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
Flash Chromatography Case Stayed
| November 10, 2009
Scientific Plastic Products’ case against Biotage has been stayed pending the PTO’s resolution of inter partes reexaminations for the patents-in-suit.
On April 3, 2009, Scientific Plastics sued Biotage, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,138,061, 7,381,327 and 7,410,571 regarding low pressure flash chromatographic cartridges. Biotage replied on August 21 by filing reexamination requests against each of the three patents and three days later, moved to stay the case. Judge Anello granted the stay on October 6.
The PTO has now acted on two of the three requests. It ordered reexamination of the ‘327 patent, finding that there were 10 substantial new questions of patentability (SNQs). The primary reference relied upon in the request, the Yamada patent, had been cited in the original ‘327 prosecution. The PTO simultaneously ordered reexamination of the ‘061 patent and issued an Office Action making 12 rejections, again relying primarily upon Yamada.
The PTO has not yet acted on the request for reexamination of the ‘571 patent, though the patentability arguments appear to be similar to those for the ‘327 and ‘061 patents. The PTO must act by November 21.
The case illustrates the remarkable speed with which an accused infringer can shift the venue from the District Court to the PTO.
