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
Patentee’s Recent Remarks in Reexamination do not Affect Claim Construction
| January 28, 2011
It is commonly held that a patentee’s remarks made during reexamination, like applicant’s remarks made during original prosecution, are relevant to a court’s construction of the claims. There are exceptions, however, such as where the patentee’s remarks are not directly related to pending rejections. (See post of October 28, 2010). Thus, a patentee’s remarks in reexamination, that do not appear to be necessitated by the examiner’s rejections, are suspect as being self-serving.
Another exception to the general rule occurred this Monday in Mondis Technology, Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Ind., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7140, where the patentee supported its interpretation of several claim terms by citing its own remarks in a pending reexamination proceeding.
Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham IV was not impressed. In one instance, he stated somewhat cryptically that it “is worth mentioning, however, that [the patentee’s remark] was made during reexamination on June 18, 2010, which was merely a few months before Plaintiff filed its initial claim construction brief.” He then rejected the patentee’s proposed claim construction. In another instance, Magistrate Judge Everingham was more expansive: “Plaintiff’s argument that the applicant acted as his own lexicographer is without merit. The statements to which Plaintiff refers were made in reexamination merely months before Plaintiff filed its claim construction brief – thus, they should be given little, if any, weight.”
Clearly, the Judge suspected that the patentee’s remarks in reexamination were litigation-driven and may not have reflected a sincere understanding of the claim terms in question.
