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
i4i PATENT EMERGES SUCCESSFULLY FROM REEXAMINATION
| May 10, 2010
Claims 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449, belonging to i4i, have emerged from reexamination intact.[1] The ‘449 patent claims a software method for storing and processing content and metacodes separately and distinctly.
The ‘449 patent was the subject of an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, i4i v. Microsoft (CA No. 6:07CV113, E.D. Tex.), at the end of which the jury awarded i4i $200 million. Judge Leonard Davis added $37 million in pre-judgment interest and also permanently enjoined Microsoft’s future infringement of the ‘449 patent, though the CAFC stayed the injunction pending appeal.
Prior to the trial in Texas, Microsoft requested the present reexamination, asserting that claims of the ‘449 patent were invalid over an earlier patent and article. The PTO granted the reexamination and issued an Office Action, rejecting all pending claims on June 15, 2009. The ‘449 patentee traversed the rejection, and late last month, the PTO withdrew the rejection.
In a lengthy analysis of the prior art, the examiner concluded that the prior art references, cited by Microsoft and relied upon in the rejection, did render the claims obvious. Neither reference disclosed the step of “compiling a map of the metacodes in the distinct storage means by locating, detecting, and addressing the metacodes” of claim 14 or the step of “noting in the map the found metacode and its position in the content” of claim 20.
This successful resolution of the reexamination should be a major help to i4i in the appeal at the CAFC and in its negotiation with Microsoft.
[1] Claims 1-13 were not included in the reexamination.
