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
PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
| September 2, 2011
Yesterday the PTO Board handed NVIDIA victories (here, here) against two DRAM patents: the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,287,109 and reversed the examiner’s refusal to adopt proposed rejections of claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,470,405, the so-called “Barth I Patents.” Rambus may now appeal the rejection of the ‘109 claims to the CAFC. Since the Board’s reversal of the examiner regarding the ‘405 herepatent constitutes a new ground of rejection, Rambus may argue that rejection with the examiner.
The ‘109 and ‘405 patents were the subject of an ITC investigation that concluded last August with a determination that the patents were valid and infringed. On the basis of that determination, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting NVIDIA, HP and a host of other companies from importing infringing DRAMs into the United States. It also issued separate cease & desist orders against the individual respondents forbidding them from selling infringing DRAMs already in the United States. NVIDIA was reported to have taken a license under the Barth I Patents, thereby exempting it from the ITC’s remedial orders.
Yesterday’s ruling by the PTO Board raises the question of whether the ITC should rescind its exclusion and cease & desist orders which do not expire until 2015. We have previously questioned whether the ITC should issue or maintain such remedial orders on the basis of patents that the PTO has found in reexamination to be invalid.
The ITC’s orders additionally prohibit infringement of a third Rambus patent – U.S. Patent No. 6,591,353 – which is also in reexamination. The PTO Board is likely to render a decision on the ‘353 claims in early 2012.
