Patent Law Practice Center

Thirteen Brocade Patents Among The Targets Of Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of 6/27/11

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

A10 Networks may have set a record last week when it requested reexamination of 13 Brocade patents involving global servers (see ex parte Request Nos. (2)-(3), (5)-(8), (11)-(17)).  The parties are in litigation over those patents in the Northern District of California.

Reexamination was requested against Lambda Optical Systems’ U.S. Patent No. 6,973,229 related to optical network systems (see ex parteRequest No. (9)).  Lambda sued a number of network companies last year for infringement of the ‘229 patent, including Alcatel-Lucent,NEC, Fujitsu and Nokia-Siemens. Read the rest of this entry »

The Therasense Decision: Tightening the standards for finding both intent and materiality

I recently tuned in to a One-Hour Audio Briefing- Therasense: Reshaping the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine 2011 featuring Elaine Herrman Blais and Robert D. Carrol of Goodwin Procter to get a handle on the Therasense decision.  Blais and Carrol  discussed the key disputes in the case, summarized the majority decision, Judge O’Malley’s concurrence and Judge Bryson’s dissent and suggested possible future developments of the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine.  Here are some highlights:

Key Disputes:

1. How do the Supreme Court decisions constrain what the Federal Circuit may do?
2. Is but for the appropriate standard for materiality?  Abbott and many amici, including AIPLA & ABA say yes.  Becton,Dickinson, Bayer and a number of amici, including the PTO say “no”.
3. Is materiality relevant to intent?  The Newman view v. the Prost View
4. What should be the remedy for inequitable conduct? Read the rest of this entry »

Microsoft v. i4i Revisited

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

I recently commented that the Microsoft v. i4i case did not change the law. After all, the Supreme Court simply confirmed that the statutory presumption of validity afforded patents under 35 U.S.C. 282 could only be overcome with “clear and convincing evidence” of invalidity — nothing new. However, upon a more careful reading (prompted by a Facebook post by Fordham Prof. Jeanne Fromer), I now realize I was mistaken.

In the following passage, the Supreme Court explains that a patent provides the user with a “right to use” the patented invention, and not merely the right to exclude others from using the patented invention.

That changes everything, and will make patents ever so much more valuable. By the stroke of a pen, the wealth of America’s inventors has been vastly increased. I sure hope they don’t try to “fix” this.

Challenge To Unigene’s Osteoporosis Patent Among The Reexamination Requests Week Of 6/20/11

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

Unigene Laboratories obtained a judgment in 2009 against Apotex for infringement of Unigene’s Reissue Patent No. 40,812 coveringUnigene’s FORTICAL® formulation for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.  The only significant issue in that case appears to have been patent validity.  The case is on appeal to the CAFC.  This past Wednesday, reexamination was requested for the ‘812 patent, presumably by Apotex, though the PTO records are not yet clear (see inter partes Request No. (2)).

Reexamination was requested for another Hydro-Quebec lithium battery, but the PTO records don’t yet disclose which one (see inter partes Request No. (3)) – Hydro-Quebec has at least five. Read the rest of this entry »

PATENT REFORM, CLOSE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK?