Featured Posts
- 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 Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
- Kyocera Challenge to ADC Personal Communicator Patent among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of May 7, 2012
- More...
PTO Statistics
MULLIGAN NO HELP TO CALLAWAY IN GOLF BALL CASE
Lee Wright | May 19, 2010
The possibility of PTO and the courts adopting different claim constructions has arisen in Callaway’s case against Acushnet for infringement of four golf ball patents.
In August 2009, the CAFC vacated a jury verdict because it contained an “irreconcilable inconsistency” – specifically, a finding that Callaway’s independent claim was non-obvious, but that a dependent claim was obvious. In March of this year, after a second trial, the jury found that all the asserted Callaway claims were anticipated and obvious. The case is now back at the CAFC awaiting decision.
Read More/続きを読む
ROLLS-ROYCE PATENT RESCUED FROM INTERFERENCE
Scott Daniels | May 10, 2010
In 2003, the PTO Board declared an interference between the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,077 belonging to Rolls-Royce, and the claims of a United Technologies patent application. The invention was a fan blade configuration used in turbofan jet engines. United Technologies, having an earlier priority date, was named the senior party, and Rolls-Royce, with the later date, the junior party.
Rolls-Royce argued that there was no “interference-in-fact” because its claims were patentably distinguishable over the claims of the United Technologies patent.
Read More/続きを読む
CAFC REVERSES PTO’S BROAD CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Scott Daniels | April 30, 2010
It is well-known that the PTO gives claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, both in original examination and in reexamination.
But in the recent case In re Suitco Surface, the CAFC found that the PTO’s claim construction had been too broad.
Read More/続きを読む
CAFC APPLIES RECAPTURE RULE BROADLY
Scott Daniels | April 15, 2010
The CAFC held this week – in MBO Labs. v. Becton, Dickinson – that a reissue applicant may not recapture claimed subject matter that was surrendered in a related application.
The rule against recapture prohibits a patentee from broadening the scope of its claims during reissue to cover subject matter that it had previously surrendered during the prosecution of its original claims. The rule exists because reissue is intended to correct “errors made without deceptive intent,” not to remove amendments or arguments made to convince an examiner to allow claims. Further, competitors are allowed to rely upon past prosecution histories which show that an applicant has surrendered certain claimed subject matter.
Read More/続きを読む
Non-Final Rejections in Reexamination Not Admissible in Jury Trial
Scott Daniels | August 14, 2009
The CAFC ruled today that non-final reexamination determinations are “of little relevance” to a jury’s consideration of the obviousness issue. Since the risk of the jury being “confused” by such determinations was high, the CAFC affirmed the trial judge’s exclusion of such a determination at trial.
In that case, Callaway had accused Acushnet of infringing a series of patents claiming golf balls. Acushnet replied by filing inter partes reexamination requests with the PTO, asserting that the patents were invalid over certain prior art.
Read More/続きを読む
McNeil Vindicated at CAFC
Scott Daniels | July 31, 2009
McNeil-PPC, Inc. filed a request for reexamination of its U.S. Patent No. 6,310,269 in November 2002, and today, after more than six years and a series of adverse decisions at the PTO, it finally prevailed at the CAFC.
Read More/続きを読む
Claims Lack Written Description Support
Scott Daniels | July 27, 2009
The CAFC has affirmed a Patent Office ruling that the patent specification in the reexamination application, In re Reiffin Family Trust, failed to provide written description support for certain claims sought to add to U.S. Patent No. 5,694,604, rendering those claims unpatentable.
Read More/続きを読む
Reexamination of University of Pittsburgh
Scott Daniels | July 23, 2009
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1468
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DR. ADAM J. KATZ, and DR. RAMON LLULL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARC H. HEDRICK, PROSPER BENHAIM, HERMANN PETER LORENZ, and MIN ZHU, Defendants-Appellants.
Glenn J. Pfadenhauer, Williams & Connolly LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Adam L. Perlman and David I. Berl.
Read More/続きを読む
