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
Stryker Attack on Six Hospital Bed Patents, among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of July 16, 2012
| July 24, 2012
Last week featured two major reexamination filings. The first was a set of requests filed by Stryker against six hospital bed patents owned by Hill-Rom Services (see inter partes Request Nos. 14-15 and 17-19 and ex parte Request No. 4). Hill-Rom had sued Stryker for infringement of those patents in the Western District of Wisconsin.
The second major was a set of requests filed by Nest Labs Inc. against seven patents claiming thermostats and owned by Honeywell (see inter partes Requests Nos. (1) to (7)). The two companies are in an infringement action in Minnesota regarding those patents.
In both instances, we expect that the requester will now ask the trial judge for stay of the litigation pending completion of the reexamination.
Reexamination Requests against Univ. of Washington Medical Imaging Patent among those Filed Week of July 9, 2012
| July 16, 2012
NeuroGraphix has filed a series of infringement actions, including four last Wednesday, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,560,360 that claims a medical imaging device and is owned by the University of Washington. NeuroGraphix is the exclusive licensee of the ‘360 patent. The accused infringers include the University of California, Philips, Tufts College, Boston University, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess and the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Last Tuesday an anonymous party requested reexamination of the ‘360 patent (see ex parte Request No. (2)).
Cisco requested reexamination of a data redirection system patent owned by Linksmart Wireless Technology (see inter partes Request No. (1)). Linksmart has sued Cisco, T-Mobile and a number of others for infringement of the patent.
Extension of Time Petitions in Reexamination: More to Them than Some Might Think
| July 12, 2012
Petitions for extension of time are the most common type of petition filed in reexamination proceedings. Many patent practitioners, accustomed to the PTO’s practice of automatically granting extension of time requests in original prosecution, are sometimes surprised by extension of time practice in reexamination proceedings where it is not uncommon for a supervisory patent examiner to grant the petitioner only in-part or even to deny it.
We looked at a random pool of 150 petitions for extension of time, and found that 52% of the requests for extension of time were granted, 25% of requests, granted only in-part, and 23% denied. One petitioner requested a one-month extension of time due to an unexpected withdrawal of counsel. The examiner held that because the petitioner had been deprived of counsel for seven days, there was “sufficient cause” to afford the petitioner a corresponding seven day, not one-month, extension. Such partial grants of extensions might not seem problematic, but where a party assumes or worse, relies on a specific extension to file a timely response. While the median time-lag between a petition filing and decision is 6 days, it is sometimes two or three weeks before a decision is made. Thus, a petitioner could find itself in a tough spot if it presumed that its petition would be granted, only to find there weeks later that its petition is only granted-in-part.
Read More/続きを読む
Update on Reexamination of LG Philips LCD Patents
| July 12, 2012
Yesterday we reported that the Patent Office Board of Appeals had affirmed a reexamination examiner’s rejection of certain claims LG Philips’ U.S. Patent No. 6,815,321, claiming a method for forming a thin film resistor for use in laptops, monitors and television sets. The Board has now affirmed eight distinct anticipation and obviousness rejections of a related LG patent claiming then film resistors, U.S. Patent No. 7,176,489.
