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
Google, Microsoft, Sony, Facebook & Samsung Gang Up on Two B.E. Tech. Patents, Week of October 7, 2013
| October 14, 2013
Last year, Memphis-based B.E. Technologies sued 19 social media/smartphone companies for infringement of two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,628,314 & 6,771,290) claiming targeted advertising systems. Last week, Google, Microsoft and Facebook requested inter partes review of the ‘314 patent, and Google, Sony, Microsoft and Samsung requested inter partes review of the ‘290 patent (see inter partes review Request Nos. (5), (7), (11), (12), (13), (17), & (20)). Clearly, inter partes review has become the weapon of choice for the Internet giants of the world.
Separately, Google filed inter partes review requests and covered business method post-grant review requests against three Unwired Planet patents claiming systems for providing location information for wireless devices (see inter partes review Request Nos. (4), (9) & (10) and CBM Request Nos. (1), (2) & (3)). Last week saw six requests altogether for covered business method post-grant review, which has become more popular of late in light of the APJ’s broad construction of the statutory phrase “financial product or service.”
Samsung Seeks Inter Partes Review of Four Fractus Antenna Patents, Week of September 30, 2013
| October 7, 2013
Last week Samsung filed inter partes review requests against four patents owned by Spanish antenna-maker Fractus (see inter partes review Request Nos. (8), (9), (10) & (11)). The requests are the latest in a long-standing dispute between companies. The highlight of that dispute, so far, has been a $23 million jury verdict based on the four Fractus patents in May 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Leonard Davis later added $15 million to the verdict after finding that Samsung’s infringement was willful. A few months before that verdict, Samsung had requested inter partes reexamination of those patents. The reexaminations resulted in rejection of key claims and Fractus has appealed to the PTO Board of Appeals, with oral argument scheduled for November 20th. Earlier this year, Fractus filed a second infringement action against Samsung, also in the Eastern District of Texas – the idea behind Samsung’s inter partes review requests might be to attack the Fractus claims that are the subject of this new infringement action, but have not been addressed in the reexaminations.
The Federal Circuit’s recent holding in Fresenius v. Baxter might determine whether the 2011 verdict survives the Samsung’s challenges at the Patent Office to Fractus’ patents.
ZOLL Lifecor Seeks Inter Partes Review of Eight Philips Electrotherapy Patents, Week of September 23, 2013
| September 30, 2013
Almost exactly a year ago, Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corp. sued. ZOLL Lifecor Corp for infringement of eight patents claiming various electrotherapy methods. Last week, ZOLL retaliated by requesting inter partes review of each of those patents (see inter partes review Request Nos. (4) to (6), (9) to (10) & (12) to (14)). Presumably, ZOLL will also seek a stay of the litigation, and the dispute will shift to the Patent Office.
Dell, Hewlett-Packard and NetApp teamed up to request inter partes review of a network patent owned by Electronics and Telecommunication Research Institute (see inter partes review Request No. (23). the patent is the subject of 19 separate infringement actions, all in Delaware.
Unified Patents Adopts Earlier Inter Partes Review Requests, Week of September 16, 2013
| September 23, 2013
An interesting inter partes review request was filed by Unified Patents last week against Clouding IP’s U.S. Patent No. 6,738,799 (see inter partes review Request No. (2)). Oracle had filed two inter partes review petitions against the ‘799 patent, that were later terminated by the Patent Office on the basis of a settlement agreement Oracle and Clouding IP. On Monday Unified essentially refiled Oracle’s petitions against the ‘799 patent. Unified explained that the “instant petition challenges the same claims under the same grounds on which the PTAB instituted trial in the IPR-073 petition. The instant petition also includes an additional ground from the IPR-261 petition that directly refutes the arguments that the Patent Owner made to distinguish its claims in the IPR-073 petition.” (Emphasis in original).
Clouding IP has sued a number of Internet companies for infringement of the ‘799 patent, including EMC, Verizon, Amazon.com, and Google. Unified’s tactic of copying Oracle’s petitions is similar to the recent approach of major companies that have replied to infringement lawsuits by joining together in inter partes reviews of those patents. We expect to see this trend – of one company stepping into the shoes of another company in an inter partes review proceeding – to accelerate.
