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
Reexamination Requested by Google against Two More British Telecom Patents
| June 14, 2012
On Tuesday we reported that reexamination had been requested against U.S. Patent No. 6,151,309, owned by British Telecommunications. BT had sued Google in Delaware for infringement of the ‘309 and five other patents, all related to network communications, data navigation, data transfer, and data storage among them. The accused products include Google Android, Google Music, Google Maps, Google Places, and Google Search, though not the Google Patent.
Patent Office records now show that reexamination was requested on the same day against two other BT patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,169,515 & 6,650,284. PTO records also reveal Google as the requester.
Reexamination Requested Against British Telecom Patent, Perhaps by Google
| June 12, 2012
Last December British Telecommunications sued Google in Delaware for infringement of six patents related to network communications, data navigation, data transfer, and data storage among them U.S. Patent No. 6,151,309. The accused products include Google Android, Google Music, Google Maps, Google Places, and Google Search, though not Google Patent. Yesterday ex parte reexamination was requested by an as-yet-unidentified party, presumably Google. Because of the early filing date of the ‘309 patent application, inter partes reexamination was not available.
Requests against the other five British Telecom patents might follow.
Another Reason to Choose Inter Partes Reexamination
| June 11, 2012
We have commented a number times that the advantages of inter partes reexamination generally outweigh those of ex parte reexamination. The PTO Board’s decision this past Friday in Panduit v. ADC Telecommunications (95/000,411; see also 95/000,415) illustrated one such advantage: the right of an inter partes requester to submit new prior art at specific moments in the reexamination.
In an earlier appeal, the Board had entered new grounds for rejection, and the patentee ADC asked that prosecution be re-opened to challenge the new grounds. In that challenge, ADC argued to the examiner that its claims were patentably distinguishable over the prior art relied upon by the Board, citing several limitations in its claims. The requester Panduit replied by submitting a new prior art reference; Panduit argued that the reference satisfied those claim limitations and that the reference, in combination with the art already of record, rendered ADC’s claims obvious.
Troll Busters®’ Attack on Nucleic Acid Patent one of the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of June 4, 2012
| June 11, 2012
Jeff Oster, who operates out of offices on Mercer Island, Washington under the descriptive nom de plume “Troll Busters®,” was busy last week. On Wednesday he filed a 356-page request, containing 16 distinct SNQs, seeking reexamination U.S. Patent No. 5,928,907 (see ex parte Request No. (6)). It’s always difficult for an outsider to measure the strength of a reexamination request, but this one has the look and heft of an effective one. The Request begins with the description of Troll Busters as “working to promote new technologies by protecting the public from over-broad patent rights used for extortion and ‘troll-like’ demands….”
Arteris requested reexamination of Sonics’ on-chip system patent (see inter partes Request No. (4)). This is at least the second Sonics patent challenged by Arteris. Sonics has sued Arteris in the Northern District of California for infringement of those two patents, plus six other patents.
