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
Second Request for Reexamination of Plavix® Patent is Denied
| July 1, 2010
The USPTO has denied Apotex’ request for reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265, finding that no substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) has been raised. The main reference relied upon in the request – U.S. Patent No. 4,529,596 – had been applied by the PTO in an anticipation rejection in the original prosecution and in a double patenting rejection in an earlier reexamination, of the ‘265 patent.
The ‘265 patent covers clopidogrel bisulfate which is the active agent in Bristol-Myers/Sanofi’s anti-blood clot drug, PLAVIX®. The ‘265 patent is the subject of a pending infringement suit between these companies in the Southern District of New York.
Does an Ex Parte Requester Have Two Bites at the Apple?
| July 1, 2010
A requester in an inter partes reexamination is estopped from arguing in subsequent litigation an invalidity issue that it “raised or could have raised” in the reexamination. 35 U.S. § 315(c). There is no corresponding estoppel provision against ex parte requesters. Nevertheless, reexamination practitioners often assert that there is a de facto estoppel against an ex parte requester who later reasserts in litigation the reexamination references.
That may not be true in all courts.
Read More/続きを読む
