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
How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
| January 9, 2013
Round Rock Research LLC is one of those “Non-Practicing Entities” that some people love to hate but wish they owned. It describes itself as “a technology research and patent licensing company.” It is reputed to own 4,500 patents obtained from semi-conductor Micron Technology, Inc. and lists Apple, Sony, Samsung, Nokia, HTC, IBM, LG, RIM, Sharp and Oracle among its licensees.
Round Rock is currently involved in litigation against Facebook and Twitter, but it is best known for its law suits against a series of famous retailers – most notably, Amazon, PepsiCo and Macy’s – accusing them of infringing a long series of patents claiming RFID technology. These retailers appear to be customers of Motorola Solutions, Inc., that has sued Round Rock for declaratory judgment that the patents are invalid.
More interesting, though, is that many of Round Rock’s patents have been the target of anonymously filed ex parte reexamination requests. The chart below shows the results to date:
Global IP Convention in Bangalore
| January 8, 2013
I will be speaking January 23 on reexamination and review practice, at the “Global IP Convention” in Bangalore India ( http://www.iprconference.com/). Past Global IP Conventions, hosted by the ITAG’s Mr. Navin Agarwal, have been very successful and I am sure that the 2013 will be even better. Of course, I would be delighted to chat with any of our blog readers attending the Convention.
Sony Seeks Inter Partes Review of Data Vending Patent, Week of December 31, 2012
| January 7, 2013
Sony has requested inter partes review of a data vending patent owned by Benjamin Grobler (see inter partes review Request No. 1)). Grobler has sued Sony and Apple in California for infringement of the patent.
Inter partes review was also requested for a patent owned by the U.S. Government, that claims chemical composition for repelling pests (see inter partes review Request No. (3)).
Read More/続きを読む
Must a Petition for Inter Partes Review Construe the Patent Claims?
| January 3, 2013
The Patent Owner in Micron Technology v. The University of Illinois, IPR2013-00008, has asked the APJs to reject the Requester’s Petition because it fails to construe the challenged claims.
The Patent Owner first cites the Patent Office Rules as requiring an explanation of “how the challenged claim is to be construed” and “how the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 CFR 42.104(b)(3)(4). It then refers to the related passage from the PTO’s Trial Practice Guide
Read More/続きを読む
