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
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
CAFC REVERSES PTO’S BROAD CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
| April 30, 2010
It is well-known that the PTO gives claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, both in original examination and in reexamination.
But in the recent case In re Suitco Surface, the CAFC found that the PTO’s claim construction had been too broad.
Read More/続きを読む
FURTHER UPDATE ON PLAVIX® CASE
| April 21, 2010
As we reported in January, the defendant in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex moved to stay the litigation pending completion of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265 for Sanofi’s anti-blood clot drug PLAVIX®. In March, the PTO issued a notice that it intends to issue a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of the claims.
Read More/続きを読む
MICROSOFT & APPLE FIRE AT EMG
| April 8, 2010
The difficulty faced by a patentee who sues Microsoft and Apple simultaneously was demonstrated last week – as if any demonstration were needed. Microsoft has filed two very substantial requests for inter partes reexamination, one against U.S. Patent No. 7,020,845 and the other against U.S. Patent No. 7,441,196.
Read More/続きを読む
UPDATE ON SANOFI-AVENTIS V. APOTEX
| March 30, 2010
As we reported January 14, 2010, Apotex has moved to stay Sanofi-Aventis et al. v. Apotex, in which Apotex is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265. The ‘265 patent is owned by Sanofi and covers its anti-blood clot drug PLAVIX®.
Read More/続きを読む
DEVELOPMENTS LAST WEEK
| March 30, 2010
(1) Some Claims of Often Litigated Patent Emerge from Reexamination
The rejection of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,539,930, owned by A.L.S. Enterprises, was partially reversed and partially affirmed yesterday.
Read More/続きを読む
PATENTEE’S REQUEST FOR STAY DENIED
| March 23, 2010
The judges of the Northern District of California are commonly expected to stay patent cases pending completion of reexamination proceedings. It is also expected that a patentee’s request to stay will be granted.
Read More/続きを読む
DELAY INHERENT IN REEXAMINATION IS NOT “UNDUE PREJUDICE”
| March 15, 2010
As instances of reexamination taking several years are reported in the media, it might be expected that the judges would be less willing to stay infringement cases pending completion of reexamination. Judges, however, seem to be staying cases at the same rate as before.
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
Civix Case Returns With a Bang
| February 4, 2010
Trial judges typically stay a patent case pending resolution of a reexamination, with the expectation that the reexamination will simplify the issues. That has not happened in Civix v. Hotels.Com and Yahoo!, from the Northern District of Illinois, which involves systems for remotely locating stores, hotels, etc.
It is true that Complainant Civix has now dropped two of the four patents asserted in its 2006 Complaint – U.S. Patent No. 6,408,307 now on appeal and U.S. Patent No. 6,473,692 where certain independent claims were canceled. Defendants Hotels.com and Yahoo!, however, have amended their pleadings to accuse Civix of various acts of inequitable conduct before the PTO. Defendants’ allegations echo the cyber-space kerfuffle touched off by the comments of Dennis Crouch and Ken Burchfiel in PatentlyO last week regarding the citation of 900+ references in U.S. Patent No. 7,651,688.
Read More/続きを読む
