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
Patentees Have another Rough Week at Board
| June 1, 2010
We have previously pointed out the paradox that whereas applicants in original prosecution are generally successful at the PTO Board, patentees in reexamination are not. That pattern continued last week. Of the seven reexamination decisions issued by the Board, examiner rejections were affirmed in four; in the other three, rejections were affirmed-in-part/reversed-in-part.
Even in the three cases with a mixed result, the patentee did not fare well. The Board reversed the rejection of 13 of the 17 claims in Ex parte Anascape, but only because the examiner had made rejection without having first construed two means-plus-function limitations in those claims.
In Ex parte Cryovac, the Board reversed the rejection of four claims, but those claims appear to have a much more narrow scope than the other claims whose rejection was affirmed.
Finally, the reexamination Ex parte Samsung Electronics was based on a request by the patent owner – presumably, the patent owner filed the request expecting to emerge from reexamination with the patentability of all, not just some, of its claims confirmed.
