Category Archives: ex parte reexamination

Strategic Use of Reexamination in view of the Patent Reform Bill

Last week I had the privilege of speaking on reexamination at the AIPLA Electronics and Computer Law Summit.  The title of my speech was “Strategic Use of Reexam after Patent Reform – Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review.”  The powerpoint presentation materials can be found here.  The … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, motion practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, raised or reasonably could have raised, raised or reasonably could have raised, reexamination generally, Reissue, stay, Substantial New Question (SNQ), supplemental examination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Estoppel in Post-Grant Review (cont’d)

In the previous post we discussed some aspects of post-grant review (PGR)  in the current bill before the Senate.  The grounds available for petition in PGR are more comprehensive than those available for traditional reexamination and and also for the … Continue reading

Posted in estoppel, estoppel, estoppel from administrative proceeding, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, Litigation, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Post-Grant Review and Estoppel in the Current Patent Reform Bill

When the Senate returns from recess next month it will be debating patent reform, and in particular the Leahy-Smith  America Invents Act.  A copy of the redlined version passed by the House is found here.  (thanks to Brad Pedersen of Patterson Thuente Christensen … Continue reading

Posted in estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PTAB, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Protective Orders in View of Reexamination

In 55 Brake, L.L.C. v. Audi of America, Inc. et. al., (case 1-08-cv-00177, IDD), plaintiff 55 Brake is a patent owner asserting patent infringement of its ‘587 patent by several large automobile manufacturers.  The parties entered a protective order to … Continue reading

Posted in ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Prosecution Bar, Protective Order, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Stays Pending Reexamination and Experts Subject to a Prosecution Bar

In Interval Licensing LLC v. eBay, Inc., et. al., 2-10-cv-01385 (WAWD),  Interval Licensing (Interval) filed a motion for reconsideration of an earlier order by the Court to stay the litigation pending reexamination.  On July 12, 2011, Judge Marsha J. Pechman denied the motion. … Continue reading

Posted in ex parte reexamination, Expert, factors for stay, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, Prosecution Bar, reexamination generally, stay | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent Owner Stay Motion Successful Based on Defendants’ Reexam Requests Filed on Eve of Markman

In Fifth Market, Inc. v. CME Group Inc, et al., (1-08-cv-00520, D. Del), the Patent Owner/Plaintiff (Fifth Market, Inc.) sued multiple Defendants on two patents (U.S. Pat. No. 6,418,419 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,024,387) in 2008.  Three amended complaints were … Continue reading

Posted in ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, Litigation, reexamination generally, stay, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fractus SA Gets $23M Verdict Against Samsung in Antenna Patent Litigation

In Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (6:09-CV-203, EDTX), a jury gave a verdict of patent infringement of four different patents owned by Fractus S.A. against Samsung to the  tune of $23,129,321 in damages.  The jury found that … Continue reading

Posted in Appealable, Damages, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TiVo’s Reexamination Strategy Helps Win a Stay in the Northern District of California

The chronology of the dispute between TiVo, AT&T and Microsoft is complex and so are the digital video recorder (DVR) technologies covered in the patents that are asserted.  All of these complexities seemed to weigh in favor of a stay in … Continue reading

Posted in Appealable, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, Litigation, reexamination generally, stay, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lockwood Cert Petition Seeks Clarification of Redress for Alleged “Sham” Reexamination Request

In a Petition for Writ of Certiorari dated April 28, 2011, inventor Lawrence B. Lockwood and his company, PanIP, LLC, requested review of the judgment of the Federal Circuit denying its petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.  (The underlying order … Continue reading

Posted in ex parte reexamination, Litigation, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Patent Office Wants Your Ideas for Streamlining Reexamination

On Monday, April 25, 2011, the Federal Register announced a public meeting to solicit opinions on a number of changes being considered at the U.S. Patent Office to streamline both ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination proceedings.  Written comments … Continue reading

Posted in Appealable, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, merger, petitions practice, Procedural - Petitionable, reexamination generally, Reissue, Substantial New Question (SNQ) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment