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
ZTE Challenges Six Phone Security Patents, Week of February 11, 2013
| February 19, 2013
Last week the Chinese telephone giant ZTE requested inter partes review of six patents owned by ContentGuard Holdings and covering systems for protecting telephone content (see inter partes review Request Nos. (1) through (6)). ContentGuard has sued ZTE for infringement of the six patents.
Three times, Veeam Software used the tactic of filing two inter partes review requests against a single patent, to avoid the length limitation on such requests (see inter partes review Request Nos. (7) through (10)). Veeam filed a total of seven requests against four patents owned by Semantec. Semantec has accused Veeam of infringing the patents.
The following inter partes review requests were filed:
(1) IPR2013-00133 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072 entitled SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING THE DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF DIGITAL WORKS and owned by ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. Filed February 12, 2013 by ZTE Corp. The ’072 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (Case No. 3:12-cv-01226 (S.D. Cal.)).
(2) IPR2013-00134 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,225,160 entitled DIGITAL WORKS HAVING USAGE RIGHTS AND METHOD FOR CREATING THE SAME and owned by ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. Filed February 12, 2013 by ZTE Corp. The ’160 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (Case No. 3:12-cv-01226 (S.D. Cal.)).
(3) IPR2013-00136 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,359,884 entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING USAGE RIGHTS EXPRESSIONS and owned by ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. Filed February 12, 2013 by ZTE Corp. The ’884 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (Case No. 3:12-cv-01226 (S.D. Cal.)).
(4) IPR2013-00137 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,963,859 entitled CONTENT RENDERING REPOSITORY and owned by ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. Filed February 12, 2013 by ZTE Corp. The ’859 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (Case No. 3:12-cv-01226 (S.D. Cal.)).
(5) IPR2013-00138 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,139,736 entitled CONTENT RENDERING REPOSITORY and owned by ContentGuard Holding, Inc. Filed February 12, 2013 by ZTE Corp. The ’736 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (Case No. 3:12-cv-01226 (S.D. Cal.)).
(6) IPR2013-00139 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,269,576 entitled CONTENT RENDERING APPARATUS and owned by ContentGuard Holding, Inc. Filed February 12, 2013 by ZTE Corp. The ’576 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (Case No. 3:12-cv-01226 (S.D. Cal.)).
(7) IPR2013-00141 & IPR2013-00142 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,931,558 entitled COMPUTER RESTORATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS and owned by Symantec Corp. Filed February 13, 2013 by Veeam Software Corp. The ’558 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Symantec Corporation v. Veeam Software Corporation (Case No. 3:14-cv-00700-SI (N.D. Cal.)). The two petitions requesting review of the ‘558 patent are directed to different claims of the patent.
(8) IPR2013-00143 & IPR2013-00151 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,191,299 entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM OF PROVIDING PERIODIC REPLICATION and owned by Symantec Corp. Filed February 13, 2013 by Veeam Software Corp. The ’299 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Symantec Corporation v. Veeam Software Corporation (Case No. 3:14-cv-00700-SI (N.D. Cal.)). The two petitions requesting review of the ‘299 patent are directed to different claims of the patent.
(9) IPR2013-00144 & IPR2013-00145 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,254,682 entitled SELECTIVE FILE AND FOLDER SNAPSHOT IMAGE CREATION and owned by Symantec Corp. Filed February 13, 2013 by Veeam Software Corp. The ’682 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Symantec Corporation v. Veeam Software Corporation (Case No. 3:14-cv-00700-SI (N.D. Cal.)).
(10) IPR2013-00150 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,093,086 entitled DISASTER RECOVERY AND BACKUP USING VIRTUAL MACHINES and owned by Symantec Corp. Filed February 13, 2013 by Veeam Software Corp. The ‘682 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Symantec Corporation v. Veeam Software Corporation (Case No. 3:14-cv-00700-SI (N.D. Cal.)).
(11) IPR2013-00152 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 5,614,906 entitled METHOD FOR SELECTING A REMOTE CONTROL COMMAND SET and owned by Universal Electronics Inc. Filed February 15, 2013 by Universal Remote Control, Inc. The ’906 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc. (Case No. 12-cv-00329 (C.D. Cal.)).
The following ex parte requests were filed:
(1) 90/012,793 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,640,705 entitled FLOOR STRIP and owned by Pergo AB. Filed February 11, 2013.
(2) 90/012,794 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,682,879 entitled CAMOUFLAGE PATTERN METHOD AND APPARATUS and owned by Inventor. Filed February 12, 2013.
(3) 90/012,795 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 5,109,414 entitled SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS and owned by. Filed February 15, 2013. The ‘414 patent is the subject of two infringement actions styled Pegasus Development Corp. v. DIRECTV et al. (Case No. 1:00-cv-1020 (D. Del.)); Personalized Media Comm. V. Motorola et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-70 (E.D. Tex.)).
(4) 90/012,796 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 8,118,561 entitled EROSION- AND IMPACT-RESISTANT COATINGS and owned by. Filed February 15, 2013.
(5) 90/012,797 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. entitled AUTOMATED SNIFFER APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MONITORING COMPUTER SYSTEMS FOR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS and owned by. Filed February 15, 2013.
