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
It’s Still the Trial Judges Who Decide Reexamination Stay Motions
| February 16, 2012
We were initially excited to see CAFC’s recent order in Synqor v. Artesyn Techs., denying the accused infringer’s motion to stay the appeals, pending completion of inter partes reexaminations of two of the five patent-in-suit. A jury had found the five patents to be valid and infringed, and awarded damages to the patentee. In the meantime, the patentee is appealing to the PTO Board of Appeals the reexamination rejection of the claims of two of those patents. Reexaminations of the other three patents are still pending before the reexamination examiner.
In its motion to the CAFC appeals, the accused infringer argued that those appeals would be best considered once the five reexaminations had been completed. Judge Moore, speaking for the CAFC, took a hard stance against the accused infringer, characterizing the remaining 10-14 month pendency of the two appeals to the PTO Board as “lengthy” and the requested stay as “unwarranted.” The possibility of simplification of issues from the reexaminations was not even mentioned.
PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
| February 13, 2012
The PTO has now published a lengthy set of proposed rules for administering the various post-issuance proceedings created by the America Invents Act (AIA) – supplemental review, inter partes review, post-grant review, covered business method patents, and derivation. If you have time to read just one notice, choose the “Practical Guide for Proposed Trial Rules.” It was issued Thursday and summarizes the procedures to be followed in the latter four inter partes-type proceedings. (Incidentally, acronyms will be important to master: e.g., PO = patent owner, IPR = inter partes review, PGR = post-grant review, CBM = covered business method patents).
The most useful item in the Guide is a time line for a typical proceeding.
Challenges to Medical Device Patents Prominent among Reexamination Requests Filed Week of February 6, 2012
| February 13, 2012
There has been a notable increase in the number of reexamination requests filed against medical device patents. That trend continued apace last week.
First, Innova Labs requested reexamination of two Inogen patents claiming structures for delivering therapeutic gases to patients (see inter partes Request Nos. (3) & (4)). Inogen has sued Innova in the Central District of California for infringement of the patents. Also, Globus Medical requested reexamination of three surgical access apparatus patents owned by Nuvasive (see inter partes Request Nos. (6), (7) & (8)). Those companies are locked in an infringement action in Delaware.
And reexamination was requested for yet another Round Rock Research RFID patent and yet another Ronald Katz telephone patent (see ex parte Request Nos. (3) & (5)).
Attack on Walker Digital Image Management Patent, among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of January 30, 2012
| February 6, 2012
Reexamination was requested last week by an un-identified party against a Walker Digital patent that names Jay Walker of Priceline fame as an inventor (see ex parte Request No. (1)). The patent claims a computer readable storage medium in a camera, which stores instructions for the camera’s management of images. Walker Digital has sued Canon USA for infringement of the patent, and it might be Canon that filed the request.
Requests were filed by GT Nexus against four shipment monitoring patents owned by INTTRA, Inc. (see ex parte Request Nos. (7) to (10)). The patents relate to systems including user interfaces that allow a shipper to track and trace containers across multiple carriers and an event notifications system. The two companies are in an infringement action in the Northern District of California regarding these patents.
And reexamination has been requested for yet another MobileMedia Ideas patent, this time by Research In Motion (see ex parte Request No. (14)).
