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
British Telecommunications’ Internet Patent among those Challenged Week of October 29, 2012
| November 5, 2012
This past June, Suffolk Technologies sued AOL and Google in the Eastern District of Virginia for infringement of two Internet patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,334,132 and 6,081,835. Last Tuesday an anonymous party requested reexamination of the ‘835 patent (see ex parte Request No. (4)); reexamination has already been granted against the ‘132 patent. Patent Office assignment records show that the patents were originally owned by British Telecommunications and have passed through a number of hands over the past year to reach Suffolk. AOL and Google have moved to dismiss the infringement action, asserting that BT, not Suffolk, remains the real owner of the patents and that the Suffolk therefore lacks standing to sue. AOL and Google characterize the assignments are as “nothing more than a ‘hunting license.’”
Research in Motion requested inter partes review of a MobileMedia Ideas mobile device patent (see inter partes review Request No. (2)). The companies are involved in an infringement action in the Northern District of Texas.
Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
| November 1, 2012
Affinity Labs of Texas sued Apple in 2009, asserting that Apple’s iPods infringed a series of patents, among them U.S. Patent No. 7,486,926 that claims “content delivery systems.” Apple replied to the infringement allegations, as it frequently does, by requesting reexamination of each of the patents-in-suit. This morning the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled for Apple, affirming the reexamination examiner’s final rejection of the ‘926 claims as being obvious over certain prior art references.
Read More/続きを読む
Amendment of Claims in Reexamination Precludes Award of Royalties for Pre-Issuance Infringement
| October 30, 2012
In certain circumstances, a patentee may recover for acts of infringement that occur before issuance of its patent. Section 154(d) states that a patentee may obtain a reasonable royalty for acts of infringement occurring between the patent’s publication date and its issuance date. The statute adds that a patentee may “obtain reasonable royalties for activities amounting to infringement of the [patent application’s claims] if: (1) the issued patent claims are substantially identical to the claims in the published application; and (2) [defendant] had actual notice of the published patent application.”
Read More/続きを読む
Challenge to Samsung White LED Patent, Among the After-Grant Filings Week of October 22, 2012
| October 29, 2012
Ex parte reexamination was requested for Samsung’s U.S. Patent No. 7,959,312 claiming white LEDs (see ex parte Request No. (2)). Samsung has sued OSRAM for infringing eight patents, including the ‘312 patent. Still, since the request is ex parte rather than inter partes, it is likely filed by a third party.
Vestcom requested inter partes review of Grandville Printing’s U.S. Patent No. 8,020,765 (see inter partes review Request No. (1)). This is Vestcom’s second run at the ‘765 patent – in August Vestcom requested inter partes reexamination, but the Patent Office denied the request, concluding that Vestcom had “failed to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail,” essentially, the PTO found that Vestcom had failed to explain adequately why allowance of the claims in the original prosecution was wrong.
Read More/続きを読む
