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
ACCUSED INFRINGER WINS ITS CLAIM CONSTRUCTION THROUGH REEXAMINATION
| May 10, 2010
The claimed invention in Albecker v. Contour Products was a leisure chair. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44649 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2010). The key claim limitation in dispute was a “top cushion” – the patentee argued that the cushion could have either a unitary or a two-piece structure, whereas the accused infringer asserted that the cushion must be a two-piece structure.
Last week, Judge Ruben Castillo ruled in favor of the accused infringer, citing an earlier reexamination of the patent as showing that the examiner understood the “top cushion” to be limited to a two-piece structure.
The earlier reexamination was requested by the accused infringer in January 2009. Reexamination was ordered in May, but the patentability of the claims was confirmed by the PTO in December. In calculating the success rates of reexamination requests, one might have assumed that such confirmation was smashing success for the patentee. Judge Castillo’s ruling last week showed the opposite – even by losing the reexamination, the accused infringer succeeded.
