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
How Long Does Reexamination Take?
| November 21, 2011
A critical issue in cases with parallel District Court infringement actions and PTO reexaminations is whether the court will stay its proceeding pending completion of the reexamination. A court’s ruling on whether to stay often turns on how long it expects the reexamination to last. A judge is quite likely to stay a case when he or she expects a short reexamination, but is just as likely to deny a stay when a long reexamination is anticipated.
The PTO keeps statistics on the average length of reexaminations, and those statistics are routinely cited by patentees and accused infringers alike, as support for their respective positions. But there is no “average” reexamination and the length of pendency varies widely. Two PTO Board reexamination decisions from last week illustrate the point. Both reexaminations were inter partes and both resulted in cancelation of the claims at issue. Yet one lasted two years and eight months (95/000,444), and the other, six years and five months (95/000,099). Moreover, there is at least anecdotal evidence that the PTO is now handling reexaminations a good deal more expeditiously than its historical data would suggest.
HP Request for Reexamination of Nomadix Internet-User Redirection Patent, among the Requests Filed Week of November 14, 2011
| November 21, 2011
Two years ago, Nomadix sued Hewlett-Packard and a host of other companies for infringement of six Internet-systems patents. HP has now requested reexamination of one of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,633,894 (see inter partes Request No. (12)). An earlier reexamination of Nomadix’s ‘894 patent resulted in confirmation of the patentability of each claim without amendment.
A10 Networks has requested reexamination of four more Brocade server patents last week (see inter partes Request Nos. (4), (6), (8) & (9)).
On Friday reexamination was also requested against David Breed’s car occupant restraint patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,942,248 owned by Automotive Technologies International (see ex parte Request No. (9)). ATI has alleged infringement of the ‘248 patent by Honda and Hyundai, among others.
Microsoft Challenge to NetView Patent, among the Reexamination Requests filed Week of November 7, 2011
| November 14, 2011
Inter partes reexamination continues to be the weapon of choice for major Internet/software companies. Last week Microsoft requested reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,251,776 owned by NetView (see inter partes Request No. (1)). NetView is pursuing an action against Microsoft in Massachusetts, asserting infringement of the ‘776 patent.
Inter partes reexamination was also requested against U.S. Patent No. 7,426,264 which claims methods for mobile messaging and which is owned by Intellect Wireless (see inter partes Request No. (6)). It is not yet clear who filed the Request, but Intellect Wireless has previously sued Apple, Heio, HTC, LG, Samsung, Sanyo, T-Mobile, and Virgin Mobile for infringement of related patents.
After requesting reexamination of six Brocade server patents the previous week, A10 Networks filed three more requests last week. (see inter partes Request Nos. (3), (4) & (7)).
Google Challenge to Tierravision Geographic Database Patent among the Reexamination Requests Filed week of October 31, 2011
| November 7, 2011
Earlier this year Tierravision sued Microsoft, RIM and Google, accusing them of selling Internet-based map services that infringe U.S. Reissue Patent No. 41,983. Google has now replied by requesting reexamination of the ‘983 patent (see inter partes Request No. (3)). Google’s Request is a bit spicier than most. At the very outset, it asserts that “Tierravision buried the 18 claims subject to reexamination in a wildly varied set of 70 total claims,” with the result that “[t]hey bear little or no resemblance to the claims of the original patent, yet the original Examiner subjected them to virtually no scrutiny, allowing them in the first action without any explanation.” It seems likely that RIM and Microsoft will file their own Requests.
Research in Motion has requested reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,055,439 owned by MobileMedia Ideas (see ex parte Request No. (14)). The ‘439 patent was originally assigned to Nokia and is one of a portfolio of mobile phone patents assigned by either Nokia or Sony to MobileMedia.
And A10 Networks has struck back at Brocade Communications Systems, requesting reexamination of six Brocade server patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (5) – (10)). The six patents are the subject of a law suit between the two companies in the Northern District of California.
