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
Kinetic Concepts Patent Wins Reexamination Victory
| July 22, 2009
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (KCI) won an important battle today at the Patent Office in its ongoing patent war with competitor BlueSky Medical today.
KCI sued BlueSky on May 14, 2007, in the Eastern District of Texas for infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,216,651 regarding a system for healing wounds. The case was later transferred to the Western District of Texas which had handled an earlier dispute involving related patents. More significantly, though, an ex parte reexamination request (90/008,693) and an inter partes reexamination request (95/001,048) were subsequently filed with the Patent Office, attacking the ‘651 patent on the basis of a long series of prior art references.
The Patent Office has now closed both reexaminations, concluding that none of the cited references renders invalid any of the 125 claims of the ‘651 patent. The Patent Office decision repeatedly sided with the ‘651 patentee’s construction of the claims and analysis of the prior art.
Assuming that the inter partes requester does not succeed in an appeal, the ‘651 patentee will return to the litigation in the Western District of Texas with greatly strengthened claims.
