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
RIM Challenge of Two SimpleAir Patents, among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of May 9, 2011
| May 16, 2011
RIM has requested reexamination of SimpleAir’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,021,433 and 6,735,614 that claim contact alerts for incoming messages (see ex parte Request No. (15) & inter partes Request No. (5)). SimpleAir has accused Apple, RIM, Facebook and a number of others in the Eastern District of Texas of infringement of the ‘614 and ‘433 patents, as well as two other patents.
The week also saw yet another round in the war between Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom over analyte sensors (see ex parte Request No. (5)).
And Square, Inc. requested reexamination of three REM Holdings patents for reader cards for cell phones (see inter partes Request Nos. (2), (3) & (4)), which are the subject of an infringement dispute between those companies in the Eastern District of Missouri.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,617 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,238,289 entitled RADIO FREQUENCY GAME CONTROLLER and owned by Eleven Engineering Game Control. Filed May 9, 2011, by. The ‘289 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Eleven Engineering v. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft (Case No. 1:09-cv-903-LPS (D. Del.)), where a joint motion to stay is pending.
(2) 95/001,618 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,810,729 entitled CARD READER DEVICE FOR A CELL PHONE AND METHOD OF USE and owned by REM Holdings. Filed May 10, 2011, by Square, Inc. The ‘729 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Square, Inc. & James McKelvey v. REM Holdings 3, LLC (Case No. 4:10-cv-2243-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.)).
(3) 95/001,619 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,918,394 entitled CARD READER DEVICE FOR A CELL PHONE AND METHOD OF USE and owned by REM Holdings. Filed May 10, 2011, by Square, Inc. The ‘394 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Square, Inc. & James McKelvey v. REM Holdings 3, LLC (Case No. 4:10-cv-2243-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.)).
(4) 95/001,620 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,896,248 entitled CARD READER DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE and owned by REM Holdings. Filed May 10, 2011, by Square, Inc. The ‘248 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Square, Inc. & James McKelvey v. REM Holdings 3, LLC (Case No. 4:10-cv-2243-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.)).
(5) 95/000,631 (paper filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,735,614 entitled CONTACT ALERTS FOR UNCONNECTED USER and owned by SimpleAir. Filed May 3, 2011, by RIM. The ‘614 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled SimpleAir v. AWS et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-289-TJW (E.D. Tex.)).
The following ex parte requests were filed:
(1) 90/011,679 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,970,695 entitled CALLING PARTY ANNOUNCEMENT APPARATUS and owned by Classco. Filed May 9, 2011, by Kyocera. The ‘695 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Classco v. Kyocera (Case No. 10-CB-12282-RWZ (D. Mass.)).
(2) 90/011,680 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,206,572 entitled CALLING PARTY ANNOUNCEMENT APPARATUS and owned by Classco. Filed May 9, 2011, by Kyocera. The ‘572 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Classco v. Kyocera (Case No. 10-CB-12282-RWZ (D. Mass.)).
(3) 90/011,681 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,933,505 entitled LOW TEMPERATURE, BUMP-BONDED RADIATION IMAGING DEVICE and owned by Oy Ajat. Filed May 10, 2011.
(4) 90/011,682 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,766,295 entitled ADAPTION OF A SPEECH RECOGNITION SYSTEM ACROSS MULTIPLE REMOTE SESSIONS WITH A SPEAKER and owned by Nuance Communications. Filed May 10, 2011, likely by Vlingo. The ‘295 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Nuance Communications v. Vlingo (Case No. 09-cv-11414 (D. Mass.)).
(5) 90/011,683 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,001,067 entitled DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING ANALYTE LEVELS and owned by DexCom. Filed May 10, 2011, by Abbott Diabetes Care.
(6) 90/011,684 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,373,876 entitled SINGLE MODE OSCILLATOR FOR A LASER PEENING LASER and owned by LSP Techs. Filed May 10, 2011, by Metal Improvement Company. The ‘876 patent is currently the subject of two litigations styled LSP Techs. v. Continuum Electro-Optics (Case No. 2:08-cv-38-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio)) & LSP Techs. v. Metal Improvement (Case No. 2:08-cv-526-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio)).
(7) 90/011,685 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,001,858 entitled PARASITICIDAL FORMULATIONS SUITABLE FOR DERMAL APPLICATION and owned by Bayer. Filed May 11, 2011.
(8) 90/011,686 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,527,681 entitled HOME TRAINER and owned by Jacobus Hubertus Tacx. Filed May 11, 2011, by Owner.
(9) 90/011,687 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,373,876 entitled SINGLE MODE OSCILLATOR FOR A LASER PEENING LASER and owned by LSP Techs. Filed May 11, 2011, by Metal Improvement. The ‘876 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled LSP Techs. v. Continuum Electro-Optics (Case No. 2:08-cv-38-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio)) & LSP Techs. v. Metal Improvement (Case No. 2:08-cv-526-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio)).
(10) 90/011,688 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,887,616 entitled ELECTRODE UNIT AND SECONDARY BATTERY USING THE SAME and owned by Samsung SDI Co., LTD. Filed May 12, 2011, by Owner.
(11) 90/011,689 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,843,086 entitled MAGIC KEYCHAIN and owned by John S. Fitch. Filed May 13, 2011.
(12) 90/011,690 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,211,319 entitled ALUMINUM CONDUCTOR COMPOSITE CORE REINFORCED CABLE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE and owned by Partners for Growth. Filed May 13, 2011 by Mercury Cable & Energy. The ‘319 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled CTC Cable v. Mercury Cable & Energy (Case No. 8:09-cv-261 (C.D. Cal. )).
(13) 90/011,691 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,985,136 entitled PORTABLE COMMUNICATOR and owned by The Bank of Nova Scotia. Filed May 13, 2011.
(14) 90/011,692 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,057,605 entitled PORTABLE COMMUNICATOR and owned by either Seagate or The Bank of Nova Scotia. Filed May 13, 2011.
(15) 90/009,904 (paper filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,021,433 entitled SYSTEM FOR BROADCASTING INFORMATION FROM A CENTRAL SERVER AND INSTANTANEOULSY GENERATING ALERTS UPON RECEIPT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RECEIVER IS ON OR OFF and owned by SimpleAir Inc. Filed May 3, 2011, by RIM. The ‘433 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled SimpleAir v. AWS et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-289-TJW (E.D. Tex.)).
