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 Arguments in Reexamination Create Intervening Rights, Erasing $29.4 Million Verdict
| September 27, 2011
The CAFC panel decision yesterday in Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon will do more to popularize reexamination than all the proselytizing by all the reexamination lawyers and bloggers ever could. The Court held that an argument made by the patentee traversing a rejection in reexamination constituted a disclaimer of patented subject matter; this disclaimer triggered absolute intervening rights for the accused infringer under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307(b), thereby eliminating all damages for the period before the issuance of the reexamination certificate. The Court also suggested that the accused infringer might also be protected by equitable intervening rights for the period after issuance of the reexamination certificate and sent the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding.
Marine had sued HemCon for infringement of the patent. The trial judge issued summary judgment of literal infringement. At trial last September, the jury found that the patent was valid and awarded damages of $29.4 million for past infringement, and the trial judge issued a permanent injunction barring future infringement. A year before the trial started, however, HemCon requested reexamination. Though Marine’s patent ultimately emerged from the reexamination without cancelation or even amendment of the independent claims, Marine was forced to make an argument in the reexamination that resulted in the jury’s verdict and the judge’s injunction being vacated by the CAFC.
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests against MobileMedia and Round Rock among those Filed Week of September 19, 2011
| September 26, 2011
Last week saw a request filed by RIM against a MobileMedia patent, one of a number of mobile phone patents currently being litigated by the companies in the Eastern District of Texas (see ex parte Request No. (13)). The MobileMedia patent, like several of those patents-in-suit, was originally assigned to Nokia.
An unnamed party filed a request against a Round Rock Research patent for electronic tracking (see ex parte Request No. (12)).
And CareFusion filed two requests against Vesta Medical patents for medical waste disposal systems (see ex parte Request Nos. (10) & (11)). CareFusion set a record, we think, in August when it requested reexamination of 27 Vesta patents.
NEW INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION RULES
| September 22, 2011
改正後の当事者系再審査の適用と新制度
中村義哉 編訳
当事者系再審査の経過措置と新制度の適用時期
2011年9月16日に発効したAmerica Invents Act (以下AIAという)の下、当事者系再審査請求および対応する新制度の取り扱いは下記のようになります。
- 2011年9月16日より前に再審査請求された場合
従来通り、特許庁に請求書が受理されて再審査が開始されるための要件は、特許性についての実質的に新しい疑義（substantial new question of patentability；以下SNQという）があるか否かである。その再審査手続の最後まで、SNQの基準が適用される。
- 2011年9月16日以降、2012年9月16日前まで（AIA発効から一年未満）に再審査請求された場合
SNQの基準ではなく、合理的な見込み（reasonable likelihood）の基準が適用される。この基準で審査開始された再審査は、最後まで同基準が適用される。
- 2012年9月16日以降（AIA発効から2年以降）に再審査請求された場合
この場合、特許庁は再審査請求を受け付けない。すなわち、当事者系再審査請求に代わり改正法で導入された当事者系レビュー（Inter Partes Review）のみ認められる。当事者系再審査請求制度を規定する35 USC 第31章は、2012年9月16日以降は適用されない。当事者系レビューは、再審査請求とは異なるルールで施行される予定である。
上記のように、2011年9月16日以降に請求された当事者系再審査では、従来のSNQの基準はもはや適用されません。そして、改正法下では、SNQの基準ではなく、新しい基準が適用されることになります。新しい基準の下、事者系再審査開始の要件として、請求書で争われる少なくとも1つのクレームについて請求人の主張が通る（prevail；換言すると、審査官は拒絶理由を出すであろう）という合理的な見込み（reasonable likelihood）が要求されます。つまり、請求書にそのような情報が提示されていることが要件となります。
合理的な見込み（reasonable likelihood）の基準について、下院レポート（House Rep. 112-98 (Part 1), at 47, 112th Cong., 1st Sess.）に下記の記述があります。
“当事者系レビューの基準は、現在請求書の95％が満たすとされるSNQの基準から引き上げられ、合理的成功の見込み（reasonable likelihood of success）を示す情報を要求する基準に変更するものである。”
そして、合理的な見込みの基準とは何かというと、次の記述があります。
“引用特許または刊行物に基づき、請求書で争われる少なくとも1つのクレームについて請求人の主張が通ること(prevail)の合理的な見込みを示す記載（statement）、およびその特許または刊行物が再審査対象のクレームに対してどのように関係するのか、あるいはどのように適用するのかについての詳細な説明（detailed explanation）”
（セクション1.915(b)(3)参照）
分析
現在の時点で、SNQ基準が合理的見込みの基準に代わった結果どのような影響が生じるかを予測することはほとんど不可能ですが、上記下院レポートにあるように、「基準を引き上げる（elevate）」という表現に基づくと、新たな基準により受理（granted）される請求書の割合は低くなると予想されますが、クレームの拒絶に至る請求書の数は変わらないであろうと予想されます。つまり、拒絶に直結しやすい請求書のみが受理されることになり、入り口は絞られますが、そのような請求書である限り、最終的な結論は変わらないと予想されます。
新しい当事者系レビューと異なり、当事者系再審査は、当事者間の合意で終了させることはできません。さらに、当事者系レビューの後、その請求人はその手続において実際に提起されたか（was raised）あるいは合理的に提起可能であったであろう（reasonably could have been raised）根拠に基づいて特許無効を主張することは、その後の民事訴訟、PTO、ITCの手続でエストッペルになるためできません。これに対して、当事者系再審査の後は、その手続で実際に提起された提起されたかあるいは提起可能であったであろう（could have been raised）根拠に基づいて根拠にエストッペルが働きます。このように「reasonably」があるか否かの相違ですが、当事者系レビューでは明らかにエストッペルの範囲が広がります。2012年9月が近づく頃は、これらの点を考慮して、再審査請求にするのか、当事者系レビューにするのかを検討する必要がありそうです。
また、当事者系レビューの制限として、その請求前に、その当事者が特許の無効を主張する民事訴訟（例えば、反訴でない確認訴訟）を提起していた場合、当事者系レビューの請求が認められません。2012年9月が近づく頃は、この点にも注意しなければなりません。
New Inter Partes Reexamination Rules
| September 22, 2011
The USPTO recently announced new rules governing the provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) relating to inter partes reexamination that went into effect on September 16, 2011.
Inter partes reexamination requests submitted:
- Prior to September 16, 2011: The SNQ standard is applicable in determining whether the request for inter partes reexamination will be granted. If reexamination is ordered based on the SNQ standard, then the SNQ standard will apply throughout the reexamination proceeding.
- On or after September 16, 2011, but before September 16, 2012: The “reasonable likelihood” standard (i.e., a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the request) is applicable in determining whether the request for inter partes reexamination will be granted. If reexamination is ordered based on the “reasonable likelihood” standard, then this standard will apply throughout the reexamination proceeding.
- On or after September 16, 2012: The Office cannot grant, or even accord a filing date to, the request, because the inter partes reexamination provisions of 35 U.S.C. chapter 31 are not available for any request for inter partes reexamination submitted on or after September 16, 2012. The Office will only accept petitions to conduct inter partes review. (*** The Office will implement the new inter partes review proceedings in a separate rule making.)
Requests for Reexamination of Four Round Rock Patents, among those Filed Week of September 12, 2011
| September 19, 2011
Requests for reexamination were filed against four RFID patents owned by patent-holding/enforcement company Round Rock Research (see ex parte Request Nos. (1), (2), (4), & (5)). The requests do not indicate who filed them, and the patents does not appear to be the subject of pending litigation, raising the prospect of a party simply targeting Round Rock patents.
Earlier this year, Universal Electronics sued Logitech in the Central District of California for infringement of three touch-pad patents. Logitech has now replied by seeking reexamination of those patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (7), (8) & (9)).
Google, Apple and Quattro teamed up to request reexamination of a StreetSpace patent for online advertising (see inter partes Request No. (10)). The parties are currently in litigation over that patent in the Southern District of California.
Use of Reexamination Results in Parallel District Court Trials
| September 14, 2011
The extent to which a litigant may use results from a parallel reexamination was a major issue in Monday’s decision by Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero in Volterra Semiconductor v. Primarion in the Northern District of California (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102295). After a three-week trial in May, the jury determined that Defendant Primarion had infringed Plaintiff Volterra’s patent claims for certain “flip-chip” semiconductor structures. Primarion then moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, asserting inter alia that Judge Spero had given inconsistent treatment to the results of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit.
First, Primarion argued that Judge Spero had erred when he allowed Volterra to introduce at trial evidence of the PTO’s decision confirming the validity of the patents, but at the same time precluding Primarion from introducing evidence that the PTO had construed the asserted claims more narrowly than the Court did in its claim construction.
Microsoft & Nintendo Win at PTO Board
| September 14, 2011
The PTO Board of Appeals handed Microsoft and Nintendo a victory this morning in the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,344,791, affirming the examiner’s prior art rejection. The ‘791 patent claims a sensor for videogames. The owner of the ‘791 patent, Anascape, had sued the two companies in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of the patent.
VW Challenge to Flexible Car Warning Light among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of September 6, 2011
| September 12, 2011
In January, the company Effectively Illuminated Pathways, LLC. sued Aston Martin of North America, Bentley and Volkswagen of America (Bentley’s parent company) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,520,669 for a flexibly mounted warning light for cars, presumably rather up-scale cars. VW has now replied to that law suit by requesting reexamination of the ‘669 patent (see inter partes Request No. (1)), the request asserting 92 substantial new questions of patentability and weighing in at 1630 pages counting claim charts.
Cisco requested reexamination of a VirnetX patent (see inter partes Request No. (10)) in a dispute described in greater detail in our second item posted today. And SanDisk sought reexamination of a flash memory Netac patent (see inter partes Request No. (11)).
Also of interest last week was the fact that there were 16 inter partes reexamination requests and only 6 ex parte requests. Normally, the ex parte cases exceed the inter partes. Perhaps requesters are coming to the conclusion that full participation in the reexamination outweighs the risk of statutory estoppel attaching to inter partes requests.
VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
| September 12, 2011
VirnetX is the company that successfully sued Microsoft for patent infringement, that guided its patents through reexamination without cancelation or amendment, and that later collected $200 million in royalties from Microsoft. The VirnetX patents cover aspects of 4G telecommunications technology. Freelance author and analyst Dustin Moore describes the apparent significance of those patents:
The 3GPP, a collaboration between key telecommunication groups across the globe, is standardizing next generation wireless technology. The systems they are crafting will become the global mobile standard. The 3GPP has created the 4G LTE Series 33 specifications, which map out the security platform for companies to build their LTE compliant chips, servers, smart phones, etc. VirnetX has declared its patents as essential to this standard, which lays out an environment of automatic establishment of secure connections between trusted users. No other company has declared essential patents for these series 33 security specifications. This announcement notifies the telecommunication industry that it must license to avoid infringing VirnetX’s IPR when companies begin rolling out secure networks.
Dispute at PTO Board over “Substantial New Question” Issue
| September 9, 2011
Yesterday’s Board decision in Ex parte Civix DDI (90/008,398) addressed several aspects of the issue of substantial new question of patentability (SNQ), the threshold requirement for initiating a reexamination. The reexamination examiner had rejected most of the patent claims as being anticipated by each of two prior art references, and rejected the remaining claims as being obvious over those two primary references in combination with certain secondary references. The patentee, of course, challenged the rejections on the merits, but also asserted that reexamination should not have been initiated with respect to one of the primary references because the reexamination request had failed to raise an SNQ.
First, the patentee noted that the reference had been considered by the original examiner during the original prosecution and listed on the patent in reexamination. Since a proposed anticipation rejection would be based on the reference “by itself, and not in light of any other prior art,” the issue of patentability would be no different from the issues addressed by the examiner in the original prosecution. The Board (APJs Boalick & Easthom) was not persuaded, noting that the reference “was not the basis for any rejection during the original prosecution nor did it appear that it had been considered individually by the Examiner.” Also, since the reexamination request explained in detail how the reference anticipated the patent claims, the Board concluded that the request “had raised a substantial new question of patentability” based on the reference. The Board also likely relied on the fact that the reference was one of 550 listed on the patent, to reach its conclusion that the anticipation issue was not previously considered by the examiner.
