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
STEM CELL PATENT REJECTED BY PTO BOARD
| April 30, 2010
In a case having potentially great impact on the stem cell industry, the PTO Board of Appeals has rejected the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,029,913, entitled “Primate Embryonic Stem Cells.” In doing so, the Board reversed the examiner’s decision that had earlier confirmed the patentability of those claims.
Read More/続きを読む
CAFC REVERSES PTO’S BROAD CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
| April 30, 2010
It is well-known that the PTO gives claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, both in original examination and in reexamination.
But in the recent case In re Suitco Surface, the CAFC found that the PTO’s claim construction had been too broad.
Read More/続きを読む
BOARD REJECTS APPLE’S BROADENED REISSUE
| April 30, 2010
On Monday, the PTO Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s rejection of Apple’s Reissue App. S.N. 11/503,541, as an improper attempt to broaden the original claims more than two years after the original issue date of the patent.
Read More/続きを読む
PTO WITHDRAWS ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION
| April 27, 2010
The PTO’s treatment of petitions under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 is being tested in the inter partes reexamination (95/000,313) of U.S. Patent No. 6,925,469.
Read More/続きを読む
REQUESTS FILED THE WEEK OF APRIL 19TH
| April 27, 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
FURTHER UPDATE ON PLAVIX® CASE
| April 21, 2010
As we reported in January, the defendant in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex moved to stay the litigation pending completion of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265 for Sanofi’s anti-blood clot drug PLAVIX®. In March, the PTO issued a notice that it intends to issue a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of the claims.
Read More/続きを読む
DEVELOPMENTS THE WEEK OF APRIL 12TH
| April 21, 2010
(1) Expert May not Refer to Pending Reexamination
Judge William Young ruled in NewRiver, Inc. v. Newkirk Products, Inc. (D. Mass., Case No. 1:06-cv-12146), that neither the witnesses nor the lawyers were allowed to mention, in the presence of the jury, a pending reexamination initiated by Defendant Newkirk. Even so, an expert witness for Newkirk did so, and Plaintiff NewRiver moved for a new trial, arguing that its patent’s presumption of validity had been undermined.
Read More/続きを読む
REQUEST FILED AGAINST PIONEER NAVIGATION PATENT
| April 21, 2010
On Monday Garmin requested inter partes reexamination of Pioneer’s U.S. Patent No. 6,941,222 entitled NAVIGATION SYSTEM, SERVER SYSTEM FOR A NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER-READABLE INFORMATION RECORDED MEDIUM IN WHICH DESTINATION PREDICTION PROGRAM IS RECORDED. A significant feature of the claimed invention appears to be that destination prediction is based in part on “information on a date and time when the mobile body is moving as a condition for the prediction.”
Read More/続きを読む
REQUESTS FILED THE WEEK OF APRIL 12TH
| April 21, 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
CAFC APPLIES RECAPTURE RULE BROADLY
| April 15, 2010
The CAFC held this week – in MBO Labs. v. Becton, Dickinson – that a reissue applicant may not recapture claimed subject matter that was surrendered in a related application.
The rule against recapture prohibits a patentee from broadening the scope of its claims during reissue to cover subject matter that it had previously surrendered during the prosecution of its original claims. The rule exists because reissue is intended to correct “errors made without deceptive intent,” not to remove amendments or arguments made to convince an examiner to allow claims. Further, competitors are allowed to rely upon past prosecution histories which show that an applicant has surrendered certain claimed subject matter.
Read More/続きを読む
