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
What to Know about Petitions for an Interview in Patent Reexamination
| October 3, 2012
First, ex parte reexamination. Interviews between a patent owner and the examiner on the merits of the proceeding are permitted. After an interview, a patent owner must provide an interview summary as required by 37 CFR 1.560(b). Under that provision, a patent owner must complete and separately file a written statement on the substance of the interview (and not simply an interview agenda). This statement must be filed within one month from the date of the interview.
Failing to file a timely statement will result in a termination of the reexamination (37 CFR 1.550(d)) (see Star Scientific, 90/009,372 & 90/009,375). A patent owner can file a petition to revive the reexamination proceedings for unavoidable or unintentional delay, but this is not optimal because such petitions are sometimes denied and the petitioner might again fail to comply with the procedural requirements of the petition for revival.
What about inter partes reexamination? Interviews are not permitted in inter partes proceeding (37 CFR 1.955). Even so, a patent owner can file a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 to waive or suspend 37 CFR 1.955 to permit an interview in the reexamination. Most often, a patent owner files the petition after a requester has withdrawn from the inter partes proceeding (typically when the parties have settled in a parallel litigation). When a requester has not officially withdrawn from the proceedings, it appears that the petition is rarely granted due to concerns over the substantive rights of the requester.
