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
Apple, Twitter & Facebook Target Computer Query Patents, Week of October 21, 2013
| October 28, 2013
Late last year, Evolutionary Intelligence began a series of actions against the who’s-who of American social media companies, notably Apple, Facebook, Foursquare Labs, Groupon, Living Social, Millennial Media, Sprint Nextel, Twitter, and Yelp, accusing them of infringing two patents that claim systems and methods for searching for information on a computer. Last week, Apple struck back, filing two requests for inter partes review of one of the patents, and four requests against the other (see inter partes review Request Nos. (4) & (6)). Such multiple requests against a single patent have become a preferred tactic for companies like Apple to overcome the PTO’s 60-page limit on requests. Facebook and Twitter filed their requests against one of Evolutionary’s patents (see inter partes review Request Nos. (12) & (13)). It is quite likely that the Patent Office will consolidate these matters.
Veeam Software was the leader, at least in terms of the number of patents challenged, filing inter partes requests against four Symantec patents (see inter partes review Request Nos. (8) to (11)). Symantec has sued Veeam for infringement of the patents.
And the enthusiasm for seeking post-grant review against business method patents claiming financial systems continued last week with four new requests (see post-grant review Request Nos. (1) to (4)).
Read More/続きを読む
Petitions for Post-Grant Review of Six “Covered Business Method Patents” Filed, Week of October 14, 2013
| October 22, 2013
The number of requests for post-grant review of covered business method patents was slow at first, but has picked up steam of late, to the point that last week there were more such requests than requests for inter partes review. Most notably, a collection of companies, lead by Apple, requested post-grant review of four patents related to “information management and synchronous communications system and method for generation of computerized menus for restaurants” (see post-grant review Request Nos. (2) to (5)). The owner of the patents, Ameranth, has sued Apple and an assortment of restaurateurs for infringement. Practitioners will be interested to note that none of the proposed grounds for rejection are based on patents or printed publications, rather the challenges are based on §§ 101 and 112.
Electronic Frontier Foundation, that describes itself as “a donor-supported membership organization working to protect fundamental rights regardless of technology,” requested inter partes review of a media content dissemination patent owned by Personal Audio (see inter partes Request No. (1)). Quite a number of media companies have been sued in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of the patent.
Finally, the knock-down-drag-battle between NuVasive and Medtronic escalated last week with the latter filing two more requests for inter partes review (see inter partes review Request Nos. ((2) & (4)).
Google, Microsoft, Sony, Facebook & Samsung Gang Up on Two B.E. Tech. Patents, Week of October 7, 2013
| October 14, 2013
Last year, Memphis-based B.E. Technologies sued 19 social media/smartphone companies for infringement of two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,628,314 & 6,771,290) claiming targeted advertising systems. Last week, Google, Microsoft and Facebook requested inter partes review of the ‘314 patent, and Google, Sony, Microsoft and Samsung requested inter partes review of the ‘290 patent (see inter partes review Request Nos. (5), (7), (11), (12), (13), (17), & (20)). Clearly, inter partes review has become the weapon of choice for the Internet giants of the world.
Separately, Google filed inter partes review requests and covered business method post-grant review requests against three Unwired Planet patents claiming systems for providing location information for wireless devices (see inter partes review Request Nos. (4), (9) & (10) and CBM Request Nos. (1), (2) & (3)). Last week saw six requests altogether for covered business method post-grant review, which has become more popular of late in light of the APJ’s broad construction of the statutory phrase “financial product or service.”
Samsung Seeks Inter Partes Review of Four Fractus Antenna Patents, Week of September 30, 2013
| October 7, 2013
Last week Samsung filed inter partes review requests against four patents owned by Spanish antenna-maker Fractus (see inter partes review Request Nos. (8), (9), (10) & (11)). The requests are the latest in a long-standing dispute between companies. The highlight of that dispute, so far, has been a $23 million jury verdict based on the four Fractus patents in May 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Leonard Davis later added $15 million to the verdict after finding that Samsung’s infringement was willful. A few months before that verdict, Samsung had requested inter partes reexamination of those patents. The reexaminations resulted in rejection of key claims and Fractus has appealed to the PTO Board of Appeals, with oral argument scheduled for November 20th. Earlier this year, Fractus filed a second infringement action against Samsung, also in the Eastern District of Texas – the idea behind Samsung’s inter partes review requests might be to attack the Fractus claims that are the subject of this new infringement action, but have not been addressed in the reexaminations.
The Federal Circuit’s recent holding in Fresenius v. Baxter might determine whether the 2011 verdict survives the Samsung’s challenges at the Patent Office to Fractus’ patents.
