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
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.
The Board awarded priority to Sepracor because its constructive reduction to practice predated Wyeth’s earliest asserted dates of conception and reduction to practice. But despite this award of priority to Sepracor, the Board entered judgment for Wyeth because of a settlement agreement between the parties in which Wyeth becomes the owner of the Sepracor involved applications.
Wyeth’s judgment appears to be a Pyrrhic victory, however, since the Board also ruled that Wyeth’s involved claims – claims 1-3, 23-34 and 46 of the ‘838 patent and claims 1-9 of the ‘347 patent were invalid. The Board additionally recommended that the examiner closely examine whether the Sepracor application claims are patentable over the prior art references cited in the interference.
Significantly, the Board attached Senior APJ Fred McKelvey’s February decision in which he stated that “it would appear that both party’s [sic] claims corresponding to Counts 5, 6 and 7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103.” The references cited by Judge McKelvey are patents are assigned to Wyeth. Wyeth also owns a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,026,508, which was not involved in the interference.
