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 Admissible as Evidence to Negate Willfulness
| September 7, 2010
Judge Roslyn Silver ruled last Thursday in Integrated Technology v. Rudolph Technologies that the accused infringer Rudolph could introduce evidence at trial of a reexamination against one of the two patents in dispute.
Integrated sued Rudolph in 2006 for infringement of two patents related to systems for inspecting integrated circuit probe cards, including U.S. Patent No. 6,118,894. In July 2009, Rudolph filed a request for reexamination against the ‘894 patent (90/009,551). The PTO granted reexamination against all 22 claims of the ‘894 patent. Since then, however, the patentability of claims 4-22, several of which are independent claims, has been confirmed. Only claims 1-3 stand rejected.
Trial in the case is scheduled to begin the second week of November, and the patentee Integrated Technology moved to exclude evidence of the ‘894 reexamination. Judge Silver denied the motion. “Evidence of the Patent Office’s Actions is relevant, at the very least, to the issue of willfulness” (emphasis added) Judge Silver explained, suggesting that the ‘894 reexamination might be admissible with respect to other issues besides willfulness. Judge Silver cited Lucent Tech. Inc. v. Gateway Inc., 2007 WL 6955272 (S.D. Cal.), but did not address the trial court decisions that find admission of evidence of reexamination to be unduly prejudicial.
