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
COURT ACCEPTS REEXAMINATION RESULT IN DECIDING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION
| April 11, 2011
Judge Douglas Woodlock has denied the patentee’s motion for a preliminary injunction in Red Bend v. Google, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36217 (D. Mass.), finding that Red Bend was unlikely to succeed on the merits, specifically, unlikely to establish that Google’s software infringes. What will interest reexamination practitioners, however, is Judge Woodlock’s analysis of the prior art validity issue. On that question, he found that Red Bend was likely to succeed on the merits because the “PTO has … issued a Reexamination Certificate as to all claims.” In contrast to the Judge’s quite detailed analysis of the claim construction, infringement, and irreparable harm issues, his analysis of the validity issue relied solely upon the PTO’s confirmation of the validity of the claims in reexamination.
Perhaps if Judge Woodlock had concluded that Red Bend was likely to succeed on the merits with respect to the infringement issue, he would have addressed the specific application of the patent claims to the prior art references in greater detail, rather than merely cite the outcome of the PTO’s reexamination. On the other hand, the Judge’s reliance upon “the ‘current posture’ of the Reexamination process,” suggests an interesting deference to the conclusions obtained in reexamination proceedings. Or perhaps I am reading too much into the Judge’s decision.
