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
Microsoft Files Third Request Against Paone Patent
| October 23, 2009
Microsoft has filed its third reexamination request against U.S. Patent No. 6,259,789 which is owned by Luciano Paone and claims a computer encryption method. This most recent request sought reexamination of claims 2, 23-26 and 32-34 on the basis of nine references or combinations of references.
The PTO, however, has ordered reexamination of only claims 33-34 on the basis of only one combination of prior art. For the remaining claims, the PTO found that the references were not substantially different from those asserted in the two earlier reexaminations and that no substantial new question of patentability was raised.
The first request was filed May 16, 2008 and asked for reexamination of claims 1-6, 8, 13-15, 23-25 and 32-34. It resulted in some claims being canceled, some claims being amended, and the patentability of other claims being confirmed.
In the second request, filed June 29, 2009, reexamination was sought for only claims 17 and 26. That request was granted last month.
First Office Actions are expected later this year in the second and third reexaminations.
Microsoft clearly has not accomplished everything that it sought through these reexaminations, but the case demonstrates that a requester may file multiple requests and may selectively attack specific claims.
