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
Verizon Attack on EMSAT Cell Phone System Patent among Reexamination Requests Filed Week of December 13, 2010
| December 21, 2010
The most interesting reexamination request last week was filed by Verizon Wireless against EMSAT’s U.S. Patent No. 7,289,763 for a cellular telephone system (see Inter partes Request No. (6)). EMSAT had sued nine companies for infringement of the ‘763 patent, including Verizon.
But perhaps most noteworthy was the fact that Apple did not file any requests.
Read More/続きを読む
Apple Requests for Reexamination of MONKEYMedia Patents among those Filed Week of December 6, 2010
| December 14, 2010
When sued for patent infringement, Apple’s strategy this year has been to request reexamination of the patents-in-suit as soon as possible. It repeated that strategy this week by filing inter partes requests against two MONKEYMedia patents (see Inter partes Request Nos. (3) & (5))..
DNA2.0, Inc. has requested reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,786,464 owned by NIH for “Over-expression of Mammalian and Viral Proteins” (see Ex parte Request No. (12)). An ironic aspect of this conflict is that DNA2.0 is a past recipient of grant money from NIH.
And finally, HTC appears to have completed its assault on Fractus by requesting reexamination of three more Fractus patents (see Inter partes Request Nos. (8) to (10)).
Read More/続きを読む
HTC Attacks on Fractus Patents among Reexamination Requests Filed Week of November 29
| December 8, 2010
In previous weeks, Samsung and Kyocera have requested reexamination of the patents that Fractus had accused them and other cell phone makers of infringing. Last week, it was HTC’s turn, as it requested reexamination of five of the nine Fractus patents-in-suit (see Inter partes Request Nos. (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)). The infringement litigation is Fractus S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al. in the Eastern District of Texas.
Requests were also filed against four AT&T patents (see Ex parte Request Nos. (13) to (16)) that are the subject of AT&T Intellectual Prop. V. TiVo Inc. in the Northern District of California. Though the identity of the filer is not yet clear from PTO files, it is presumably TiVo, no stranger to reexamination proceedings.
Finally, LG is attacking Whirlpool’s ‘130 patent that LG was found by a Delaware jury to infringe earlier this year (see Ex parte Request No. (20)).
Read More/続きを読む
Fractus Patents Hit with Nine More Reexamination Requests, Among New Requests Filed Last Week
| December 1, 2010
In our post of November 22, 2010, we described Samsung’s strategy for defending against allegations that it and several other cell phone makers infringe nine antenna patents owned by Fractus – specifically by vigorously defending in the eastern District of Texas and requesting reexamination at the PTO against all nine Fractus patents. Now it appears that co-defendant Kyocera has filed its own set of reexamination requests against the “Fractus Nine” (Inter partes Nos. (4) to (11), (13) below). Not all the details of the new requests are publically available because these new requests were paper-filed and because of certain procedural problems. It is quite likely, however, that these requests will be granted and merged with Samsung’s earlier reexaminations.
Also of interest is a request filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against a DexCom patent for transcutaneous analyte sensors. Abbott and DexCom sparred in reexamination over that technology in the past, for instance regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,931, 327 and 7,276,029.
Read More/続きを読む
Apple Files Nine Reexamination Requests
| November 23, 2010
Apple has been especially active lately in defending against charges of patent infringement by filing requests for reexamination. In response to two separate infringement suits in Texas, it filed requests against two Mirror Works patents and three Affinity Labs patents, and for an ITC investigation, it filed requests against four S3 Graphics patents (See Inter partes Request Nos. (1) to (3) & (6) to (7), and Ex parte Request Nos. (16) to (19)).
Read More/続きを読む
Samsung Attack on Two Mobile Phone Antenna Patents Owned by Fractus among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of November 8th
| November 17, 2010
Last year Fractus S.A of Spain sued Samsung and a host of other mobile telephone makers in the Eastern District of Texas for infringing nine patents related to internal antennas for mobile telephones. Samsung has now filed reexamination requests against two of those Fractus patents (Inter partes Request Nos. (1) & (2) below). Requests for reexamination have now been filed against all nine Fractus patents-in-suit.
Also of special interest are reexamination requests filed by TiVo against two EchoStar patents for TV programming (Ex parte Request Nos. (3) & (5) below).
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests by Whirlpool against Two LG Refrigerator Patents among those Filed the Week of November 1st
| November 9, 2010
The most commercially significant requests filed last week are likely the ones filed by Whirlpool against two LG refrigerator patents (Inter partes Nos. (4) & (5) below). LG sued Whirlpool for infringement of those patents a little more than a year ago. In early 2008, Whirlpool filed an ITC complaint against LG for several patents covering refrigerators (Inv. No. 337-TA-632), and in February of this year, the Commission issued its final determination finding no violation of Section 337.
Also of interest is a request filed by DexCom against an analyte sensor patent owned by TheraSense (Ex parte No. (9)).
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,477 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,588,048 having Ying-Che Huang as its first named inventor and entitled AIR PUMP NOZZLE. Filed November 2, 2010 by Jiun-Wei Chang.
(2) 95/001,478 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,062,514 owned by Elbert Harris Living Trust and entitled CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SUBMITTAL MANAGEMENT. Filed November 2, 2010.
(3) 95/001,479 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,316,614 having Michael J. Dietz as its first named inventor and entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONDUCTING A SWEEPSTAKES. Filed November 2, 2010 by VS2 Worldwide Communications, Inc. The ‘614 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Houchin v. VS2 Worldwide Communications, LLC et al. (M.D.N.C., Case No. 1:08-cv-00368-WO-PTS, filed June 3, 2008).
(4) 95/001,480 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,484,382 owned by LG Electronics Inc. and entitled REFRIGERATOR. Filed November 3, 2010 by Whirlpool Corporation. The ‘382 patent (along with the ‘475 patent – see below) is currently the subject of a litigation styled LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation et al. (D.N.J., Case No. 2:09-cv-05142-GEB-ES, filed Oct. 7, 2009).
Read More/続きを読む
Request for Reexamination of GE’s ‘985 Wind Turbine Patent among the Requests Filed the Week of October 25th
| November 3, 2010
Last January the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a Final Determination that Mitsubishi Heavy’s importation of wind turbines did not violate Section 337, as had been alleged by General Electric. Part of the ITC’s Determination was a holding that there was no “domestic industry” with respect to GE’s U.S. Patent No. 6,921,985 because GE’s own turbines did not practice any claim of that patent. A request for reexamination (Inter partes Request No. 6 below) has now been filed against GE’s ‘985 patent. The ITC also found that GE’s two other patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 5,083,039 & 7,321,221 – in the investigation were not infringed by Mitsubishi’s turbines.
Also of special interest are requests for reexamination (Inter partes Request Nos. 2 & 3 below) filed by Hewlett-Packard and IBM against two ACQIS patents. ACQIS has sued HP and IBM, among others, in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of those patents. We also note requests were filed (Inter partes Request Nos. 4 & 5 below) against a Netlist patent. Netlist has sued Google for infringement of that patent.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,474 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,856,540 owned by Kilopass Technology, Inc. and entitled HIGH DENSITY SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY CELL AND MEMORY ARRAY USING A SINGLE TRANSISTOR. Filed October 25, 2010 by Sidense Corp. The ‘540 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corp. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:10-cv-02066-SI, filed May 14, 2010).
(2) 95/001,475 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,376,779 owned by ACQIS LLC and entitled MULTIPLE MODULE COMPUTER SYSTEM AND METHOD. Filed October 27, 2010 by Hewlett-Packard Company and International Business Machines Corporation. The ‘779 patent (along with the ‘416 patent – see below) is currently the subject of a litigation styled ACQIS LLC v. Appro International, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., Case No. 6:09-cv-00148-LED, filed Apr. 2, 2009).
(3) 95/001,476 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,363,416 owned by ACQIS LLC and entitled COMPUTER SYSTEM UTILIZING MULTIPLE COMPUTER MODULES WITH PASSWORD PROTECTION. Filed October 27, 2010 by Hewlett-Packard Company and International Business Machines Corporation. The ‘416 patent (along with the ‘779 patent – see above) is currently the subject of a litigation styled ACQIS LLC v. Appro International, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., Case No. 6:09-cv-00148-LED, filed Apr. 2, 2009).
Read More/続きを読む
NVIDIA Attack on Rambus Patent Among Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of October 18th
| October 26, 2010
In their litigation/reexamination wars, Rambus and NVIDIA often look like two boxers trying to slug each other into submission. That was true last Wednesday. The same day that the PTO issued its Notice of Intent to issue a reexamination certificate, confirming the claims of Rambus’ U.S. Patent No. 6,715,020, NVIDIA requested another reexamination (Inter Partes Request No. 2 below). The ‘020 patent is just one of 17 patents that Rambus has accused NVIDIA of infringing in their case pending in the Central District of California. Five of those Rambus patents in litigation were the subject of a recently settled ITC investigation. The ‘020 patent is related to Rambus’ U.S. Patent No. 7,209,997, which is also part of the California litigation and the subject of two pending reexaminations. NVIDIA is now appealing the reexamination examiner’s decision to confirm the patentability of the ‘997 claims (95/000,471).
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,471 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,426,600 owned by Lautzenhiser Technologies, LLC and entitled PROPORTIONAL ACTUATOR CONTROL OF APPARATUS. Filed October 19, 2010 by PG Drives Technology, Inc. The ‘600 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Lautzenhiser Technologies, LLC v. Sunrise Medical HHG, Inc. et al. (S.D. Ind., Case No. 4:07-cv-00084-TWP-WGH, filed June 18, 2007).
(2) 95/001,472 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,715,020 owned by Rambus Inc. and entitled SYNCHRONOUS INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEVICE. Filed October 20, 2010 by NVIDIA Corporation. The ‘020 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation (N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:08-cv-03343-SI, filed July 10, 2008).
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Request Against Taser Patent Among Those Filed Week of October 11th
| October 19, 2010
The clear stand-out among the reexamination requests filed last week was one against U.S. Patent No. 6,999,295, the patent for the famous Taser® stun gun, owned by Taser International. The preamble of one of the ‘295 claims euphemistically recites a “dual operating mode electronic disabling device for immobilizing a target.” Taser successfully sued Stinger Systems in Arizona for infringement of the ‘295 patent, culminating in an infringement judgment in August. Taser owns another patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,102,870, claim 3 of which has been held to be invalid as obvious over the prior art.
A request was also filed against Apple’s U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (Ex parte No. 10). As reported by our friend Gene Quinn in IPWatchdog, Apple has sued HTC and Exeda for infringement of the ‘647 patent, among many other patents.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,464 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,578,439 owned by e2Interactive, Inc. and entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHORIZING STORED VALUE CARD TRANSACTIONS. Filed October 11, 2010 by Blackhawk Network, Inc. The ‘439 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled e2Interactive, Inc. et al. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc. (W.D. Wis., Case No. 3:09-cv-00629-slc, filed Oct. 14, 2009).
(2) 95/001,465 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,317,173 owned by Alto-Shaam, Inc. and entitled OVEN INCLUDING SMOKING ASSEMBLY IN COMBINATION WITH ONE OR MORE ADDITIONAL FOOD PREPARATION ASSEMBLIES. Filed October 13, 2010 by Cleveland Range LLC. The ‘173 patent (along with the ‘668 patent – see below) is currently the subject of a litigation styled Alto-Shaam, Inc. v. The Manitowoc Company et al. (N.D. Tex., Case No. 7:09-cv-00018-O, filed Jan. 27, 2009).
Read More/続きを読む
