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
‘Patent Buster’ Attacks C2 Communications Patent
| February 9, 2010
Two requests for reexamination have been granted against U.S. Patent No. 6,243,373 which broadly claims a method for routing a call between two telephones over a public computer network, a so-called “voice-over-Internet protocol.” The ‘373 patent is owned by C2 Communications which successfully enforced against the major telephone companies, among them AT&T, Verizon and Qwest.
One request was filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) which identifies itself as a “patent buster” and which solicits contributions to challenge patents that unfairly restrict or burden public use of the Internet. EFF also asks the public for prior art to attack such patents. The PTO has concluded that EFF’s request raises a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) regarding claims 1-8 and 13-18 of the ‘373 patent.
The second request, filed by PAETEC, was somewhat more successful – the PTO found three SNQs for all 24 claims in the ‘373 patent. C2 Communications had sued PAETEC late last year for infringement of the ‘373 patent. Two other defendants in that case have settled, but PAETEC appears to be determined to invalidate the ‘373 patent claims.
Since there is overlap between the prior art in the two reexaminations, it is likely that the PTO will merge them.
