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
Court Distinguishes between Original Patent and its Reissue Patent
| January 2, 2013
This is a good story.
It begins in 2003 when U.S. Patent No. 6,615,065 issued to Somanetics. Two years later, Somanetics filed a reissue application based on the ‘065 patent. In 2008 the Patent Office granted ex parte reexamination of the ‘065 patent based on a request filed by CAS, and the ‘065 reissue application and the ‘065 reexamination were merged into a single proceeding. Then in 2009, while the merged reissue/reexamination was pending, Somanetics sued CAS for infringement of the ‘065 patent.
Read More/続きを読む
More Oracle Inter Partes Review Requests Filed, Week of December 24, 2012
| January 2, 2013
Oracle requested inter partes review of two more Clouding IP patents last week (see inter partes review Request Nos. (2) & (3)). This brings to eleven the number of inter partes review Requests filed by Oracle over the past month against Clouding IP patents.
On Monday an anonymous party requested ex parte reexamination of two Apple design patents – U.S. Design Patent Nos. 670,713 and 669,906 – claiming display screen images simulating page-turning (see ex parte Request Nos. (5) & (6)):
Litigation Stays Likely to be More Common with New AIA Post-Issuance Procedures
| December 28, 2012
Our expectation has been that trial judges would feel more comfortable staying infringement actions to allow for completion of the new AIA post-issuance PTO proceedings, than for completion of reexaminations. That expectation appears to be correct, if last week’s stay ruling in Semiconductor Energy Laboratory v. Chimei Innolux, et al. (8:12-cv-00021) is any indication of what is to come.
There, SEL sued Chimei Innolux and several other companies, including Acer, Viewsonic and VIZIO, in the Central District of California for infringement of six LCD patents. Chimei replied, inter alia, by filing petitions at the Patent Office for inter partes review of each of the six patents. Although the Patent Office has not yet ruled on those petitions, Chimei and the other accused infringers moved the trial court to stay the infringement action until completion of the expected IPR proceedings.
Read More/続きを読む
BOS GmbH Files First Preliminary Response by Patentee in Inter Partes Review
| December 27, 2012
A Preliminary Response was filed yesterday (under 35 U.S.C. § 313) by the patent owner in Macauto USA v. BOS GmbH, IPR2012-00004. In September Macauto USA had requested inter partes review of BOS’s U.S. Patent No. 6,422,291 claiming a mechanism for car window shades. In yesterday’s Response, BOS asked that the Patent Office decline to institute the requested inter partes review.
BOS’s Preliminary Response will interest practitioners, first because it asks the APJs to consider the question of who is a “real party in interest.” More generally, the APJ’s analysis of BOS’s Response is likely to reveal how closely they will scrutinize IPR Requests to determine of whether there is “a reasonable likelihood” that the Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to at least one claim of the patent.
Read More/続きを読む
