You filed suit on a patent with a pending SNQ? Really?


Written by Brandon Baum , of baum legal and Practice Center Contributor.

Orinda Intellectual Properties filed suit on April 25, 2011 against a long list (50!) of electronics companies alleging infringement of US 5,438,560 purporting to cover recording and reproducing optical information on Blu-ray discs. Fine, lots of patents in the Blu-ray arena.

But a quick look at public PAIR shows that the USPTO found a substantial new question of patentability on March 7, 2011 and ordered a re-exam of all 3 claims of the ’560 patent.





Call me old-fashioned, but shouldn’t you get that substantial question of patentability straightened out before suing fifty companies for patent infringement?  Maybe there is some strategy I am not aware of (willfulness?), but I can imagine a judge being pretty upset with the plaintiff if the patent goes down in flames at the USPTO.


Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You share in the PLI Practice Center community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.

You must be logged in to post a comment.