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
Old Era of Post-Grant Examination Ended and New Era Began Sunday Morning
| September 17, 2012
IP360 is reporting this morning that the first petition under the new post-grant examination provisions of the America Invents Act was filed Sunday – a petition for post-grant review filed by SAP challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 owned by Versata.
The petition includes an argument that certain claims are invalid as anticipated by a printed publication – an argument available under the old law. But the petition also includes a number of assertions that are possible only under the new provisions: that claims are invalid because they recite patent-ineligible subject matter, they lack written description support in the specification, they are indefinite, and they were known in the United States. There is even an argument that the claims invalid over “admitted prior art” based on the patentee’s infringement allegations.
One negative aspect of SAP’s petition is the filing fee, $35,800.
Just as the new was beginning, the old era was ending, and with a bang. There were 210 requests for ex parte reexamination and 259 requests for inter partes reexamination, by our count in the last week, about 15 times the normal number for a seven-day period. Needless to say, our customary weekly report of new filings will be a bit late this week.
