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
Card Activation Case: A Correction
| September 28, 2010
Yesterday we posted a story about the reexamination of a patent owned by Card Activation and the effects that the reexamination might have on a parallel law suit. We commented the amendment of two independent claims to recite the subject of two dependent claims “would preclude Card Activation from recovering damages accrued for infringement prior to last week’s reexamination certificate issue,” citing 35 U.S.C. § 307(b). One of our subscribers subsequently pointed out that the comment misstated the law.
The general rule under § 307(b) is that an amendment of a claim in reexamination that “substantively changes” the scope of the claim extinguishes damages for acts of infringement that occurred before the date of the reexamination certificate. Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1346, 49 USPQ2d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1998). On the other hand, an amendment of an independent claim that merely incorporates the subject matter of a dependent claim is not treated as “substantive.” Bloom Engineering Co., Inc. v. North American Mfg. Co., Inc., 129 F.3d 1247, 1250, 44 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We will leave to the courts the question of how these legal principles apply to the reexamined claims of the Card Activation patent. We do plan, however, to post a study on claim amendments in reexamination and the effect of those amendments on subsequent litigation.
We apologize for our error and thank our subscriber.
