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
久光製薬は、米国特許登録製品「粘着剤およびこれを用いてなる貼付製剤」における特許権を失った
| June 23, 2010
特許権者は、米国特許権に対する再審査請求により予想外の結果を生むことがある（Ex parte Yasukochi et al）。
Read More/続きを読む
Hisamitsu Loses Patent for Adhesive for Transdermal Drug Delivery Patent
| June 16, 2010
Requesting reexamination of one’s own patent can have unpredictable consequences, as demonstrated yesterday by the PTO Board’s decision, Ex parte Yasukochi et al.
Three years ago Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical requested reexamination of claims 1, 3 and 6 of its U.S. Patent No. 7,034,083, entitled PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE AND PATCH EMPLOYING THE SAME, in view of certain prior art references that had not been before the examiner in the original prosecution. Reexamination was granted, but for all six claims of the ‘083 patent.
Read More/続きを読む
A Setback for TiVo Reexamination Patent
| June 10, 2010
This past Friday, the PTO made final its rejection of claims 31 and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, the key patent claims for TiVo’s digital video software for simultaneously storing and playing multimedia data, e.g., for time-shifting television signals. The Reexamination Request was filed by Dish Network in November 2008.
Read More/続きを読む
Challenge at the CAFC to ITC Exclusion Order Based on Claims Rejected in Reexamination
| June 2, 2010
Tessera’s ITC case involving computer chip packaging is of considerable commercial significance to the semiconductor industry. But it also raises the fascinating legal question of whether the Commission should issue an exclusion order against infringing imported products where the patent claims have been rejected in copending reexamination proceedings. Where the ITC finds violation of Section 337, the statute requires it to issue an exclusion order and/or a cease & desist order to protect the domestic industry, unless such relief would harm the public interest. Is the public interest harmed by the enforcement of patent claims currently under rejection at the PTO?
Read More/続きを読む
Parties’ Claims Decimated in PRISTIQ® Interference
| June 1, 2010
This past Friday the PTO Board entered judgment “in favor of” Wyeth in its interference with Sepracor. In dispute were claims covering Wyeth’s anti-depression composition, PRISTIQ® having the active ingredient O-desmethylvenafaxine succinate. The junior party Wyeth owns the two involved patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,673,838 and 7,291,347; the senior party Sepracor owns the three involved patent applications.
Read More/続きを読む
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.
Read More/続きを読む
MULLIGAN NO HELP TO CALLAWAY IN GOLF BALL CASE
| May 19, 2010
The possibility of PTO and the courts adopting different claim constructions has arisen in Callaway’s case against Acushnet for infringement of four golf ball patents.
In August 2009, the CAFC vacated a jury verdict because it contained an “irreconcilable inconsistency” – specifically, a finding that Callaway’s independent claim was non-obvious, but that a dependent claim was obvious. In March of this year, after a second trial, the jury found that all the asserted Callaway claims were anticipated and obvious. The case is now back at the CAFC awaiting decision.
Read More/続きを読む
PATENTEES HAVE A BAD WEEK AT PTO BOARD
| May 19, 2010
The PTO Board of Appeals decided five ex parte reexamination appeals last week. In four the Board affirmed rejections of all pending claims, in only one did the Board reverse the Examiner’s rejection. This is the opposite of the Board’s treatment of appeals in non-reexamination cases where an overwhelming majority of decisions are in favor of the applicant.
Read More/続きを読む
DEVELOPMENTS AS OF MAY 12TH
| May 12, 2010
(1) Toray Makes Progress Against Avery Dennison
We reported in September that Judge Marilyn Patel had stayed Avery Dennison’s case in the Northern District of California against Toray, in which Avery accused Toray of infringing three patents related to RFID labeling. Judge Patel stayed the case pending completion of the PTO’s inter partes reexaminations of those patents.
Read More/続きを読む
ROLLS-ROYCE PATENT RESCUED FROM INTERFERENCE
| May 10, 2010
In 2003, the PTO Board declared an interference between the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,077 belonging to Rolls-Royce, and the claims of a United Technologies patent application. The invention was a fan blade configuration used in turbofan jet engines. United Technologies, having an earlier priority date, was named the senior party, and Rolls-Royce, with the later date, the junior party.
Rolls-Royce argued that there was no “interference-in-fact” because its claims were patentably distinguishable over the claims of the United Technologies patent.
Read More/続きを読む
