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
TiVo Requests Reexamination of Three Verizon Patents
| June 3, 2011
Two weeks ago ITC Administrative Law Judge James Gildea issued an Initial Determination (ID) finding that Cablevision Systems and TiVo had violated Section 337 by the importation into the United States of digital TV cable boxes that infringe TiVo’s U.S. Patent No. 6,381,748. In his ID, Judge Gildea also found that ‘748 was valid over the prior art and that a domestic industry exists in the U.S. based on the claims of the ‘748 patent. The Judge additionally determined that there was no violation of Section 337 with respect to Verizon’s four other patents-in-suit, though the public record is not clear on the specific reasons for the no-violation finding. The investigation now goes to the Commission for its review; if the Commission affirms Judge Gildea’s determination of violation, it may order the exclusion of the infringing cable boxes from the U.S. and prohibit future sales of infringing cable boxes that are already in the U.S.
Yesterday, TiVo took steps to deal with Judge Gildea’s determination of violation by requesting reexamination of the ‘748 patent. TiVo might be hoping to affect the ITC’s decision on a suitable remedy for the violation, but in the past the Commission not considered pending reexaminations at the remedy stage of a case. TiVo might also hope to affect the Commission’s consideration of any prior art validity issues raised in Judge Gildea’s ID, but the ‘748 reexamination is likely filed too late to affect the Commission’s review of those issues. Or perhaps, TiVo’s goal with the reexaminations is to affect the outcome of co-pending infringement litigation. When the content of TiVo’s reexamination request becomes public, its strategy might be more evident.
TiVo also requested reexamination yesterday of two of the other Verizon patents in the ITC investigation, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,635,979 and 6,367,078, and might shortly seek reexamination of Verizon’s other patents as well. Judge Gildea found no violation of Section 337 regarding the ‘979 and ‘078 patents, but might have found them valid over the prior art.
Verizon’s three patent patents now in reexamination are the subject of a co-pending infringement action in Delaware that has been stayed, presumably until completion of the ITC’s investigation.
