to U.S. Patent No. 5,694,604, rendering those claims unpatentable.
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination of University of Pittsburgh
| July 23, 2009
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1468
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DR. ADAM J. KATZ, and DR. RAMON LLULL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARC H. HEDRICK, PROSPER BENHAIM, HERMANN PETER LORENZ, and MIN ZHU, Defendants-Appellants.
Glenn J. Pfadenhauer, Williams & Connolly LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Adam L. Perlman and David I. Berl.
Read More/続きを読む
Funai ‘538 Patent Claims Confirmed
| July 23, 2009
Funai won an important victory today when the PTO confirmed the patentability of the claims of Funai’s U.S. Patent No. 6,064,538. The ‘538 patent was one of the patents in Funai v. Daewoo. (See our description of the case this past March).
The PTO had previously granted the request for reexamination on June 5, 2009.
Kinetic Concepts Patent Wins Reexamination Victory
| July 22, 2009
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (KCI) won an important battle today at the Patent Office in its ongoing patent war with competitor BlueSky Medical today.
KCI sued BlueSky on May 14, 2007, in the Eastern District of Texas for infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,216,651 regarding a system for healing wounds. The case was later transferred to the Western District of Texas which had handled an earlier dispute involving related patents. More significantly, though, an ex parte reexamination request (90/008,693) and an inter partes reexamination request (95/001,048) were subsequently filed with the Patent Office, attacking the ‘651 patent on the basis of a long series of prior art references.
Read More/続きを読む
Avery Case Attachment
| July 20, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION : Case No. 08 CV 795
Plaintiff, JUDGE KATHLEEN O’MALLEY v. ALIEN TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Defendant.
Before the Court is Defendant Alien Technology Corporation’s (“Alien”) Motion to Stay Proceedings on ‘596, 032, and ‘251 Patents Pending Reexamination (“Motion to Stay”) (Doc. 115). In its motion, Alien requests that the Court stay all proceedings relating to United States Patent Nos. 6,951,596, 7,368,032, and 7,361,251 pending the conclusion of inter partes reexamination of each of those patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Plaintiff Avery Dennison Corporation (“Avery”) opposes the Motion to Stay (Doc. 118, Avery’s Resp. in Opp’n), which has now been fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication.1 For the reasons set forth below, Alien’s motion is GRANTED. 2
Read More/続きを読む
Court Stays Avery Case
| July 20, 2009
The impact of an inter partes reexamination on a pending District Court case was demonstrated again today in Avery v. Alien (N.D. Ohio, CA No. 08 CV 795).
Avery filed its Complaint for infringement in March 2008, alleging infringement of seven patents claiming certain RFID technology. Avery later agreed to dismissal of four of the patent claims, and also moved for a preliminary injunction with respect to two of the remaining patents. In the meantime, the accused infringer, Alien, requested inter partes reexamination of all three patents still in the case.
Read More/続きを読む
Superior Essex Files Three Inter Partes Requests
| July 8, 2009
Superior Essex has now filed requests for inter partes reexamination against at least three data cable patents owned by Belden CDT of Canada. Belden had sued Superior Essex in January 2008 for infringement of six patents. Two more patents were added in a Second Amended Compliant filed by Belden this past April.
Superior Essex has now replied with reexamination requests against Belden’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,570,095, 6,596,944 and 7,339,116.
Read More/続きを読む
