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
Reexamination Request Against Honeywell’s HFC Patent Among Those Filed Week of October 4th
| October 13, 2010
Honeywell has obtained a number of patents in recent years for hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) patents. HFCs are environmentally friendly alternatives to the hydrochlorofluorocarbons for use in aerosols and refrigerants. Inter partes Request No. 2 below challenges Honeywell’s patent.
A request was also filed against Medicis’ patent (Ex parte Request No. 9) for foaming pad containing benzoyl peroxide, used to treat acne. The ‘355 patent is the subject of a contentious case in Arizona, filed earlier this year.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,463 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,023,969 owned by InfoNXX, Inc. and entitled COMMUNICATION ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND METHOD. Filed October 7, 2010.
(2) 95/000,574 (paper filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,524,805 owned by Honeywell International Inc. and entitled AZEOTROPE-LIKE COMPOSITIONS OF TETRAFLUOROPROPENE & HYDROFLUOROCARBONS. Filed October 5, 2010.
Read More/続きを読む
Samsung Attack on Antenna Patents among Reexamination Requests Filed Week of September 27th
| October 6, 2010
Samsung filed reexamination requests (Inter partes Nos. 4, 10 and 11) last week against three Fractus patents for antennas. Fractus had sued Samsung and quite a number of other wireless companies, including LG, Research in Motion, Kyocera, HTC, Sharp and Sanyo, for infringement of those patents.
Also of interest is a request (Inter partes No. 1) filed by CEJN AB against Westendorf Mfg.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,717,471 for a hydraulic line device. The two companies are already in a reexamination of Westendorf’s U.S. Patent No. 7,021,668 – the examiner’s rejection of the claims of the ‘668 is now before the PTO Board of Appeals.
Finally, Encore filed a request (Inter partes No. 12) against a Southwire patent for electrical cables. Southwire is noted among ITC practitioners for having filed in the late 1970’s the first major Section 337 complaint.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,446 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,717,471 owned by Westendorf Manufacturing Co., Inc. and entitled HYDRAULIC LINE ATTACHMENT DEVICE AND METHOD. Filed September 17, 2010 by CEJN, AB.
(2) 95/001,453 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662 owned by BASF Catalysts LLC and entitled COPPER CHA ZEOLITE CATALYSTS. Filed September 28, 2010.
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Request against Wireless Game Controller Patent among those Filed Week of September 20th
| September 28, 2010
The most interesting reexamination request last week was filed against a patent that claims a radio frequency remote game controller and is owned by the Canadian company Eleven Engineering (Ex parte No. 22). Last November Eleven Engineering and its U.S. subsidiary sued Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft for infringement of that patent and two others. The accused games are Nintendo’s Wii Remote and Wii Balance Board, Sony’s Playstation3, and Microsoft’s Xbox 360. The case is before Judge Stark in Delaware and has not progressed beyond the pleading stage.
Another notable request was filed by Volkswagen against a car brake safety patent (Inter partes No. 3). The patent is owned by 55 Brake LLC who sued 12 major automobile companies for infringement of that patent. The case is in Idaho and a trial is scheduled to begin in March 2011.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,446 (electronically filed) – Information not currently available.
(2) 95/001,448 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,858,280 owned by Technology Applications, Inc. and entitled MICROSPHERE INSULATION SYSTEMS. Filed September 20, 2010.
(3) 95/001,449 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,450,587 owned by 55 Brake LLC and entitled VEHICLE BRAKE SAFETY SYSTEM APPARATUS AND METHODS. Filed September 23, 2010 by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc, a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. The ‘587 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled 55 Brake LLC v. Audi of America, Inc. et al. (D. Idaho, Case No. 1:08-cv-00177-BLW, filed Apr. 21, 2008).
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of September 13th
| September 22, 2010
Perhaps the most important reexamination request last week was filed by Google against a Xerox patent (Ex parte No. 6). The patent is the subject of a pending law suit in Delaware between the parties. Earlier this month, Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge issued a decision in that case allowing Google to use counsel from its litigation team for any reexamination – essentially, she concluded that the potential harm to Google of limiting its choice of reexamination counsel outweighed the risk of improper use by Google’s reexamination counsel of Xerox’s protective order information.
Another interesting request was filed against an Amylin patent (Ex parte No. 13) for exendins which are peptide hormones that regulate blood glucose levels. A reexamination (95/000,276) has been pending since 2007 against similar Amylin extendins patent – the ‘276 reexamination is noteworthy in that it features that rare creature: the reexamination continuation. The earlier Amylin reexamination was filed by competitor ConjuChem.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,445 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,507,845 owned by SD Lizenzverwertungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and entitled PROCESS FOR PRODUCTION OF AN OLEFIN OXIDE. Filed September 13, 2010 by Shell Oil Company.
(2) 95/001,446 (electronically filed) – Information not currently available.
(3) 95/001,447 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,907,530 owned by SSL Services LLC and entitled SECURE INTERNET APPLICATIONS WITH MOBILE CODE. Filed September 18, 2010 by Citrix Systems, Inc. The ‘530 patent (along with the ‘011 patent – see below) is current the subject of a litigation styled SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., Case No.2:08-cv-00158-TJW, filed Apr. 11, 2008).
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of September 6th
| September 15, 2010
Last week saw two blockbuster sets of filings – Shared Marketing Services filed ex parte requests against five eComSystems patents (6) to (10), and Illinois Tool Works filed ex parte requests against seven patents belonging to Digi-Star (13) to (19). Illinois Tool has appeared in many reexaminations over the years. In both instances, the respective parties are in litigation.
Two other ex parte reexamination requests may prove to be commercially significant, one filed against a Hitachi semiconductor patent (25), and another filed against a Kubota tractor patent (30). The names of the companies that filed these requests are not apparent from the files.
Finally, information regarding the last of the eight PubPat requests against Abbott, inter partes (8), became available last week.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,432 (electronically filed) – Information not currently available.
(2) 95/001,439 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,726,029 owned by Spellbound Development Group, Inc. and entitled SAFETY CUTTING APPARATUS. Filed September 7, 2010 by Pacific Handy Cutter, Inc. The ‘029 patent (along with the ‘640 and ‘928 patents – see below) is currently the subject of a litigation styled Spellbound Development Group, Inc. v. Pacific Handy Cutter, Inc. (C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:09-cv-00951-DOC-AN, filed Aug. 17, 2009).
(3) 95/001,440 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,130,821 owned by Versata Development Group, Inc. and entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PRODUCT COMPARISON. Filed September 8, 2010 by Internet Brands, Inc., AutoData Solutions Co., and AutoData Solutions, Inc. The ‘821 patent (along with the ‘029 and ‘928 patents – see above and below) is currently the subject of a litigation styled Versata Software, Inc. v. Internet Brands, Inc. (E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:08-cv-00313-CE, filed Aug. 8, 2008).
Read More/続きを読む
Microsoft’s Renewed Challenge to i4i Patent is among Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of August 30th
| September 7, 2010
Most notable among the new requests is one filed by Microsoft against i4i’s U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449 – that’s the famous XML patent that Microsoft was found to infringe last year. Microsoft was enjoined and ordered to pay i4i $290 million. A more detailed description of the case is in our posting Saturday on IPWatchdog.
Also quite interesting are requests filed by Public Patent Foundation (PPF) against eight Abbott patents for retroviral protease inhibiting compounds. PPF is known for targeting pharmaceutical patents that it believes are contrary to the public interest. Information for seven of the requests appears below; information for the eighth request is not yet available from the Patent Office. Gene Quinn comments on these requests in yesterday’s IPWatchdog.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,432 (electronically filed) – Information not currently available.
(2) 95/001,433 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,262,769 owned by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. and entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTO ROTATING A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR MANAGING PORTRAIT AND LANDSCAPE IMAGES IN AN IMAGE CAPTURE UNIT. Filed August 30, 2010.
(3) 95/001,434 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,591,005 owned by Centrify Corporation and entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR USER LOG-IN NAME MAPPING. Filed August 31, 2010.
(4) 95/001,435 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,385,541 owned by Smarter Agent, LLC and entitled GLOBAL POSITIONING-BASED REAL ESTATE DATABASE ACCESS DEVICE AND METHOD. Filed August 31, 2010 by Boopsie, Inc., Classified Ventures LLC, Hotpads, Inc., IDX, Inc., Multifamily Technology Solutions, Inc., Primedia, Inc., Consumer Source, Inc., Trsoft, Inc., Trulia, Inc., Zillow, Inc., and ZipRealty, Inc. The ‘541 patent (along with the ‘665 and ‘776 patents – see below) is currently the subject of a litigation styled Smarter Agent LLC v. Boopsie, Inc. (D. Del., Case No. 1:10-cv-00245-LPS, filed Mar. 26, 2010).
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of August 23rd
| September 1, 2010
Traditionally, reexamination requests have been the province of U.S. companies – foreign companies are among the leading filers of patent applications, but they have been reluctant to use reexamination as a means of attacking the patents of others. That has begun to change in recent years, as more and more foreign companies have started to use reexamination. This week, for instance, Taiwan Fulgent Enterprise Co., Ltd. filed requests against two patents of a U.S. competitor.
Also of interest is a request filed by Google against a Xerox patent for “generating queries” that is the subject of a law suit between the companies. We also see requests, likely filed by Ninestar Image, against two Canon patents – the requests were filed less than two months after Canon filed complaints against Ninestar and others, in both the Southern District of New York and the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging infringement of those patents. On August 18, Judge Robert W. Sweet stayed the District Court case pending final determination of the ITC investigation.
The following inter partes requests were filed:
(1) 95/001,421 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,635,665 having John Raymond Keim as its first named inventor and entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATING STORED CROPS. Filed August 24, 2010 by Aceto Corporation.
(2) 95/001,422 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,618,303 owned by Ganz and entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TOY ADOPTION MARKETING. Filed August 24, 2010 by Hasbro, Inc.
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of August 16th
| August 25, 2010
Most notable among last week’s requests is one filed by Sprint attacking an EMSAT patent for a cellular telephone system. EMSAT’s patent is the subject of no less than eight separate law suits. Let’s not forget Rambus, whose patents are reexamined more often than those of any other company. Last week the requester was Hynix, not NVIDIA.
The following inter partes requests were made:
(1) 95/001,420 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,163,816 owned by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. and entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RETRIEVING CAPABILITY PARAMETERS IN AN ELECTRONIC IMAGING DEVICE. Filed August 18, 2010.
(2) 95/000,562 (paper filed) – U.S. Patent No. 7,002,533 entitled DUAL-STAGE HIGH-CONTRAST ELECTRONIC IMAGE DISPLAY. Filed August 2, 2010 by Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of August 9th
| August 18, 2010
The pace of new reexamination requests slowed a bit this past week. One of the more interesting is the request filed August 9th against a design patent owned by Durham for a portion of a cabinet shelf. As we have previously reported, reexamination of design patents tends to be much more rigorous than original prosecution. In the case of the Durham patent, the third party requester characterized the patented design as “identical” to the prior art or at least “within the zone of obviousness.” Interestingly, the third party requester did not attempt, on the basis of recent case law, to assert that the features shown in the drawings are functional and therefore not available to support patentability over the prior art.
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system. Information on concurrent litigation is also provided, where available.
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of August 2nd
| August 11, 2010
Noteworthy are requests filed by Samsung against two Fractus patents that are the subject of a law suit between the two companies. Samsung has become a frequent user of the reexamination process.
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system. Information on concurrent litigation is also provided, where available.
Some reexamination requests are still filed by paper. Because of the time required for the Patent Office to review such paper requests before posting on PAIR, our report may come three weeks after filing. The information available from the Patent Office may be incomplete in a few cases because not all the reexamination request papers have yet been posted on PAIR. There may also be gaps in the Patent Office docket numbers listed because, for any of various reasons, a reexamination request has been assigned a docket number but is not ready for posting.
Read More/続きを読む
