Auburn V. IBM Among The Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of March 14, 2011
Here is the latest installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor….
Auburn v. IBM is not a “sweet-sixteen” match-up. It’s an infringement litigation pending in the District Court in Alabama since 2009. IBM has now requested reexamination of Auburn’s patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,194,366 & 7,409,306, both claiming ways of estimating the reliability of integrated circuits and thereby reducing the cost of making chips (see inter partes Request Nos. (2) & (3)).
Xilinx continued its assault on Intellectual Ventures’ patents – this week requesting reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,301 (see inter partes Request No. (7)), and perhaps U.S. Patent Nos. 6,065,880 and 6,687,865 (see ex parte Request Nos. (16) & (18)). The PTO records are, as yet, unclear regarding the requester of the latter two requests, but it appears to have been Xilinx.
Apple, the clear leader in recent times in the number of requests filed, continued its practice of seeking reexamination of each patent-in-suit whenever it is sued (see ex parte Request Nos. (10), (11) & (13)). Other noteworthy requests include those filed against Lincoln Globaland 3M patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (1) & (11) and ex parteRequest No.(1)). (more…)
Verizon Attack On EMSAT Cell Phone System Patent Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of December 13, 2010
Here is the latest installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor….
The most interesting reexamination request last week was filed by Verizon Wireless against EMSAT’s U.S. Patent No. 7,289,763 for a cellular telephone system (see Inter partes Request No. (6)). EMSAT had sued nine companies for infringement of the ‘763 patent, including Verizon.
But perhaps most noteworthy was the fact that Apple did not file any requests.
The following inter partes requests were filed: (more…)
12.24.10 | Reexamination Requests | Stefanie Levine
Top 10 Issues for Patent Litigators in 2011
Written by Brandon Baum (Partner at Mayer Brown and Practice Center Contributor).
The end of the year is the time for top 10 lists. Here, in no particular order, are my top 10 issues for patent litigators in 2011.
10. Microsoft Corp v. i4i Ltd. Partnership., and the clear and convincing evidence standard where the defendant relies on uncited art. Will the Supreme Court decide that a lesser burden of proof is required to show invalidity when art was never considered by the USPTO? If so, this will profoundly change both litigation and prosecution practice. My favorite possible implication – what presumption applies to a mongrel 103(a) combination of cited and uncited art? And will the PTO experience a data dump of prior art, if Microsoft prevails?
9. Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A., and the standard for proving the mental state required for induced infringement. Whatever language the Supreme Court uses to describe the mental state required to show inducement will send everyone scrambling to prove or disprove the existence of that mental state. (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
06.24.10 | District Court Cases, Patent Litigation | Stefanie Levine
No Comments
03.25.11 | Reexamination Requests | Stefanie Levine