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
McNeil Attachment
| July 31, 2009
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-1546 (Re-examination No. 90/006,467)
IN RE MCNEIL-PPC, INC.
Dianne B. Elderkin, Woodcock Washburn, LLP, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for appellant. With her on the brief were Wendy A. Choi and William F. Smith.
Of counsel was Ruben H. Munoz.
Read More/続きを読む
Avery Case Attachment
| July 20, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION : Case No. 08 CV 795
Plaintiff, JUDGE KATHLEEN O’MALLEY v. ALIEN TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Defendant.
Before the Court is Defendant Alien Technology Corporation’s (“Alien”) Motion to Stay Proceedings on ‘596, 032, and ‘251 Patents Pending Reexamination (“Motion to Stay”) (Doc. 115). In its motion, Alien requests that the Court stay all proceedings relating to United States Patent Nos. 6,951,596, 7,368,032, and 7,361,251 pending the conclusion of inter partes reexamination of each of those patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Plaintiff Avery Dennison Corporation (“Avery”) opposes the Motion to Stay (Doc. 118, Avery’s Resp. in Opp’n), which has now been fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication.1 For the reasons set forth below, Alien’s motion is GRANTED. 2
Read More/続きを読む
