Patent Law Practice Center

Attack on Lam Research Plasma Processing Patent, Among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of Nov. 28, 2011

Here is our latest weekly installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor…

Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment has requested reexamination of Lam Research’s U.S. Patent No. 5,998,932 related to plasma processing equipment (see ex parte Request No. (6)). Lam has sued AMFE for infringement of the Taiwanese counter-part patent and might soon sue in the United States for infringement of the ‘932 patent.

Reexamination was also requested for a Xerox patent (see inter partes Request No. (5)), but the identity of the requester is not shown in the PTO records.

 The following inter partes requests were filed: (more…)

HTC Claims Intervening Rights Against Apple In ITC Case

Scott Daniels, Partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing the pending ITC investigation of HTC’s mobile communication devices.  Daniels raises interesting questions regarding HTC’s latest motion asking the ITC  for a determination that it does not infringe one of Apple’s patents because it’s entitled to “absolute intervening rights” against Apple.

HTC might be making a comeback in the ITC’s investigation of mobile communication devices  (337-TA-710).  In July Administrative Law Judge Charneski issued an Initial Determination (ID) against HTC, finding that its accused communication devices infringe two data manipulation patents owned by Apple.  That determination, if affirmed by the full Commission, would likely result in exclusion from entry into the United States of HTC’s infringing devices.

But in September the full Commission announced that it was reviewing Judge Charneski’s ID against HTC.  And, in a step that will interest reexamination practitioners, HTC asked the ITC for a determination that it does not infringe one of the Apple patents – U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 – because HTC is entitled to “absolute intervening rights” created in a co-pending reexamination of Apple’s ‘647 patent. (more…)

Patentee’s Arguments in Reexamination Create Intervening Rights Erasing $29.4 Million Verdict

Scott Daniels, Partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing Tuesday’s CAFC decision in the Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon case. In a decision that seems to encourage reexamination, the Court held that “intervening rights” apply to unamended claims based on statements made during reexamination.  Daniels discusses the history of the case and highlights the key points of the CAFC decision.

The CAFC panel decision [Tuesday] in Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon will do more to popularize reexamination than all the proselytizing by all the reexamination lawyers and bloggers ever could.  The Court held that an argument made by the patentee traversing a rejection in reexamination constituted a disclaimer of patented subject matter; this disclaimer triggered absolute intervening rights for the accused infringer under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307(b), thereby eliminating all damages for the period before the issuance of the reexamination certificate.  The Court also suggested that the accused infringer might also be protected by equitable intervening rights for the period after issuance of the reexamination certificate and sent the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding. (more…)

Unwary Litigants to Lose USPTO Review Option Under Patent Reform

What’s Wrong with Reexamination and How to Make it Better

Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing why reexamination should absolutely be considered when there is a strong case of invalidity that is built upon prior patents or publications and what the Patent Office is doing now with respect to reexamination.

Reexamination is a low-cost but seldom used alternative to litigation for determining the patentability of the claims in an issued patent. Despite what I write below, I am a fan of reexamination and I think that the fears associated with the process are largely unfounded.  Reexamination could and should be used more often than it is, and if you are a defendant in an ongoing patent infringement litigation and you are not simultaneously involved in bringing a reexamination you need to ask yourself why not!

Yes, the reexamination process is slow.  Yes, the reexamination process doesn’t work as well as it could or should.  Yes, reexamination it adds extra cost.  But the statistics don’t lie.  In the right case reexamination is extremely effective.  Unfortunately, some patent litigators counsel clients to steer clear of reexamination.  This may be good advice, or it might just be because the litigator isn’t familiar with reexamination, or in some cases because you recommend what you know and do.  The old saying — if you are a hammer all the world looks like a nail — comes to mind.  So despite what follows relating to how Congress could and should make reexamination better, if you are on the wrong side of a patent infringement litigation you really should get some impartial advice about the pros and cons of pursuing a reexamination strategy before writing it off as a bad idea.

Click here to read the full IPWatchdog publication.