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
Facebook Files Second Reexamination Request
| November 13, 2009
Facebook has filed its second reexamination request attacking the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761. Late last year, the owner of the ‘761 patent, Leader Technologies, had sued Facebook in Delaware for infringement.
Today’s inter partes request asserts 10 substantial new questions of patentability (SNQs) based on references that were not cited or considered during the original ‘761 prosecution.
Facebook’s earlier request sought ex parte reexamination of the ‘761 claims, presenting three SNQs. Reexamination based on each of the stated SNQs was ordered by the PTO on September 25.
On October 21, 2009, Facebook moved to stay the District Court case, citing its earlier ex parte request and its intent to file today’s inter partes request.
This case demonstrates the possibility of filing multiple reexamination requests, including a combination of ex parte and inter partes requests. Facebook’s stay motion indicated that the second request was motivated by claim construction arguments asserted by Leader, presumably that the breadth of Leader’s claim constructions made the new references more relevant.
