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
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of June 7th
| June 16, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system. Information on concurrent litigation is also provided, where available.
Read More/続きを読む
Accused Infringer Uses Reexamination to Defeat Willfulness Allegation
| June 14, 2010
A party accused of patent infringement requests reexamination at the PTO to attack the patent as being anticipated or obvious in view of a prior art patent or printed publication. An accused infringer, however, may also achieve other less obvious goals by seeking reexamination, such as creating an estoppel, creating a disclaimer limiting claim scope, or establishing the materiality of a prior art reference for an inequitable conduct defense. Or, as in Plumley v. Mockett, the accused infringer may use reexamination to obtain summary judgment of no willful infringement. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57254 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2010).
Read More/続きを読む
A Setback for TiVo Reexamination Patent
| June 10, 2010
This past Friday, the PTO made final its rejection of claims 31 and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, the key patent claims for TiVo’s digital video software for simultaneously storing and playing multimedia data, e.g., for time-shifting television signals. The Reexamination Request was filed by Dish Network in November 2008.
Read More/続きを読む
Tessera Defends ITC Exclusion Order at CAFC
| June 10, 2010
Last week I described the interesting issue raised in Tessera’s ITC case involving semiconductor packaging: whether the public interest is harmed if the ITC issues an exclusion order based on infringement of a patent that has been rejected as invalid in a copending but unfinished reexamination proceeding.
Read More/続きを読む
Developments in Early June
| June 10, 2010
(1) Attorney’s Assertion of “Good Faith” Waives Privilege
Judge E. Thomas Boyle has ordered the patentee in Pall Corp. v. Cuno Inc. to produce hundreds of documents disclosing attorney-client communications regarding the reexamination of the patent-in-suit. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55992 (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2010).
The accused infringer has alleged that the patentee committed inequitable conduct by withholding certain information during an earlier reexamination proceeding. The patentee replied by submitting a declaration by the attorney disclosing
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of May 31st
| June 9, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system.
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of May 24th
| June 2, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system.
Read More/続きを読む
Challenge at the CAFC to ITC Exclusion Order Based on Claims Rejected in Reexamination
| June 2, 2010
Tessera’s ITC case involving computer chip packaging is of considerable commercial significance to the semiconductor industry. But it also raises the fascinating legal question of whether the Commission should issue an exclusion order against infringing imported products where the patent claims have been rejected in copending reexamination proceedings. Where the ITC finds violation of Section 337, the statute requires it to issue an exclusion order and/or a cease & desist order to protect the domestic industry, unless such relief would harm the public interest. Is the public interest harmed by the enforcement of patent claims currently under rejection at the PTO?
Read More/続きを読む
Parties’ Claims Decimated in PRISTIQ® Interference
| June 1, 2010
This past Friday the PTO Board entered judgment “in favor of” Wyeth in its interference with Sepracor. In dispute were claims covering Wyeth’s anti-depression composition, PRISTIQ® having the active ingredient O-desmethylvenafaxine succinate. The junior party Wyeth owns the two involved patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,673,838 and 7,291,347; the senior party Sepracor owns the three involved patent applications.
Read More/続きを読む
Patentees Have another Rough Week at Board
| June 1, 2010
We have previously pointed out the paradox that whereas applicants in original prosecution are generally successful at the PTO Board, patentees in reexamination are not. That pattern continued last week. Of the seven reexamination decisions issued by the Board, examiner rejections were affirmed in four; in the other three, rejections were affirmed-in-part/reversed-in-part.
Read More/続きを読む
