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
Sprint Challenges Two Comcast Patents, Week of April 22, 2013
| April 29, 2013
Last Wednesday Sprint requested ex parte reexamination of two Comcast patents that claim methods for accessing telecommunications data (see ex parte Request Nos. (3) & (4)). Comcast has sued Sprint in Delaware for infringement of the patents. Sprint’s choice of ex parte reexamination over inter partes review is noteworthy.
Also on Wednesday, InvenSense requested inter partes review of a tungsten-contact semiconductor patent owned by STMicroelectronics (see inter partes review Request No. (2)). The latter recently sued InvenSense for infringement of the patent, both in California and at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Volkswagen Challenges Cruise Control Tech. Patent, Week of April 15, 2013
| April 22, 2013
Volkswagen has requested ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 that is owned by Cruise Control Technologies and claims cruise control indicators (see ex parte Request No. (3)). Cruise Control has sued VW, as well as BMW and Audi, for infringement of the ‘463 patent.
Ariosa Diagnostics requested a second inter partes review of Isis’ U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (see inter partes review Request No. (2)). The ‘540 patent claims methods that “enable[] non-invasive prenatal diagnosis including for example sex determination, blood typing and other genotyping, and detection of pre-eclampsia in the mother.” This request seeks review of claims that are not the subject of the earlier inter partes review.
APJs Deny Request to Add New Grounds to Inter Partes Review
| April 15, 2013
The APJs have shown a determination to enforce the inter partes review rules strictly, in order to prevent their dockets from becoming unmanageable.
Their recent decision in Research In Motion v. MobileMedia Ideas, IPR2013-00016, is a good example. In March the APJs instituted the review, finding that RIM had demonstrated a likelihood that it would prevail against the identified claims, based on two distinct combinations of prior art references. In the meantime, in a parallel infringement action in Delaware, the trial judge issued summary judgment that two of the identified claims were anticipated by a third prior art reference, one that had not been mentioned in RIM’s petition for review. RIM therefore asked the APJs to add to the review proceeding a new ground for rejection, specifically a ground based on the third reference.
Esoterix DNA Amplification Patents Challenged, Week of April 8, 2013
| April 15, 2013
On Friday Life Technologies requested ex parte reexamination of two Esoterix Genetic Labs patents, both entitled “Universal Primer Sequence For Multiplex DNA Amplification” (see ex parte Request Nos. (7) & (8)). An infringement action involving those patents is currently pending in North Carolina. Esoterix’ patents were originally owned by Genzyme Corporation.
Volkswagen seeks inter partes review of a luminaire patent owned by Light Transformation Technologies (see inter partes review Request No. (1)). Light Transformation has sued quite a number of lighting device manufacturers for infringement of that patent, among them General Electric.
A Tessera patent is the target of an inter partes review requested by Amkor Technologies (see inter partes review Request No. (5)). Tessera has sued Amkor in Delaware for infringement of that patent.
