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
APJs Deny Request to Add New Grounds to Inter Partes Review
| April 15, 2013
The APJs have shown a determination to enforce the inter partes review rules strictly, in order to prevent their dockets from becoming unmanageable.
Their recent decision in Research In Motion v. MobileMedia Ideas, IPR2013-00016, is a good example. In March the APJs instituted the review, finding that RIM had demonstrated a likelihood that it would prevail against the identified claims, based on two distinct combinations of prior art references. In the meantime, in a parallel infringement action in Delaware, the trial judge issued summary judgment that two of the identified claims were anticipated by a third prior art reference, one that had not been mentioned in RIM’s petition for review. RIM therefore asked the APJs to add to the review proceeding a new ground for rejection, specifically a ground based on the third reference.
During a conference call earlier this month, the APJs rejected RIM’s proposed addition to the proceeding. The APJs stated in a subsequent written order that “the original petition should have included all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).” Further, “the additional grounds [proposed by RIM] would place an unnecessary burden on the patent owner and Board, and would impact the ability of the Board to timely complete the review.” The APJs added that “the new grounds proposed by RIM seem to be redundant in light of the instituted grounds of unpatentability.”
The message to practitioners is to put all your cards on table from the very beginning. Of course, RIM could still pursue the third prior art reference through a new petition, but a new filing fee would be required.
