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
REQUESTS FILED LAST WEEK
| March 11, 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
REJECTION OF SOUND SUPRESSING PATENT REVERSED
| March 11, 2010
After more than four years, U.S. Patent No. 4,833,719 may soon emerge from reexamination, following the PTO Board’s reversal of the examiner’s rejection.
Read More/続きを読む
REISSUE APPLICANT AVOIDS RECAPTURE RULE
| March 3, 2010
The PTO Board ruled last week that the reissue application claims of In re Marui (USP 6,216,558) did not violate the Recapture Rule.
Read More/続きを読む
BECTON LOSES VACCINE NEEDLE PATENT AT BOARD
| March 3, 2010
We are sometimes asked whether examiners are aggressive in handling reexaminations – do they focus on the specific rejections proposed in the Request, or is their reexamination broader than in scope than the Request.
Read More/続きを読む
REQUESTS FILED LAST WEEK
| March 3, 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
Get It Right The First Time!
| March 1, 2010
We’ve reviewed many requests for reexamination filed over the past few years and found that a large number were not granted in the first action because of one deficiency or another.
To help avoid such a result (e.g., notice from the PTO that your request is incomplete, or even, that your request is denied), we’ve prepared a checklist of requirements under the PTO rules and a checklist of practical suggestions to improve the likelihood that your initial request will be granted.
Read More/続きを読む
Damages Period Starts From Certificate Date, If Claims Are Substantively Amended In Reexamination
| February 25, 2010
A third party typically files a request for reexamination with the goal of invalidating the patent. But even if the patent survives and the PTO issues a Reexamination Certificate, the third party requester may benefit if the patent claims are amended during reexamination.
If the patentee makes a substantive change to a patent claim during reexamination, the patent owner can recover damages only from the date the Reexamination Certificate was issued. To determine whether a change is substantive, the Court determines whether the scope of the claim has changed. Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Read More/続きを読む
Requests Filed the Week of February 15th
| February 25, 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.
Notable among the filings were requests filed against a University of California microscopy patent and an Isis gene expression patent.
Read More/続きを読む
Sony Strikes At Trans Video Patent
| February 16, 2010
This past summer, Trans Video sued Sony in the Northern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent 5,991,801. That patent claims a digital video news distribution system. Sony filed an Answer denying infringement, but also presenting a detailed allegation that the ‘801 patent had been obtained by inequitable conduct, specifically by the applicants’ failure to disclose the Hurt prior art patent to the examiner.
Read More/続きを読む
Samsung Again Attacks Murata Patent
| February 16, 2010
Samsung filed a request last Friday that the PTO conduct an ex parte reexamination of Murata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,377,439 which claims multi-layer ceramic capacitors.
In October, Murata sued Samsung at the U.S. ITC for importing into the United States ceramic capacitors that infringe the ‘439 patent, as well as three other patents belonging to Murata. The ITC’s Judge Gildea has scheduled trial for July 2010, and set March 4, 2011 as the target date by which the ITC will complete its investigation.
Read More/続きを読む
