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
Fluxion Biosciences Files Four Reexamination Requests and Moves to Stay Infringement Suit
| June 30, 2010
Earlier this month, Fluxion Biosciences filed reexamination requests against four Cellectricon patents related to microfluidic structures involving cell-based biosensors. See “Recent Requests” below. The next day, Fluxion moved to stay a law suit that Cellectricon had filed last summer, accusing Fluxion of infringing those four patents. Cellectricon AB v. Fluxion Biosciences, Inc., 5:09-CV-03510-RMW (N.D. Cal.).
In its motion to stay, Fluxion asserts that each of the three familiar factors – possible prejudice to the patentee, simplification of issues, and the stage of the litigation – favors a stay. What makes Fluxion’s motion special, however, is that it also explains why the four requests are meritorious. Fluxion does not go into great length, but in two pages gives a technical explanation of why the first of the Cellectricon patents (U.S. Patent No. 5,376,252) is anticipated by a specific prior art reference. It then asserts that the “art cited [in the requests] against the remaining patents-in-suit is no less compelling.”
We have long believed that the three-factor test is an inadequate basis for determining whether a stay pending reexamination is appropriate. More important than those factors is the strength of the prior art relied upon in the requests – if the art is strong, reexamination will help the parties and the court, but if the art is weak, the only result is unnecessary delay.
Some have ridiculed our suggestion, asserting that trial judges will not take the time to consider the technical merits of the reexamination requests. We disagree.
