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
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.
Life Technologies has now filed an inter partes request that one of the four patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,654,505, be reexamined. In a 330-page filing with the PTO, Life Technologies asserts that certain claims of the ‘505 patent are anticipated by each of seven prior art references. Life Technologies also contends that all six ‘505 claims are obvious over many, many combinations of prior art.
We suspect that the ‘505 patent request is merely the first of several requests involving the patents in dispute.
This case, in which some, but not all, of the patents-in-suit are being reexamined, raises the interesting question of whether the District Court should stay that portion of the litigation relating to the reexamined patent(s).
