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
TiVo “Time Warp” Claims Rejected
| August 4, 2009
The use of reexamination as an aid in litigation was demonstrated again today, this time as a way of promoting a particular claim construction.
In January 2004 TiVo sued Dish Network Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of TiVo’s U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389. The ‘389 patent claims a process for simultaneous storage and playback of multimedia data – it allows a television viewer to store one broadcast while watching a different broadcast.
Read More/続きを読む
Toray Moves to Stay Avery Case
| August 3, 2009
Avery Dennison Corporation sued Toray Int’l last December in the Northern District of California for infringement of three patents relating to RFID labels: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,951,596, 7,361,251 and 7,368,032. Toray replied by filing requests for inter partes reexamination against each of the three patents.
Read More/続きを読む
Court Stays Avery Case
| July 20, 2009
The impact of an inter partes reexamination on a pending District Court case was demonstrated again today in Avery v. Alien (N.D. Ohio, CA No. 08 CV 795).
Avery filed its Complaint for infringement in March 2008, alleging infringement of seven patents claiming certain RFID technology. Avery later agreed to dismissal of four of the patent claims, and also moved for a preliminary injunction with respect to two of the remaining patents. In the meantime, the accused infringer, Alien, requested inter partes reexamination of all three patents still in the case.
Read More/続きを読む
Order in Funai Case
| January 5, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD., No. C-04-01830 JCS Plaintiff, ORDER RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS v. [Docket Nos. 699, 710, 712, 714, 716] DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL., Defendants.
______________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
In its complaint, Plaintiff Funai Electric Company, Ltd. (“Funai”) alleged that various Daewoo entities infringed the following six patents: 1) United States Patent No. 6,021,018 (“‘018 patent”); 2) United States Patent No. 6,064,538 (“‘538 patent”); 3) United States Patent No. RE37,332 (“‘332 patent”); 4) United States Patent No. 6,421,210 (“‘210 patent”); 5) United States Patent No. 5,815,218 (“‘218 patent”), and 6) United States Patent No. 5,987,209 (“‘209 patent”). Two Daewoo entities, Daewoo Electronics Corp., Ltd. and Daewoo Electronics Corp. of America, defaulted and default judgment was entered against them. The remaining defendants, Daewoo Electronics Corporation (“DEC”) and Daewoo Electronics America, Inc. (“DEAM”), continued to defend the action.1
Read More/続きを読む
