Patent Law Practice Center

Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of July 5th

Here is the latest  installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott M. Daniels, of Reeaxamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor…

Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system.  Information on concurrent litigation is also provided, where available.

Some reexamination requests are still filed by paper.  Because of the time required for the Patent Office to review such paper requests before posting on PAIR, our report may come three weeks after filing.  The information available from the Patent Office may be incomplete in a few cases because not all the reexamination request papers have yet been posted on PAIR.  There may also be gaps in the Patent Office docket numbers listed because, for any of various reasons, a reexamination request has been assigned a docket number but is not ready for posting. (more…)

The Plot Thickens in Apple Patent Battle with HTC

By Gene Quinn (of  IPWatchdog.com and Patent Center Contributor)

There has been yet another development in what is fast shaping up to be an epic patent battle between Apple Inc.(NASDAQ: AAPL) and High Tech Computer Corp.(PINK:HTCCF) (aka HTC Corp.), HTC (B.V.I.) Corp, HTC America, Inc. and Exeda, Inc. (collectively referred to as HTC).  On Monday, June 21, 2010, Apple filed yet another complaint against HTC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  On March 2, 2010, Apple, Inc.  filed two lawsuits against HTC Corp., alleging that HTC infringes some 20 Apple patents related to the iPhone’s user interface, underlying architecture and hardware.

The latest Apple complaint continues to allege direct infringement of Apple patents, this time four separate patents.  The complaint also alleges indirect infringement; specifically contributory infringement and inducement to infringe.  The patent asserted by Apple are US Patent No. 7,282,453 (Count I); US Patent No. 7,657,849 (Count II); US Patent No. 6,282,646 (Count III) and US Patent No. 7,380,116 (Count IV).  The ‘453 patent and the ‘849 patent were both asserted previously by Apple (see what I have previously referred to as the second complaint filed March 2, 2010).  It appears as if they are added here due to recently issued Certificates of Correction.  The ‘646 patent and the ‘116 patent were not previously asserted in either of the two complaints filed March 2, 2010 in the District of Delaware.

Read the entire article at IPWatchdog.com

Accused Infringer Uses Reexamination To Defeat Willfulness Allegation

Scott Daniels, partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian LLP and Practice Center Contributor, sent along his analysis on the recent District Court decision, Plumley v. Mockett.  In a decision that may surprise many,  the District Court held that the accused infringer may use reexamination to obtain summary judgment of no willful infringement.  According to Daniels, “the first goal of a third party requesting reexamination is to
 invalidate the patent claims.  But even if the Patent Office confirms 
the validity of the claims, the reexamination may significantly benefit
 the requester on other issues, such as claim construction,  infringement, 
and inequitable conduct.”

Below is Scott Daniels’ analysis…

A party accused of patent infringement requests reexamination at the PTO to attack the patent as being anticipated or obvious in view of a prior art patent or printed publication.  An accused infringer, however, may also achieve other less obvious goals by seeking reexamination, such as creating an estoppel, creating a disclaimer limiting claim scope, or establishing the materiality of a prior art reference for an inequitable conduct defense.  Or, as in Plumley v. Mockett, the accused infringer may use reexamination to obtain summary judgment of no willful infringement.  2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57254 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2010). (more…)