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
Right of Appeal Notice in RIM Reexamination of Visto Patent
| February 10, 2011
A Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) has issued in the inter partes reexamination of Visto’s U.S. Patent No. 7,363,349 which claims gateway servers and methods for real-time data retrieval. In the RAN, the examiner states that the amended claims are patentable over the prior art because of Visto’s amendment of each of the independent claims to recite a limitation from one of the dependent claims. The reexamination request had been filed by Research in Motion (RIM) who now has the option of appealing the examiner’s decision to the PTO Board.
Who won? The case demonstrates the uncertainty of “reexamination kill-rates.” Assigning success in a case to one side or the other, where claims have been amended, depends on the commercial realities. If the market for the claimed product is largely in the future, Visto is the winner as it emerges from reexamination (assuming that RIM does not pursue and win an appeal) with a patent enjoying an “enhanced presumption of validity.” On the other hand, if the market for the claimed product is largely in the past, RIM is the winner – Visto’s damages for infringement of its independent claims for the period prior to the PTO’s issuance of the reexamination certificate are eliminated by Visto’s claim amendments. That issuance date could be extended by a year or two if RIM appeals the examiner’s decision.
Visto had sued RIM for infringement of the ‘349 patent in 2008, but the case has been dismissed, apparently on the basis of a settlement agreement.
