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
Google and Yahoo! Attack on Browser Patent, among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of December 26, 2011
| January 3, 2012
Google and Yahoo! have requested reexamination of a browser patent owned by Interval Licensing (see ex parte Request No. (3)). Interval had already sued the two companies for infringement of the patent. Google and Microsoft have requested reexamination of a patent owned by Paid Search Engine Tools for a bid management system (see inter partes Request No. (1)). As above, there is a pending infringement action regarding the patent in question. This approach of two or more companies jointly requesting reexamination is becoming more common.
Ex parte reexamination was requested by an unidentified party against Intellect Wireless’ U.S. Patent No. 7,266,186 claiming a paging receiver and system (see ex parte Request No. (1)). Intellect Wireless has sued a number of companies – among them HTC, RIM, AT&T Mobility — for infringement of the ‘186 patent, as well as for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,310,416. HTC America filed inter partes requests against the ‘186 patent at the beginning of October, and against the ‘416 patent in November. Non-final rejections have already issued against both Intellect Wireless patents. According to HTC, the infringement action has been “effectively stayed pending a ruling” on HTC’s motion for summary judgment of inequitable conduct. The various reexaminations might have an impact on HTC’s inequitable conduct allegations.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,863 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,974,912 entitled PAID SEARCH ENGINE BID MANAGEMENT and owned by Paid Search Engine Tools. Filed December 28, 2911, by Google and Microsoft. The ‘912 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Paid Search Engine Tools v. Google et al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-306 (E.D. Tex.)).
(2) 95/001,864 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,155,241 entitled SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENABLING A USER OF A COMMUNICATION DEVICE TO MANAGE REMOTE INFORMATION and owned by Helferich Patent Licensing. Filed December 29, 2011, by CBS Interactive. The ‘241 patent is currently the subject of three infringement actions filed by Helferich.
(3) 95/001,865 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,714,152 entitled CARRIER FOR OLEFIN OXIDE CATALYST and owned by SD Lizenzverwertungsgesellschaft GmbH & Co. Filed December 30, 2011, by Shell Oil.
The following ex parte requests were filed:
(1) 90/012,072 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,266,186 entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVED PAGING RECEIVER AND SYSTEM and owned by Intellect Wireless. Filed December 27, 2011. The ‘186 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Intellect Wireless v. HTC (Case No. 1:09-cv-2945 (N.D. Ill.)).
(2) 90/012,073 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 5,792,753 entitled COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING HYALURONIC ACID AND PROSTAGLANDIN-SYNTHESIS-INHIBITING DRUGS and owned by Jagotec AG. Filed December 28, 2011.
(3) 90/012,074 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507 entitled BROWSER FOR USE IN NAVIGATING A BODY OF INFORMATION, WITH PARTICULAR APPLICATION TO BROWSING INFORMATION REPRESENTED BY AUDIOVISUAL DATA and owned by Interval Licensing. Filed December 28, 2011, by Yahoo! and Google. The ‘507 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Interval Licensing v. AOL et al. (Case No. 2:10-cv-1385 (W.D. Wash.)).
(4) 90/001,075 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 8,027,916 entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SCREENING FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS and owned by Western Union. Filed December 30, 2011.
(5) 90/009,973 (paper filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,161,738 entitled SECURE DOCUMENT OF VALUE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME and owned by Geisecke & Devrient GmbH. Filed December 8, 2011.
(6) 90/009,974 (paper filed) – U.S. Patent No. 5,261,009 entitled MEANS FOR RESOLVING AMBIGUITIES IN TEXT PASSED UPON CHARACTER CONTEXT and owned by Nuance Communications. Filed December 9, 2011.
(7) 90/009,975 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,418,898 entitled M16 MODIFIED WITH PUSHROD OPERATING SYSTEM AND CONVERSION METHOD and owned by Frank Desomma. Filed December 14, 2011.
(8) 90/009,976 (paper filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,908,979 entitled PALLET HAVING LOAD BEARING CAPABILITIES ON WHICH ARTICLES MAY BE PALCED and owned by Aeropal Technology Sdn. Bhd. Filed December 14, 2011.
(9) 90/009,977 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,902,754 entitled and owned by General Mills. Filed December 14, 2011. The ‘754 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled General Mills Marketing et al. FRITSCH GmbH (Case No. 11-cv-2099 (D. Minn.)).
