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
What Happens after the Reexamination Stay is Lifted?
Scott Daniels | April 20, 2012
An extremely popular strategy for a defendant accused of patent infringement is (1) to request reexamination of the patent and then (2) to convince the trial judge that the reexamination will simplify the issues to be tried, so that he or she should stay the litigation pending completion of the suit. But how does the trial judge treat the defendant if, several years later, the Patent Office confirms the patentability of the claims and the litigation resumes? Not very well, the defendant learned this week in Cardiofocus v. Cardiogenesis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54892.
The case had resumed after being stayed for two years for reexamination of the two patents-in-suit, where some of the claims were disclaimed, and the other claims were confirmed. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of Massachusetts was asked to rule on a series of summary judgment motions offered by the parties. Judge Gorton’s analysis, of course, dealt carefully with the merits of each motion. And yet there was also an edge to the judge’s comments, suggesting that he did not regard the detour of the case to the Patent Office, requested by the defendant, to have been helpful.
Google Attack on Computerized Menu Patent among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of April 9, 2012
Scott Daniels | April 16, 2012
Last September, DietGoal Innovations sued a who’s-who of fast food companies (such as McDonalds and Burger King), plus Google, for infringement of a computerized menu patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,585,516 (see inter partes Request No. (1)). Last week, it was Google that requested reexamination of the ‘516 patent. DietGoal’s patented menu comprises a user interface, a database of food objects organized into meals, and a picture menus, so “that a user can select [a meal] to meet customized eating goal.”
Avery Dennison requested reexamination of two 3M patents for retro-reflective sheeting (see inter partes Request Nos. (8) & (9)). 3M has sued Avery in Minnesota for infringement of those two patents, as well as two other similar patents. Judge Michael Davis issued a claim construction order last month in that infringement action.
Finally, in what might be a first, the United States requested reexamination of a patent for neutralizing landmines (see inter partes Request No. (12)). The inventor-owner of the patent is pursuing an infringement action against the U.S. in the Court of Claims.
Attack on Two Applied Biosystems Nucleic Acid Probes among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of April 2, 2012
Scott Daniels | April 10, 2012
Reexamination was requested last week of two patents owned by Applied Biosystems, claiming fluorescent probes for detected nucleic acid amplification (see ex parte Request Nos. (1) & (2)). Although the Patent Office records do not yet disclose the identity of the requester, it is likely to be Midland Certified Reagent that has been sued by Applied Biosystems for infringement of the two patents.
Reexamination was also requested for three RFID patents owned by Round Rock Research (see ex parte Request Nos. (8), (9) & (14)). Round Rock also received disappointing news last week when Judge Richard Andrews of Delaware stayed its infringement actions against Dole Food, GAP and Hanesbrands pending completion of the reexamination of the five patents-in-suit. Judge Andrews included an amusing comment in his decision: when dealing with the consideration of whether the stay motion had been filed for a “tactical reason,” he noted the obvious that “parties are constantly seeking tactical advantages.”
Announcing WHDA’s free app for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch
WHDA Blogging Team | April 3, 2012
We interrupt our normal posting to make an exciting announcement! WHDA has just released “WHDA Connect”—a free app for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. With it you can:
*Read our blogs about the latest patent and trademark news, with optional push notifications. Non-native English speakers will find the built-in dictionary helpful – activated when you tap-and-hold a word (requires iOS 5.0+).
*Get simple access to the most powerful IP resources on the web, such as databases of major world patent offices.
*Learn more about our services and skill sets.
*Access our directory of professionals.
*Call or email our professionals with just a tap.
*Simplify visits to our offices with GPS-guided directions.
Tags: app > Apple > iPad > iPhone > iPod > iPod touch > iTunes > mobile app > WHDA > WHDA blogs
