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
SECOND UPDATE ON SANOFI-AVENTIS V. APOTEX
| March 31, 2010
We updated you yesterday on the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265, covering Sanofi’s anti-blood clot drug PLAVIX®, and today we learned that the PTO has issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate (NIRC).
The PTO has decided that the ‘265 claims are patentable over the prior art, explaining that the claimed “dextro isomers possess all the therapeutic anti-platelet aggregation activity without the toxicity of the racemate or the levo isomer.” The PTO acknowledged the long-felt need for, copying and commercial success of PLAVIX ® as supporting its conclusion of patentability.
Unfortunately, the legal issues raised by the ‘265 patentee in its response to the December Office Action will not be answered in this case.
UPDATE ON SANOFI-AVENTIS V. APOTEX
| March 30, 2010
As we reported January 14, 2010, Apotex has moved to stay Sanofi-Aventis et al. v. Apotex, in which Apotex is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265. The ‘265 patent is owned by Sanofi and covers its anti-blood clot drug PLAVIX®.
Read More/続きを読む
DEVELOPMENTS LAST WEEK
| March 30, 2010
(1) Some Claims of Often Litigated Patent Emerge from Reexamination
The rejection of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,539,930, owned by A.L.S. Enterprises, was partially reversed and partially affirmed yesterday.
Read More/続きを読む
REQUESTS FILED THE WEEK OF MARCH 22ND
| March 30, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We will therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office EFS. In some cases, the information available from the Patent Office is still incomplete.
Read More/続きを読む
REQUESTS FILED THE WEEK OF MARCH 15TH
| March 25, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We will therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office EFS. In some cases, the information available from the Patent Office is still incomplete.
Read More/続きを読む
PTO BOARD AFFIRMS REEXAMINATION REJECTIONS
| March 23, 2010
Patent applicants enjoy a very high rate of success at the PTO Board in overturning examiner rejections. The opposite is true for patentees appealing final rejections in reexamination proceedings.
Read More/続きを読む
PATENTEE’S REQUEST FOR STAY DENIED
| March 23, 2010
The judges of the Northern District of California are commonly expected to stay patent cases pending completion of reexamination proceedings. It is also expected that a patentee’s request to stay will be granted.
Read More/続きを読む
REQUESTS FILED LAST WEEK
| March 18, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We will therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office EFS. In some cases, the information available from the Patent Office is still incomplete.
Read More/続きを読む
DELAY INHERENT IN REEXAMINATION IS NOT “UNDUE PREJUDICE”
| March 15, 2010
As instances of reexamination taking several years are reported in the media, it might be expected that the judges would be less willing to stay infringement cases pending completion of reexamination. Judges, however, seem to be staying cases at the same rate as before.
Read More/続きを読む
REQUESTS FILED LAST WEEK
| March 11, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We will therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office EFS. In some cases, the information available from the Patent Office is still incomplete.
Read More/続きを読む
