In large patent litigations it has become more likely to see defendants request reexamination of the patents asserted. Some of the advantages of doing so were outlined in prior posts.
Fractus, S.A., is a company headquartered in Spain that sells and licenses technology relating to fractal antennas. Fractus asserted nine patents against a number of defendants last year. Defendants Kyocera, Samsung, and HTC have collectively requested inter partes reexamination of each of the asserted patents. Reexaminations have been ordered for each patent and some merger considerations are being made to combine certain reexamination requests. No first office actions appear to have been entered into Public PAIR on any of the 11 patent reexaminations as of today, but they should be coming shortly.
In case you are interested, the Fractus patent reexaminations include the following:
95/000586 – Multilevel Antennae – US Pat. 7,397,431
95/000587 – Loaded Antenna – US Pat. 7,312,762
95/000588 – Multilevel Antennae – US Pat. 7,394,432
95/000589 – Multilevel Antennae – US Pat. 7,015,868
95/000590 – Multilevel Antennae – US Pat. 7,411,556
95/000591 – Multilevel Antennae – US Pat. 7,123,208
95/000592 – Space Filling Miniature Antennae – US Pat. 7,202,822
95/000593 – Space Filling Miniature Antennae – US Pat. 7,148,850
95/000595 – Multilevel Antennae – US Pat. 7,528,782
95/001482 – Multilevel Antennae – US Pat. 7,397,431
95/001483 – Multilevel Antennae – US Pat. 7,394,432
I will update this list over time because there are a few patents that have another reexamination request on file in the Patent Office and sometimes these requests are merged.
Tim
I agree with you. This approach — of defendants’ requesting inter partes reexamination of each of the patents-in-suit — has become quite common where a large cell phone or Internet company is sued for infringement. On Friday, Imperium (IP) Holdings sued Apple, etc., etc., for infringement of five patents. I bet that in a few weeks, a barrage inter partes reexamination requests will be fired back at Imperium.
Scott Daniels
Editor’s Note: This post was corrected to state that nine Fractus patents were asserted (not eleven). The post identifies only 9 patents and eleven reexaminations. The actual number of parallel reexaminations is much larger and is reflected in the post on March 24, 2011. My apologies for any confusion this might cause.
Tim,
You have, apparently, incorrectly identified these patents being for “fractal antennas” In fact, unless I am mistaken (correct me if I am wrong), none of these patents assert claims as being “fractal antennas”.
The source-patent(s) on fractal antennas are found with filing dates circa August 1995 and include, but are not limited to, 6,452,553, and 7,256,751.
Incidentally, fractal antennas by no means require an infinite number of iterations, in fact that would be fatuous as we don’t live in a universe of infinities. In other words, as per the convention established by Benoit Mandlebrot in 1982’s FRACTAL GEOMETRY OF NATURE, self similarity over a multiple of scales constitutes “fractal”. It is up to the courts and the USPTO to see what constitutes prior art with respect to the FRACTUS patents, given this fact.
Finally it is an interesting question as to whether fractal antennas are also described by these later, FRACTUS claims. IF that is so, then , IMO, the case for prior art is compelling with respect to many of the FRACTUS claims as presently written.
Nathan,
Thank you for your comments. I learned after the date of my post that there seems to be disagreement of some sort whether certain patents cover fractal antennas or not. My blog was not intended to serve as a fact or legal opinion, and my reference to the patents in this post was simply based on statements made on Fractus’ website:
Fractus develops antennas for wireless devices – from mobile phones and mobile TV to Bluetooth headsets. Its products are based on its patented fractal antenna technologies and are found in devices by leading OEMs and ODMs around the world.
The first ever patent for fractal design applied to mobile telecommunications antennas was filed by Fractus CTO Dr. Carles Puente in May 1995. Since then, Fractus has registered 51 patent families for both antennas for the telecommunications industry and mobile applications.
I leave it to readers, such as yourself, to reach your own conclusion.
Thanks again for your comments.
Regards,
–Tim
Hi Tim,
Won’t belabor the point, but it really isn’t a matter for the public to form an ‘opinion’ on. The issue is fact(s) regarding patent claims, and the decision of the USPTO vis a vis patent validity under reexamination. You should not confuse a marketing message with patent claims. If the USPTO decides that this is a ‘fractal antenna’ issue, then there is a substantial body of prior art that, indeed, is apparenty cited, in part, in the the upwards of 27 requests for reexamination. FRACTUS has explicitly disclaimed ownership of fractal antennas in their patent filing(s). However, they seems to feel that a ‘fractal antena’ has infinite iterations– a physically impossibility and contrary to standard and prior art use of the term. It is an interesting question of the validity of said claims under the requested reviews.
Fractal antennas are protected under U.S. patents that are not associated with the plaintiff and there are no disputes between the patent holder and the defendents. Cheers.
One of many helpful references, here where the principle inventor named in these aforementioned FRACTUS patents, Carles Puente (Baliarda), refers to FINITE iterations as being bona fide “fractal antennas” is:
“Multiband Fractal Antennas and Arrays”, by Puente et al., FRACTALS IN ENGINEERING, Proceedings, INRIA, June 1997.
Thus the inventor uses two contradictory definitions: one in the patents listed, and another in a scientific public published proceeding. Note the 1997 reference pre-dates these filing, and presumably priority dates for these aforementioned patents. End of my clarification and best regards.