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
Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
| January 14, 2013
On Friday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board dealt Facebook a double loss, by affirming the reexamination examiner’s decisions not to reject the claims of two real-time Internet communications patents owned by Pragmatus. An infringement action between Pragmatus and Facebook regarding the two patents in the Northern District of California has been stayed (5:11-cv-2168).
In the first reexamination (95/001,715), the Board affirmed the examiner’s decision not to reject the claims of Pragmatus’ U.S. Patent No. 7,421,470. The ‘470 patent claims a network method for real-time communication between multiple users. The ‘470 claims include the step of “maintaining a first association between a first user and corresponding addressing information of a first communication device used by the first user to log in.” The Board first construed the claim phrase “addressing information” in light of the specification to mean the “physical location of a communication device used by a prospective user to log in.” The Board then concluded that the prior art references relied upon by Facebook does not satisfy, either literally or inherently, the “maintaining” step limitation.
Did Motorola Mobility Comply with One-Year Deadline for Inter Partes Review Petitions?
| January 14, 2013
Patentee Michael Arnouse filed a Preliminary Response last week arguing, inter alia, that Google’s Motorola Mobility was late in filing its inter partes review Petition against his patent. Motorola Mobility LLC v. Michael Arnouse, IPR2013-00010. The relevant statutory provision is 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) that states:
An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
(Emphasis added). Arnouse’ argument turns on what is meant by the phrase “served with a complaint.”
Arnouse’ first contact with Motorola regarding infringement of his patent was in early 2011. No agreement between the parties was reached and on June 11, 2011, Arnouse filed a complaint for patent infringement in the Disrtict Court of Vermont. On the same day, Arnouse sent a copy of the complaint to Motorola, but did not include the summons issued by the Court. Motorola acknowledged such receipt.
Reexamination of Apple Speech Recognition Patent Sought, Week of January 7, 2013
| January 14, 2013
This past October Dynamic Advances sued Apple, alleging that the Siri personal assistant in iPads and iPods infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,177,798. The ‘798 patent claims a method for processing a natural language input provided by a user. Dynamic Advances, which identifies a suite in Tyler Texas as its principal place of business, obtained the ‘798 patent from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. In its Complaint, Dynamic Advances points out that the ‘798 patent was cited during Apple’s prosecution of a patent application that ultimately issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,289,283. Dynamic Advances appears to be relying upon the drawings of the ‘283 patent to illustrate Apple’s infringement of the ‘798 patent.
Dynamic Advances has now taken the additional step of seeking ex parte reexamination of Apple’s ‘283 patent (see ex parte Request No. (4)). The strategy behind the reexamination request might be to press Apple to make admissions regarding claim construction, the scope of the ‘798 claims, or the meaning of the prior art.
First Covered Business Method Review and Inter Partes Review Instituted
| January 10, 2013
Yesterday the Patent Office “instituted” its first “Covered Business Method Review” and “initiated” its first “Inter Partes Review Trial.”
In SAP America v. Versata Development Group, CBM2012-00001, the APJs determined that the “challenged claims are more likely than not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101” as claiming “an unpatentable abstract idea.” In doing so, the APJs overruled the patentee’s objection that the post-grant review provision of the AIA does not authorize a § 101 challenge to a patent. 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2)&(3). The APJs explained that § 282(b)(2) allows a challenge based “on any ground specified in part II [of the Patent Statute] as a condition of patentability” and that patent eligibility under § 101 is such a condition. The APJs also cited portions of the AIA legislative history as support for their ruling.
