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
Judge Attempts to “Synchronize” Trial Schedule and Reexamination Proceeding
| December 9, 2010
Trial judges face a difficult task when asked to balance the competing interests of a patentee entitled to speedy resolution of its infringement claim and the obvious desirability of waiting for the PTO to complete its reexamination of the validity of the patent. Judge Greg Kays of the Western District of Missouri may have hit on an approach that could appeal to other judges. Essentially, he plans to lift his order that had stayed the case pending completion of a reexamination, but also to set a trial date that is likely to occur after completion of the reexamination.
Earlier in Kinedyne Corp. v. Multiprens USA, Inc., Judge Kays stayed the case pending completion of a reexamination requested by the accused infringer “to conserve judicial resources while allowing the PTO to conduct reexamination.” The reexamination has reached something of a milestone: the examiner has confirmed the patentability of the claims of one patent and the dependent claims of a second patent, but maintained a rejection of the independent claim of that second patent. According to the Judge, this posture of the reexamination does not constitute a “material change of circumstances,” but he “does not intend to leave the stay in place indefinitely.”
Judge Kays has therefore ordered the parties to report on the status of the reexamination early next month. If there is “no material change in the status of the reexamination necessitating extension of the stay, the Court will lift the stay sua sponte…” The parties would then be required to propose a trial date “at a time when there is a substantial probability that the PTO will have completed its reexamination.” This synchronization of the litigation and reexamination schedules would certainly conserve judicial resources, but may be less helpful to the private parties.
