Patent Law Practice Center

Apple v. Samsung: “Look and feel” redux? Not quite.

Micro-Probe Attack On FormFactor Electrical Connection Patent Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of 4/18/11

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

Micro-Probe has requested reexamination of FormFactor’s U.S. Patent No. 7,225,538 that claims methods for making electrical connections in semiconductor packaging assemblies (see inter partesRequest No. (11)). FormFactor has sued Micro-Probe in the Northern District of California for infringement of the ‘538 patent, as well as for infringement of six other patents and for a series of trade secret-type violations.  The PTO has ordered reexamination for five of thoseFormFactor patents, and Micro-Probe has moved Judge Phyllis Hamilton for a partial stay of the District Court case.  The ‘538 was the subject of an ITC investigation in 2009 that ended in a determination of no infringement by the importers.

The clear winner last week for the number of requests filed was Vesdia that sought reexamination of four TuitionFund patents related to merchant rebates and college tuition (see inter partes Request Nos. (1), (3), (5) & (6)).  The two companies are in litigation in Tennessee over those patents.

After requesting reexamination for a Hisamitsu transdermal adhesive patent three weeks ago, Kowa has now requested reexamination of a second Hisamitsu patent, this one claiming transdermal patches (see inter partes Request No. (2)). Read the rest of this entry »

USPTO Budget Reductions Halt Fee-Based Prioritized Examination (Track I) And Other Programs

Jeanne Gills, Partner at Foley & Lardner and Practice Center Contributor sent in this alert discussing the impact the enactmet of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 will have on the USPTO’s spending authority for fiscal year 2011.

On April 22, 2011, USPTO Director David J. Kappos announced the impact of the budget reductions embodied in the fiscal year 2011 budget that finally was enacted on April 15, 2011. (Fiscal year 2011 runs through September 30, 2011.) The budget gives the USPTO the authority to spend only $2.09 billion, which is about $100 million less than its projected fee collections.

As a result of this significant fee diversion, the USPTO has decided not to implement fee-based prioritized examination (Track I), which was going to be available as of May 4, 2011.

Applicants interested in prioritized examination should consider whether their applications qualify for other programs, such as the Accelerated Examination,Patent Prosecution Highway, or Green Technology programs. An overview of these programs can be found on Foley’s PharmaPatentsBlog. Read the rest of this entry »

Patent Litigation Forum Shopping in the EU

Our friends at DLA Piper sent in this article discussing the current European patent system and how unfortunately the goal of consistent interpretation throughout member states is not always achieved.

A granted European patent provides the owner with a bundle of independent, national patent rights for those EU member states in which the patent has been validated. Once the period for the centralized procedure has passed, patents are generally enforced or revoked at a national level. In some national courts (for instance, the UK and the Netherlands), validity and infringement proceedings are commonly heard together, whereas other nations (notably, Germany) have separate courts to determine validity and infringement.

The European Patent Convention provides the central legal framework and sets out the substantive basis for determining ownership, patentability and infringement for European patents. The Protocol to Article 69 of the EPC provides some guidance; however, interpretation of substantive issues is left to the national courts. Although the goal is consistent interpretation throughout member states, individual national courts apply the principles differently. Read the rest of this entry »

Challenges To Two MobileMedia Ideas Patents, Among The Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of 4/11/11

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

Reexamination was requested for two MobileMedia Ideas patents.  PTO dockets show that RIM filed one of the requests, but are unclear about who filed the second, though that request was quite likely filed by RIM as well (see ex parte Request Nos. (3) & (13)).  MobileMedia has sued RIM for infringement of these patents in the Eastern District of Texas.

A very important request, reported in a parallel post today, is Google’s second request for reexamination of an Oracle patent (see ex parteRequest No. (20)).

Abbott Diabetes Care has requested reexamination of two DexComanalyte sensor patents (see ex parte Request Nos. (8) & (18)).

Read the rest of this entry »