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 Requests Filed the Week of May 17th
| May 26, 2010
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.
Read More/続きを読む
セントラル再審査ユニットが説明するベストプラクティスおよび質問集
| May 26, 2010
米国特許庁のセントラル再審査ユニット(CRU)は、特許権者と第三者（当事者）に再審査のオフィスアクションに応答するに際して様々なオプションと義務があることを知らせるように特別配慮している。CRUは今月上旬、PTO規則に積極的に従わせる同プラクティスを推し進めるべく、再審査請求書の準備と提出に関する「ベストプラクティスと質問応答集（Best Practices and FAQs）」を公表した。この文書は、再審査請求の要件を規定するPTO規則、特許法、およびMPEP、さらには再審査請求書が完全なものであると特許庁を納得させるための実務的な助言も織り込まれている。
Read More/続きを読む
CRU Explains Best Practices for Requests
| May 26, 2010
The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) takes special care to point out the various options and obligations that the patentee and the third party have in responding to its Office Actions. The CRU furthered this practice of actively promoting compliance with the PTO Rules earlier this month by issuing a statement of “Best Practices and FAQs” for the preparation and filing of reexamination requests. The statement collects from the Rules, the Patent Statute, and the MPEP the requirements for a reexamination request, as well as a sprinkling of practical tips for persuading the PTO that the request is “compliant.”
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
REQUESTS FILED THE WEEK OF MAY 10TH
| May 19, 2010
Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We will therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office EFS. In some cases, the information available from the Patent Office is still incomplete.
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
Microsoft’s Stay Request Denied: Reexam “May Actually Complicate” Case
| May 13, 2010
In the Eastern District of Texas, Judge David Folsom denied Microsoft’s motion to stay the District Court proceedings in Parallel Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2-09-cv-00172 (TXED May 10, 2010, Order), pending resolution of ex parte reexamination, in part, because the reexamination process may actually complicate the case.
Judge Folsom considered the following factors: (1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party (Parallel Networks, LLC), (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case, and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.
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
i4i PATENT EMERGES SUCCESSFULLY FROM REEXAMINATION
| May 10, 2010
Claims 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449, belonging to i4i, have emerged from reexamination intact.[1] The ‘449 patent claims a software method for storing and processing content and metacodes separately and distinctly.
The ‘449 patent was the subject of an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, i4i v. Microsoft (CA No. 6:07CV113, E.D. Tex.), at the end of which the jury awarded i4i $200 million. Judge Leonard Davis added $37 million in pre-judgment interest and also permanently enjoined Microsoft’s future infringement of the ‘449 patent, though the CAFC stayed the injunction pending appeal.
Read More/続きを読む
ACCUSED INFRINGER WINS ITS CLAIM CONSTRUCTION THROUGH REEXAMINATION
| May 10, 2010
The claimed invention in Albecker v. Contour Products was a leisure chair. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44649 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2010). The key claim limitation in dispute was a “top cushion” – the patentee argued that the cushion could have either a unitary or a two-piece structure, whereas the accused infringer asserted that the cushion must be a two-piece structure.
Read More/続きを読む
