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
ROLLS-ROYCE PATENT RESCUED FROM INTERFERENCE
| May 10, 2010
In 2003, the PTO Board declared an interference between the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,077 belonging to Rolls-Royce, and the claims of a United Technologies patent application. The invention was a fan blade configuration used in turbofan jet engines. United Technologies, having an earlier priority date, was named the senior party, and Rolls-Royce, with the later date, the junior party.
Rolls-Royce argued that there was no “interference-in-fact” because its claims were patentably distinguishable over the claims of the United Technologies patent. The PTO Board disagreed, concluding that the parties’ claims did interfere and entering judgment in favor of United Technologies.
Rolls-Royce then filed a complaint in District Court under 35 U.S.C. § 146, challenging the PTO’s judgment. The District Court narrowly construed the United Technologies’ claims, holding that Rolls-Royce’s claims were non-obvious over the United Technologies’ claims and that there was no interference-in-fact. Last week, the CAFC affirmed the District Court’s ruling.
On the very same day as its victory at the CAFC, Rolls-Royce sued United Technologies for infringement of the ‘077 patent in the same District Court that had ruled in its favor in the § 146 action. One wonders whether the narrow claim construction that was successful in the earlier § 146 action will affect Rolls-Royce’s current infringement argument.
