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
RAMBUS 対 NVIDIAの戦況報告
| January 28, 2010
昨年12月1日の私たちのブログ記事で、 RambusとNVIDIAとの 間のITCに おける係争と 米国特許庁で の再審査の状況について お知らせしました。 その後、 RambusはITCで の係争の大半において 勝利を収めています。 ITC行政法判事で あるEssexは、 ‘353特許、 ‘405特許および‘109特許は 有効であり、 侵害されているとの 判決を出しました。1
ところが、 再審査の方では、 Rambusは非常に厳しい状況下にあります。 下記表の「再審査に おけるクレームの審査状況」に 見られるとおり、 ほとんどの特許クレームが再審査では 拒絶されています。
Read More/続きを読む
Rambus v. NVIDIA, An Updated Scorecard
| January 28, 2010
In our post dated December 1, 2009, we reported on the struggle between Rambus and NVIDIA at the ITC and in reexaminations at the PTO. Since then, Rambus has won a major victory at the ITC – Administrative Law Judge Essex has ruled that the ‘353, ‘405 and ‘109 patents are valid and infringed.1
Rambus, however, has not fared well in the reexaminations, as can be seen from the following chart.
Read More/続きを読む
Inter Partes Requests Filed the Week of January 18th
| January 28, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for inter partes requests, often involving copending District Court litigation, is unfair. We will therefore review the Patent Office files each week to identify inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week. In some cases, the information available is incomplete.
This past week, the following requests were made:
Read More/続きを読む
Design Patents Scrutinized in Reexamination
| January 26, 2010
Last week in Patently-O, Dennis Crouch described the “registration-like” approach that the PTO takes to design patent applications — only 1.2% are rejected on the basis of prior art, 18.2% are rejected for § 112 or other reasons, and 81.6% receive no rejection at all.
How does this routine prosecution treatment compare with reexamination? We looked at each of the twelve reexamination requests filed in 2008 for design patents. Each of the twelve requests was ex parte; eleven were filed by a third party, only one by the patent owner. Four of the patents were involved in concurrent litigation, eight were not.
Read More/続きを読む
The Pending Legislation: What It Means for Oppositions & Reexaminations
| January 21, 2010
The proposed Patent Reform Act of 2009 introduces a post-grant opposition procedure, as well as several changes to the current inter partes reexamination system.
Post-grant oppositions would be similar to the procedure currently used in Europe, which allows a third party to challenge the validity of a patent within one year of issuance. Here are the key points of this new procedure:
Read More/続きを読む
Inter Partes Requests Filed the Week of January 11th
| January 21, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for inter partes requests, often involving copending District Court litigation, is unfair. We will therefore review the Patent Office files each week to identify inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week. In some cases, the information available is incomplete.
This past week, the following requests were made:
Read More/続きを読む
Inter Partes Requests Filed the Week of January 4th
| January 14, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for inter partes requests, often involving copending District Court litigation, is unfair. We will therefore review the Patent Office files each week to identify inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week. In some cases, the information available is incomplete.
This past week, the following requests were made:
Read More/続きを読む
Apotex Seeks Stay of Sanofi-Aventis Case
| January 14, 2010
The possibility of an accused infringer attacking the validity of a patent through reexamination, even after an adverse decision from the CAFC, was demonstrated anew last week.
On August 17, 2009, we reported that the PTO had granted Apotex’s request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265 owned by Sanofi-Aventis and covering its anti-blood clot drug PLAVIX®. Since then, the PTO has issued a non-final rejection of most of the ‘265 claims as being obvious over each of several prior art references “in view of the state of the art,” as well as being unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting in view of Sanofi-Aventis’ own U.S. Patent No. 4,529,596.1
Read More/続きを読む
Inter Partes Requests Filed the Week of December 28th
| January 7, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for inter partes requests, often involving copending District Court litigation, is unfair. We will therefore review the Patent Office files each week to identify inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week. In some cases, the information available is incomplete.
This past week, the following requests were made:
Read More/続きを読む
Nucleic Acid Case Becomes More Complicated
| January 4, 2010
This past September, Life Technologies Corporation and Applied Biosystems sued Illumina and Solexa in Delaware for infringing three U.S. patents by the sale of nucleic acid sequencing equipment called “Genome Analyzer” and “Genome Analyzer II.” Three weeks later Illumina and Solexa counter-claimed, alleging that Life Technologies and Applied Biosystems market “SOLiD” sequencing systems that infringe four patents belonging to Illumina and Solexa.
Read More/続きを読む
