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
Oracle v. Google Android® Update
| June 30, 2011
Toward the end of May, we reported the status of Oracle’s patent infringement action against Google and its Android®, involving seven Java platform patents and a series of related copyrights. We also reported the reexaminations initiated by Google against each of Oracle’s patents. Essentially, we advised that Judge William Alsup was concerned about the feasibility of an October trial involving the number of patent claims asserted by Oracle.
Yesterday, the PTO issued a non-final rejection of Oracle’s U.S. Patent No. 6,125,447 (90/011,491). The examiner found that all 24 claims of the ‘447 patent are anticipated by either of two prior art references. Oracle may now traverse the rejection, and if the PTO maintains the rejection, Oracle may appeal it.
This brings to five the total number of Oracle patents that have now been rejected. In the case of Oracle’s U.S. Patent No. 6,061,520 (90/011,489), however, the rejection appears to be weak; indeed, the examiner has confirmed already the patentability of 14 of the ‘520 patent claims.
The cumulative effect of these reexamination rejections of Oracle’s patent claims may lead Judge Alsup to believe that the reexaminations will have a major impact on the claims for the October trial. If so, Judge Alsup would be encouraged to stay Oracle’s infringement litigation pending completion of the reexamination proceedings.
