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
Requests against Three Philips’ Green LED Patents among those Filed Week of August 29, 2011
| September 6, 2011
The war between Koninklijke Philips and Seoul Semiconductor over “green” light-emitting diodes (LEDs) intensified last week when Seoul Semi requested reexamination of three Philips’ patents – U.S. Patent No. 6,274,924, 6,547,249 and 6,590,235 (see inter partes Request Nos. (3) & (4) and ex parte Request No. (6)). Philips has accused Seoul Semi in the Northern District of California of infringing the ‘249 and ‘235 patents, plus two other patents, and Seoul Semi has counter-claimed for infringement of one of its own patents.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,730 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,405,704 entitled INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WITH LIMITED TEMPERATURE CYCLE and owned by Kruse. Filed August 29, 2011, by Ford. The ‘704 patent is currently the subject of two litigations styled Kruse Tech. Part. v. Daimler AG (Case No. 8:10-cv-1215 (C.D. Cal.)); Kruse Tech. Part. v. Ford (Case No. 8:10-cv-1066 (C.D. Cal.)).
(2) 95/001,731 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,590,927 entitled SOFT OUTPUT VITERBI DETECTOR WITH ERROR EVENT OUTPUT and owned by Link_A_Media Devices. Filed August 30, 2011, by Marvell Semiconductor. The ‘927 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Link_A_Media Devices v. Marvell (Case No. 3:11-cv-616 (N.D. Cal.)).
(3) 95/001,732 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,547,249 entitled MONOLITHIC SERIES/PARALLEL LED ARRAYS FORMED ON HIGHLY RESISTIVE SUBSTRATES and owned by Philips Lumileds Lighting. Filed August 30, 2011, by Seoul Semiconductor. The ‘249 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Seoul Semiconductor et al. (Case No. 8:11-cv-356 (N.D. Cal.)).
(4) 95/001,733 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,590,235 entitled HIGH STABILITY OPTICAL ENCAPSULATION AND PACKAGING FOR LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES IN THE GREEN, BLUE, AND NEAR UV RANGE and owned by Philips Lumileds Lighting. Filed August 30, 2011, by Seoul Semiconductor. The ‘235 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Seoul Semiconductor et al. (Case No. 8:11-cv-356 (N.D. Cal.)).
(5) 95/001,734 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,269,636 entitled METHOD AND CODE MODULE FOR ADDING FUNCTION TO A WEB PAGE and owned by Augme Technologies. Filed August 31, 2011, by Yahoo!. The ‘636 patent is currently the subject of litigations styled Augme Techs. v. Yahoo! (Case No. 09-cv-5386 (N.D. Cal.)); Augme Techs. v. Racoda (Case No. 07-cv-7088 (S.D.N.Y.)).
(6) 95/001,735 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,993,889 entitled FERMENTIVE PRODUCTION OF FOUR CARBON ALCOHOLS and owned by Butamax Advanced Biofuels. Filed September 1, 2011, by Gevo. The ‘889 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Butamax Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo (Case No. 11-cv-054, 11-cv-697-SLR (D. Del.)).
(7) 95/001,736 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,631,822 entitled SHREDDER WITH THICKNESS DETECTOR and owned by Fellowes. Filed September 2, 2011, by ACCO Brands. The ‘822 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Fellowes v. ACCO Brands (Case No. 1:10-cv-7587 (N.D. Ill.)) and Royal Appliance Mfg. v. Fellowes (Case No. 1:11-cv-1276 (N.D. Ohio)).
The following ex parte requests were filed:
(1) 90/011,881 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,336,654 entitled PORTABLE VOIP SERVICE ACCESS MODULE and owned by Personal Voice Freedom. Filed August 29, 2011, by YMax Corp. The ‘654 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Personal Voice Freedom v. YMax Corp. et al. (Case No. 9:10-cv-8140-KLR (S.D. Fla.)).
(2) 90/011,882 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,103,380 entitled WIRELESS HANDSET COMMUNICATION SYSTEM and owned by NetAirus. Filed August 29, 2011, by Apple. The ‘380 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled NetAirus Techs. v. Apple (Case Nos. 10-cv-3257 (C.D. Cal.)).
(3) 90/011,883 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,427,078 entitled DEVICE FOR PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, DATA COLLECTION AND DATA PROCESSING, AND A CIRCUIT CARD and owned by Mobilemedia Ideas. Filed August 30, 2011, by Apple. The ‘078 patent is currently the subject of litigations styled Mobilemedia Ideas v. Apple (Case No. 1:10-cv-258-UNA (D. Del.)); Mobilemedia Ideas v. RIM et al. (Case No. 2:10-cv-113 (E.D. Tex.)); Mobilemedia Ideas v. HTC et al. (Case No. 2:10-cv-112 (E.D. Tex.)); SanDisk v. Mobilemedia Ideas (Case No. 4:11-cv-597 (N.D. Cal.)).
(4) 90/011,884 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,970,448 entitled DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING ANALYTE LEVELS and owned by DexCom. Filed August 30, 2011.
(5) 90/011,885 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,547,780 entitled INFARED LASER CATHETER SYSTEM and owned by CardioFocus. Filed August 30, 2011. The ‘780 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Cardio Focus v. Candela et al. (Case No. 1:08-cv-10285 (D. Mass.)).
(6) 90/011,886 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,274,924 entitled SURFACE MOUNTABLE LED PACKAGE and owned by Philips Lumileds Lighting. Filed August 30, 2011, by Seoul Semiconductor. The ‘924 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Seoul Semiconductor et al. (Case No. 8:11-cv-356 (N.D. Cal.)).
(7) 90/011,887 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,774,145 entitled TRANSCUTANEOUS ANALYTE SENSOR and owned by DexCom. Filed August 30, 2011, by Abbott Diabetes Care.
(8) 90/011,888 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,914,450 entitled SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING ANALYTE DATA and owned by DexCom. Filed August 31, 2011, by Abbott Diabetes Care.
(9) 90/011,889 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,829,009 entitled PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A POLYMER LAYER OF A FLEXIBLE OFFSHORE PIPE AND A FLEXIBLE UNBONDED and owned by NKT Flexibles. Filed September 1, 2011.
(10) 90/011,890 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,934,770 entitled BICYCLE SEAT and owned by Tampa Bay recreation, LLC. Filed September 2, 2011.
(11) 90/009,942 (paper filed) – U.S. Patent No. 5,737,394 entitled PORTABLE TELEPHONE APPARATUS HAVING A PLURALITY OF SELECTABLE FUNCTIONS ACTIVATED BY THE USE OF DEDICATED AND/OR SOFT KEY and owned by Mobilemedia Ideas. Filed September 1, 2011, likely by Apple or RIM. The ‘394 patent is currently the subject of litigations styled Mobilemedia Ideas v. Apple (Case No. 1:10-cv-258-UNA (D. Del.)); Mobilemedia Ideas v. RIM et al. (Case No. 2:10-cv-113 (E.D. Tex.)).
