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
LG Challenge to Four Lighting Patents among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of September 4, 2012
| September 10, 2012
LG has frequently resorted to reexamination as part of its litigation strategy to defend against patent infringement allegations. So it was no surprise last week when LG requested reexamination of four patents related to LED and/or LCD technology (see inter partes Request Nos. (2) & (3) and ex parte Request Nos. (6) & (13)). The patents are owned by Industrial Technology Research Institute that has sued LG in New Jersey for infringement of the patents.
Research In Motion, also a frequent requester, sought reexamination of three wireless communications patents owned by Innovative Sonic (see inter partes Request Nos. (14), ((20) & (24)). The two companies are involved in an infringement action in Dallas.
CBS Interactive requested reexamination of a Microsoft information transmission patent that issued in July (see inter partes Request No. (8)).
Finally, our friends at Troll Busters were busy attacking two adenovirus patents (see ex parte Request Nos. (7) & ((8)).
Read More/続きを読む
Nintendo Attack on Video Game Patents, Among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of August 27, 2012
| September 6, 2012
Nintendo requested reexamination of two patents that claim handheld pointing systems for use with video games and that are owned by ThinkOptics (see inter partes Request Nos. (12) & (14). The companies are involved in an infringement action in the Easter District of Texas.
Apple requested reexamination of a caller-ID patent owned by ClassCo (see inter partes Request No. (7)). Classco has sued Apple for infringement in Illinois.
And Motorola Mobility has requests against three patents, two owned by Bandspeed and one owned by Effingo Wireless (see inter partes Request Nos. ((5), (6) & (9)).
Another Reason to Choose Reexamination
| August 28, 2012
Reexamination practitioners are fond of listing the advantages that reexamination offers an accused infringer, as compared to defending an infringement action in District Court. Last month the list grew a little longer, at least for the handful of cases in which the enablement of an allegedly anticipatory reference is an issue.
It has long been recognized that an examiner in routine examination or in a reexamination may rely on a prior art patent, based on its disclosure alone – there is no need for the examiner to establish that the disclosure of the patent is enabling, because of a rebuttable presumption that the patent is enabled. This presumption applies to both the claimed and the unclaimed subject matter in the prior art patent. This principle is, of course, different from infringement actions and ITC investigations, where the initial burden is on the accused infringer to show that an allegedly anticipatory prior art patent is enabled.
Attack on Two Crocs Shoe Patents, Among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of August 20, 2012
| August 27, 2012
Earlier this year, Crocs sued CVS Caremark for infringement of two patents claiming certain shoe designs. CVS has now requested reexamination of those patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (6) & (12)).
Motorola Mobility, now owned by Google, has requested reexamination of two Intellectual Ventures patents; this is in addition to the requests Motorola filed last week against two other IV patents. (see inter partes Request Nos. (5) & (7)). The four IV patents are the subject of an infringement action between the companies, now pending in Delaware.
Research In Motion has requested reexamination of two MobileMedia Ideas patents related to speech signal transmission (see ex parte Request Nos. (1) & (9)). MobileMedia is suing RIM for infringement of the patents in the Northern District of Texas. One of the patents was originally owned by Sony and the other, by Nokia.
The increase in the number of requests filed against medical device patents continued last week, with requests being filed against Bard, Delpor, and Zoll Medical patents.
