Challenge To Intel Data Evaluation Patent Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week of 10/3/11

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

Intel obtained a patent last year for a method for sifting through data on “a support vector machine” to obtain certain information.  The method appears to have diverse applications, including the identification of disease-causing genes.  A request for reexamination of Intel’s patent was filed last Monday (see ex parte Request No. (1)). Though PTO documents do not disclose the identity of the Requester, it might be Health Discovery Corporation which is now attempting to provoke an interference with the Intel patent.

IBM requested reexamination of an Acqis computer security patent (see inter partes Request No. (3)). Acqis won a judgment against IBM earlier this year for $12 million in damages and $18.5 million in costs after a jury verdict of infringement of three other patents.  On ThursdayIBM filed a declaratory judgment action against Acqis regarding the ‘814 patent. (more…)

Reexamination Requests Against MobilMedia And Round Rock Among Those Filed Week of 9/19/11

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

Last week saw a request filed by RIM against a MobileMedia patent, one of a number of mobile phone patents currently being litigated by the companies in the Eastern District of Texas (see ex parte Request No. (13)).  The MobileMedia patent, like several of those patents-in-suit, was originally assigned to Nokia.

An unnamed party filed a request against a Round Rock Researchpatent for electronic tracking (see ex parte Request No. (12)).

And CareFusion filed two requests against Vesta Medical patents for medical waste disposal systems (see ex parte Request Nos. (10) & (11)).  CareFusion set a record, we think, in August when it requested reexamination of 27 Vesta patents. (more…)

USPTO Fee Increase Effective September 26TH

Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing the new 15% fee surcharge for patent application filings that will take effect on September 26th.

America Invents Act Raises USPTO Fees September 26th

Last Friday, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act(AIA) into law. As discussed previously, one of the major changes that became effective immediately is the new standard for initiating inter partes patent reexamination. As the rush to beat the enactment deadline is now over, what other changes are on the immediate horizon at the USPTO?

Fee Increases.

For those with patent application filings of any kind due in the next few weeks, keep in mind that new 15% fee surcharge will take effect on September 26th (10th day after enactment). Note that the fees for filing a request for ex parte patent reexamination and inter partes patent reexamination remain unchanged. A schedule of the increased fees is found (here).

The USPTO has also posted a FAQ on the various provisions of the AIA. (here)

 

 

Attack On VTRAX Patent Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of 8/22/11

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

The sole business of vTRAX appears to be the enforcement of a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,865,268 covering systems for call-tracking in virtual call-centers.  Pending in the Southern District of Florida are two actions in which vTRAX has accused SiemensCSXAvaya and a number of others of infringing the ‘268 patent.  Now, a reexamination has been requested of the ‘268 patent (see ex parte Request No. (15)).  We strongly expect that the defendants will soon move to stay both cases, particularly in view of the Southern District of Florida’s record of granting such motions.

(1)         95/001,721 (electronically filed) U.S. Patent No. 7,923,390 entitled Electrical Shielding Material Composed of Metallized Stainless Steel Monofilament Yarn and owned by Micrometal Technologies.  Filed August 22, 2011, by Syscom Advanced Materials.

(2)         95/001,722 (electronically filed) – U.S. Patent No. 6,978,954 entitled DETECTOR FOR A SHREDDER and owned byFellowes.  Filed August 23, 2011, by ACCO Brands.  The ‘954 patent is currently the subject of two litigations styled Fellowes v. ACCO Brands (Case No. 1:10-cv-7587 (N.D. Ill.)) and Royal Appliance Mfg. v. Fellowes (Case No. 1:11-cv-1276 (N.D. Ohio)). (more…)

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.