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
A Practice Note
| June 28, 2010
On June 16, we reported the PTO Board decision Ex parte Yasukochi et al., in which the Board refused to consider the patentee’s argument that the examiner’s rejection was improper because it was based on a combination of references that did not constitute a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) – according to the Board, the examiner’s determination of whether an SNQ exists may be reviewed through Petition to the Director, but not by appeal to the Board.
We are now informed by our good friend and reexamination scholar – Matt Smith – that the PTO issued a Federal Register notice published this past Friday stating that the Board does have jurisdiction to consider the SNQ issue. The only caveat is that for reexamination proceedings ordered on or after June 25, 2010, the patentee must have first requested reconsideration by the examiner to preserve the issue for appeal to the Board. Review by petition is still available, but only where the examiner’s finding of an SNQ is in “brazen defiance” of the standard for such a finding.
