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
Data Encryption Claims are Confirmed
| September 1, 2009
The PTO has filed a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate regarding the claims of Luciano Paone’s U.S. Patent No. 6,259,789. The ‘789 patent relates to a method for encrypting data, employing a block cipher encryption algorithm.
Paone sued Microsoft in New York in July 2007, for infringing the ‘789 patent. In May 2008, Microsoft countered by filing the present reexamination request, and the PTO subsequently determined that two substantial new questions of patentability were raised with respect to each of the claims identified in the request.
Those claims were later rejected by the PTO as being obvious over the prior art references cited in the request. And on April 5, 2009, the New York court stayed Paone’s law suit in light of that rejection, pending final resolution of the reexamination.
Now, however, the PTO has decided to withdraw the prior art rejection in light of arguments made by Paone. Six original claims were confirmed, and eight amended or new claims were found to be patentable. Four claims, however, were cancelled, including independent claims 1, 23 and 32.
It is not clear whether the court will lift the stay since Microsoft has filed with the PTO two more reexamination requests against the ‘789 patent: one on June 29, and another on July 27. Reexamination has been ordered for the first new request, but no determination has yet been made with respect to the second.
