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
Inter Partes Requests Filed the Week of January 18th
| January 28, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for inter partes requests, often involving copending District Court litigation, is unfair. We will therefore review the Patent Office files each week to identify inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week. In some cases, the information available is incomplete.
This past week, the following requests were made:
(1) 95/001,298 – U.S. Patent No. 7,125,605 owned by MIT and entitled HIGHLY LUMINESCENT COLOR-SELECTIVE NANO-CRYSTALLINE MATERIALS. Filed January 20, 2010, by Nanoco Technologies.
(2) 95/001,299 – U.S. Patent No. 6,549,759 owned by Wi-LAN and entitled ASYMMETRIC ADAPTIVE MODULATION IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. Filed January 21, 2010, by Broadcom and Intel.
(3) 95/001,300 – U.S. Patent No. 7,478,140 owned by Pitney Bowes Software and entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SENDING ELECTRONIC MAIL AND PARCEL DELIVERY NOTIFICATION USING RECIPIENT’S IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION. Filed January 22, 2010, by Zumbox, Inc.
(4) 95/001,301 – U.S. Patent No. 7,058,586 owned by Pitney Bowes Inc. and entitled INFORMATION DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING SENDERS WITH A RECIPIENT’S MESSAGING PREFERENCES. Filed January 22, 2010, by Zumbox, Inc.
(5) 95/001,302 – U.S. Patent No. 6,690,773 owned by Pitney Bowes Inc. and entitled RECIPIENT CONTROL OVER ASPECTS OF INCOMING MESSAGES. Filed January 22, 2010, by Zumbox, Inc.
(6) 95/001,303 – U.S. Patent No. 7,268,436 owned by Infineon and entitled ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH CAVITY AND A METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME. Filed January 22, 2010, by TriQuint Semiconductor.
