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
PTO Board Reverses Rejection of Claim for being Broadened in Reexamination
| December 27, 2011
Does the statutory prohibition against broadening the scope of claims in reexamination (see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 1.906) apply on a claim-by-claim basis or to the scope of the claims as a whole? Put more concretely, may a patentee in reexamination broaden the scope of a dependent claim? The answer is that the prohibition applies to the scope of the claims as a whole, and a patentee is allowed to broaden its dependent claims.
Read More/続きを読む
Cisco Challenge to Two VirnetX Network Patents, among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of December 12, 2011
| December 20, 2011
VirnetX, having long ago vanquished Microsoft, is now in a difficult infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Cisco and a number of other network-makers. Last week Cisco requested reexamination of two VirnetX patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (3) & (8) – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,504 and 7,921,211.
Knowles Electronics is involved in a rather complicated litigation position. First, it sued Analog Devices in Illinois for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,439,616 and 7,537,964, and then, at the beginning of this month, it filed an ITC Complaint against Analog Devices, Amkor and Avnet for infringement of the ‘964 patent, plus infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,018,049. Reexamination requests were filed last week against the ‘964 and ‘049 patent (see inter partes Request Nos. (1) & (2)), and reexamination was requested against the ‘616 patent last May. This multi-front dispute creates another opportunity for interaction between the respective forums.
Reexamination is rarely requested for design patents, but two requests were filed last week (see ex parte Request Nos. (7) & (17)). Challenges by reexamination to design patents seem to do much better than those in District Court.
Volkswagen requested reexamination of a GPS patent owned by Beacon Navigation who has sued a number of automakers for infringement of the patent (see inter partes Request No. (4)).
Medtronic’s New Intervening Rights Assertion Falls Short, for Now
| December 19, 2011
The recent split panel decision of the CAFC in Marine Polymer – holding that a patentee’s argument in reexamination “effectively narrowing” the scope of a claim could create absolute statutory intervening rights erasing damages for acts occurring before the issue date of the reexamination certificate – has caused a stir in the patent world. An argument made by the accused infringer Medtronic in Voda v. Medtronic (Case No. 09-cv-95), and not expressly rejected by the trial court, would extend the sweep of intervening rights even further.
Voda’s patent claimed a method for extending a catheter through the aorta, including the step of “advancing the catheter body distal end through the aortic arch.” In an earlier law suit, won handsomely by Voda, its expert witness testified regarding this limitation, perhaps implying that the limitation should be construed broadly, i.e., that Voda’s claims would encompass not only procedures of a so-called “femoral approach,” but also procedures using “a radial approach.” Voda later sued Medtronic in the present case, and Medtronic replied, inter alia, by filing requests for reexamination four times. The result of those reexaminations was the PTO’s confirmation of the validity of all relevant claims. Specifically, the examiner confirmed the claims because of “clarification that advancement of the catheter through the aorta included the entire aortic arch,” i.e., construing the claims to cover only procedures with the “femoral approach.”
Patent Invalidated in Court despite Earlier Success in Reexamination
| December 13, 2011
It is an article of faith among patent litigators that a patent emerging successfully from reexamination is nearly impervious to a later validity attack in an infringement action in court. Judge Robert Chatigny’s ruling last Friday in Jacobs Vehicle Equipment v. Pacific Diesel Brake, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142228 (D. Conn.), however, shows that reexamined patents are not invulnerable.
A competitor sued the patentee for a declaratory judgment that the patent was obvious over the prior art, this despite an earlier confirmation by the PTO in reexamination that the claims were patentable over the art without need of amendment. After a lengthy trial, Judge Chatigny declared the patent invalid over the prior art. The Judge acknowledged that his conclusion was “at odds” with that of the reexamination examiner, but asserted that he had a better opportunity than the examiner to consider the prior art.
The record before me on issues relating to obviousness is far more complete than the one before the PTO. The ex parte reexamination interview lasted about forty-five minutes. The trial, which was more about invalidity than infringement, lasted several weeks. Nearly all the prior art was before the examiner. But he did not have the benefit of the extensive evidence and arguments submitted to me.
