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
USPTO Announces Reexamination Request for MBI Patent
| September 22, 2009
The PTO announced today that Shimano, Inc., has filed a request for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,503,868 owned by MBI, Co., Ltd., of South Korea. The ‘868 patent is entitled “Automatic Speed Changing Device.” These devices are used primarily, though not exclusively, with bicycles.
The request asserts that all eight claims of the ‘868 patent are anticipated by each of two prior art patents, both issued to Shimano, neither of which was cited during the original ‘858 patent prosecution. The request also states that eight claims of the ‘858 patent are obvious over a third prior art patent in view of a secondary reference. The third patent was cited during the ‘858 patent prosecution, but Shimano asserts that it was “not discussed in any substantive manner by the examiner.”
The PTO is expected to announce by October 24, 2009, whether it will grant the request for reexamination. The ‘868 is not currently the subject of any pending litigation.
