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
Challenge to Samsung White LED Patent, Among the After-Grant Filings Week of October 22, 2012
| October 29, 2012
Ex parte reexamination was requested for Samsung’s U.S. Patent No. 7,959,312 claiming white LEDs (see ex parte Request No. (2)). Samsung has sued OSRAM for infringing eight patents, including the ‘312 patent. Still, since the request is ex parte rather than inter partes, it is likely filed by a third party.
Vestcom requested inter partes review of Grandville Printing’s U.S. Patent No. 8,020,765 (see inter partes review Request No. (1)). This is Vestcom’s second run at the ‘765 patent – in August Vestcom requested inter partes reexamination, but the Patent Office denied the request, concluding that Vestcom had “failed to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail,” essentially, the PTO found that Vestcom had failed to explain adequately why allowance of the claims in the original prosecution was wrong.
The following inter partes review requests were filed:
(1) IPR2013-00031 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 8,020,765 entitled METHOD OF PRINTING, DISTRIBUTING AND PLACING PRICE INFORMATION and owned by Grandville Printing Company. Filed October 22, 2012 by Vestcom International, Inc.
(2) IPR2013-00033 (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, LLC. Filed October 25, 2012 by CBS Interactive Inc., The New York Times Company, G4 Media LLC, Bravo Media LLC, and Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. The ‘241 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. Suns Legacy Partners LLC (Case No. 2:11CV2304 (D. Ariz.)); Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. Bravo Media, LLC (Case No. 1:11CV7647 (N.D. Ill.)); Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. CBS Corporation (Case No. 1:11CV7607 (N.D. Ill.)); Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. Bravo Media, LLC (Case No. 1:11CV7647 (N.D. Ill.))
The following ex parte requests were filed:
(1) 90/012,707 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,473,065 entitled METHODS OF IMPROVING DISPLAY UNIFORMITY OF ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAYS BY CALIBRATING INDIVIDUAL PIXEL and owned by Canon. Filed October 22, 2012 by Canon.
(2) 90/012,708 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,959,312 entitled WHITE LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND WHITE LIGHT SOURCE MODULE USING THE SAME and owned by Samsung Electronics. Filed October 22, 2012, perhaps by OSRAM. The ‘312 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Samsung v. OSRAM (Case No. 1:11-cv-630 (D. Del.)).
(3) 90/012,709 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,847,822 entitled CELLULAR TELEPHONE SYSTEM THAT USES POSITIONS OF A MOBILE UNIT TO MAKE CALL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS and owned by EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech. Filed October 22, 2012. The ‘822 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. Cellco Partnership (Case No. 4:08-cv-00816 (N.D. Ohio)); EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Case No. 4:08-cv-00817 (N.D. Ohio)); EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. Spring Spectrum LP et al. (Case No. 4:08-cv-00818 (N.D. Ohio)); EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. Alltel Communications LLC (Case No. 4:08-cv-00821 (N.D. Ohio)); EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Case No. 4:08-cv-00822 (N.D. Ohio)); EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:10-cv-02567 (N.D. Ohio)); EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. U.S. Cellular Corp. (Case No. 4:09-cv-02313 (N.D. Ohio)); EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. et al. (Case No. 4:09-cv-02815 (N.D. Ohio)); EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC et al. v. TracFone Wireless, Inc. (Case No. 5:10-cv-00245 (N.D. Ohio)).
(4) 90/012,710 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,476,346 entitled COMPOSITIONS INHIBITING THE EXPANSION OF FIRE, SUPPRESSING EXISTING FIRE, AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE AND USE THEREOF and owned by EarthClean Corporation. Filed October 23, 2012.
