LG Suffers Setback at PTO Board in LCD Dispute with Chi Mei
| July 11, 2012
The infringement action filed by LG Philips LCD against Chi Mei Optoelectronics and AU Optronics in Delaware is scheduled to go to trial at the beginning of November. LG sued Chi Mei and AU in 2006 for infringement of four LCD patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,815,321, claiming a method for forming a thin film resistor. The resistors are used in laptops, monitors and television sets.
In the meantime, however, a reexamination against the ‘321 has been winding its way through the Patent Office. And this morning, the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s prior art rejections of certain ‘321 claims. Essentially, the Board found that the various declarations filed by LG attacking the rejections failed to address the relevant disclosure of the references or lacked corroboration.
Facebook Obtains Prosecution Bar against Pragmatus for Reexamination
| July 10, 2012
The issue of a prosecution bar – whether a lawyer who represents a patentee and who receives confidential information from an opposing party in an infringement action should be permitted to participate in a parallel reexamination – arose last week in the Northern District of California infringement action, Pragmatus v. Facebook (5:11-cv-2168).
Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal granted Facebook’s motion to prevent Pragmatus’ lawyers who had subscribed to the Protective Order in the case from also participating in parallel reexamination proceedings at the Patent Office. Magistrate Grewal first cited the CAFC’s decision in Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) to the effect that, in determining whether a particular lawyer may participate in a reexamination, a court must (1) consider the risk of inadvertent use in the reexamination of confidential information learned by the lawyer from the litigation, and then (2) balance the potential harm to the accused infringer from that risk of inadvertent use and the potential harm to the patentee from using separate counsel.
LG Reexamination Request against OSRAM LED Patent, one of those Filed Week of July 2, 2012
| July 9, 2012
Last June OSRAM GmbH filed an ITC complaint against LG Innotek and Samsung, accusing them of importing into the United States LEDs, LED monitors and LED television sets that infringe 12 patents, one of them being U.S. Patent No. 7,162,261 claiming a light-radiating semiconductor component with a luminescence conversion element. (Certain Light Emitting Diodes, 337-TA-785). The trial starts today, and the investigation has a February 11, 2013 deadline for completion. On Friday LG requested reexamination of the ‘261 patent (see inter partes Request No. (3)).
So far this is the first reexamination for any of the OSRAM patents in the case, but others might follow, especially for the ‘732, ‘500, 283 and ‘621 patents that concern technology similar to that of the ‘261 patent. If the PTO rejects the ‘261 claims in reexamination, and if the ITC finds that the ‘261 is valid and infringed, the ITC will again face the question of whether it should issue import relief based on a patent in reexamination.
Google Request for Reexamination of Walker Digital Patent, among those Filed Week of June 25, 2012
| July 2, 2012
Last year Walker Digital sued BMW, MapQuest, TomTom, Teleman, Blusens, NDrive, Samsung and Google for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,199,014 claiming a vehicle navigation system (see inter partes Request No. (2)). Last Tuesday Google requested reexamination of the ‘014 patent. A motion to stay the litigation is likely to follow.
Reexamination was requested for Ronald Katz’ U.S. Patent No. 5,898,762 claiming a telephone interface system (see ex parte Request No. (2)). Katz has sued Charter, Time Warner Cable, EarthLink, DIRECTV and U.S. Cellular for infringing the ‘762 patent.
Friday is the most popular day for filing reexamination requests, unless you are the Troll Buster Jeff Oster who filed two more requests on Saturday, these against two Life Technologies hybridization assay patents, on behalf of Bioresearch (see ex parte Request Nos. (9) & (10)).