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
Microsoft Takes another Crack at VirnetX Patent, Among the Requests Week of January 27, 2014
| February 5, 2014
In 2010 Microsoft paid VirnetX $200 million to settle a patent infringement action. In 2012 VirnetX won a $368 million jury verdict against Apple for infringement of the same set of patents. This past year, VirnetX again sued Microsoft, this time claiming that Microsoft’s Skype infringes those very same patents.
Last week Microsoft struck back, requesting inter partes review of one of the VirnetX patents-in-suit (see inter partes review Request No. (16)). This week, Microsoft is filing further requests against other VirnetX patents.
Microsoft is only the latest in a series of companies that are attempting to invalidate the VirnetX patent portfolio through challenges at the Patent Office. So far at least, VirnetX has been fairly successful at defending against those challenges.
Accused Infringer Wins Absolute Intervening Rights but not Equitable Intervening Rights
| January 29, 2014
Ex parte reexamination and inter partes review offer an accused infringer a number of benefits, even where the patent survives its trial at the Patent Office. Most notable among those benefits is the possibility of the accused infringer obtaining intervening rights based on amendment of the claims during reexamination or review. Such rights are created by 35 U.S.C. § 307(b) which reads:
Any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent following a reexamination proceeding will have the same effect as that specified in section 252 of this title for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who made substantial preparation for the same, prior to issuance of a certificate under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.
Read More/続きを読む
Anonymous Ex Parte Reexamination Sought against Carnegie Mellon Signal Patents, Among the Requests Week of January 21, 2014
| January 27, 2014
An undisclosed party requested ex parte reexamination of Carnegie Mellon’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,438,180 and 6,201,839 last Tuesday (see ex parte reexamination Request Nos. (1) & (2)). The ‘180 and ‘839 patents claim methods and receivers related to “signal detectors in magnetic recordings.” In 2012, a jury found the patents to be valid and willfully infringed by Marvell Technology, and awarded Carnegie $1.169 billion in damages.
Post-trial motions, of course, were filed, and earlier this month the trial judge denied a motion by Marvell based on a laches defense. The judge agreed with Marvell that Carnegie had waited too long to sue, but also found that the inequity of Marvell’s willful infringement offset the inequity of Carnegie’s nearly six-year delay in suing . The judge therefore denied Marvell’s motion, concluding with everyone’s favorite bromide from law school: “He who seeks equity must do equity.”
Marvell has promised to appeal the validity finding at the trial court level – and since a final judgment may be years away, Marvell may yet be saved from the billion dollar verdict by the reexamination requests.
Read More/続きを読む
Amneal Pharma Challenge to Oxymorphone Patents, Among the Requests Week of January 13, 2014
| January 22, 2014
In 2012 Endo Pharmaceuticals sued Amneal Pharmaceuticals for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,309,122 and 8,329,216 that claim certain controlled-release oxymorphone compositions, i.e., pain relievers. This past Thursday Amneal replied by requesting inter partes review of both patents (see inter partes review Request Nos. (13) & (14)). Pharmaceutical patents of other companies as well were attacked last week (see inter partes review Request No. (12) & ex parte reexamination Request No. (5)).
Medical device patents also continue to be targeted at the Patent Office. Inter partes review requests were filed against a knee arthroplasty patent owned by Wright Medical, and a shape memory alloy stent patent owned by Medtronic (see inter partes review Request Nos. (10) & (17)). In both instances, the requester had been sued for infringement.
Read More/続きを読む
