Facebook Request For Reexamination of Data Review Patent Among Those Requested Week Of 10/10/12

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

Markman hearing is currently scheduled for the beginning of November in Indacon’s case against Facebook for infringement of two patents related to storing and reviewing data.  But on FridayFacebook requested reexamination of one of the Indacon patents (see inter partes Request No. (9)) and on the same day, asked Judge Orlando Garcia of the Western District of Texas to stay the infringement action “until Indacon files its response to the PTO’s first Office Action in the reexamination.”  At that time, Facebooksays, Judge Garcia could assess the effect that the reexamination might have on the case and whether the case should be stayed pending completion of the reexamination.  Facebook focused on the imminent Markman hearing, noting that the reexamination could provide additional evidence that might affect Judge Garcia’s claim construction of both patents-in-suit.  “No matter what the outcome of the reexamination, claim construction will surely be affected.”

In 2007 the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a general exclusion order prohibiting the entry into the United States of ink cartridges that infringed any of ten Seiko Epson patents, plus a cease and desist order stopping the sale of infringing ink cartridges already in the United States.  The principal target of these orders was Ninestar Technology.  In March Ninestar asked the ITC for an advisory opinion whether its R-Series ink cartridges infringe any of the ten Seiko Epson patents.  Ninestar has now expanded its challenge to the Seiko Epson patents by requesting reexamination of the ‘053 patent (see inter partes Request No. (1)).  It will be interesting to see how Ninestar coordinates its challenges to that patent at the ITC and at the PTO, respectively. (more…)

How Long Will Inter Partes Review Really Take?

Written by Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak, Practice Center Contributor and author of Patents Post Grant blog.

Practical Pendency of IPR to be 18-24 Months

In promulgating the new Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding as part of the America Invents Act (AIA) Congress hoped to address a major criticism of inter partes patent reexamination (IPX), namely, the significant length of time necessary to conclude these proceedings.

IPX first includes an examination phase handled by patent examiners of the Central Reexamination Unit. Once the examination phase concludes, an IPX may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). Thereafter, an IPX may be further appealed to the CAFC. This three-phase process cannot be navigated quickly. That is to say, IPXs fully contested through CAFC appeal remain pending some 6-8 years from the time of the initial request.

Pendency is an important factor for challengers considering alternatives for quickly resolving a patent dispute. Likewise courts will often cite to the significant delay of IPX as justification to deny a request to stay ongoing litigation proceedings pending a parallel IPX. (more…)

Federal Circuit Keeps Door Open For New Evidence In Section 145 Actions

Jeanne Gills, Partner at Foley & Lardner and Practice Center Contributor, sent along an article she wrote with colleagues, Stephen B. Maebius and Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff discussing the  recent Federal Circuit decision in the Hyatt v. Kappos en banc re-hearing.

On Monday, November 8, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the en banc re-hearing of Hyatt v. Kappos (No. 2007-1066)). The en banc Court departed from the August 11, 2009 panel decision and held that a patent applicant may introduce new evidence against the USPTO in a district court action under 35 USC § 145 (“Civil Action to Obtain a Patent”) provided such evidence relates to issues that were raised before the USPTO. This decision will be welcomed by patent applicants who have received negative USPTO decisions on patentability, and reflects the realities—and difficulties—of marshalling evidence during patent prosecution. For additional background on the appeal, see Hyatt v. Kappos: Will a Bad Case Make Bad Law?.

The Panel Decision

After the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed certain rejections of his patent application claims, Mr. Hyatt filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 35 USC § 145. To support his claim for a patent, Mr. Hyatt submitted a declaration to address the rejections. The district court granted the USPTO’s motion to exclude the declaration because Mr. Hyatt had been negligent in not submitting it during the USPTO proceedings. (more…)

Goeddel V. Sugano: What’s The Difference Between “Envisioning” An Invention And Being “In Possession” Of The Invention?

Gerald M MurphyThe following post was written by Gerald M. Murphy, partner at Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP and Practice Center Contributor.

In Goeddel v. Sugano, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has provided more guidance as to what is necessary for a sufficient “written description” of an invention, this time for a true “biotech” invention, in the context of a motion for benefit of priority in an interference.  This case involved two interferences; one directed to DNA encoding human fibroblast interferon (hFIF) unaccompanied by a hFIF presequence (mature hFIF) and one directed to a composition comprising  non-glycosylated hFIF.  Sugano filed a motion for benefit of its Japanese priority application (Sugano priority application) and was granted priority by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) in both interferences.  Goeddel appealed that decision on the grounds that the Sugano priority application did not constitute a constructive reduction to practice because it did not enable the Counts and did not provide a sufficient written description of the Counts.  The Federal Circuit reversed on the ground that the Sugano priority application did not provide a sufficient written description of the Count because the inventors were not “in possession” of the invention. (more…)

Federal Circuit: Foreign Application Not Priority in Interference When it Only “Envisions” Invention

Written by Gene Quinn (of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor)

Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Goeddel v. Sugano, which might be one of a dying breed should patent reform actually pass.  The case dealt with an appeal from an interference proceeding where the Board awarded priority based on a Japanese application.  The Federal Circuit, per Judge Newman, explained that it was inappropriate to say that the Japanese application demonstrated a constructive reduction to practice because the application merely would allow the skilled reader to “envision” the invention covered in the interference count.  If patent reform passes (and yes that could really happen) cases like Goeddel would become a thing of the past, although priority determinations like this one in Goeddel will certainly not go away.

Goeddel was a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in two related patent interference priority contests between the party Haruo Sugano, Masami Muramatsu, and Tadatsugu Taniguchi (together “Sugano”) and the party David V. Goeddel and Roberto Crea (together “Goeddel”).  The Board held that Sugano is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its initial Japanese application, and awarded Sugano priority as to the counts of both interferences. (more…)