Patent Law Practice Center

Reexamination Requests Against Abbott Labs’ HIV Drug Patents Among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of June 11, 2012

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

Earlier this year, Abbott Labs sued Roxane Labs for infringement U.S. Patent Nos. 7,148,359 and 7,364,752 which claim the HIV protease inhibitor ritonavir, in one patent as a crystalline polymorph, and in the other as a solid dispersion in a water soluble carrier.  On Friday reexamination was requested for both patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (7) & (8)).  Although the Patent Office records do not yet show the identity of the requester, it is quite likely Roxane.

Sony requested reexamination of a Jay Walker patent for a game user to enter preferences (see inter partes Request No. (1)). Walker Digital had sued Sony and Microsoft in Delaware for infringement of the patent.

(more…)

Troll Busters®’ Attack on Nucleic Acid Patent One of the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of June 4, 2012

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

Jeff Oster, who operates out of offices on Mercer Island, Washington under the descriptive nom de plume “Troll Busters®,” was busy last week.  On Wednesday, he filed a 356-page request, containing 16 distinct SNQs, seeking reexamination U.S. Patent No. 5,928,907 (see ex parte Request No. (6)).  It’s always difficult for an outsider to measure the strength of a reexamination request, but this one has the look and heft of an effective one.  The Request begins with the description of Troll Busters as “working to promote new technologies by protecting the public from over-broad patent rights used for extortion and ‘troll-like’ demands….”

Arteris requested reexamination of Sonics’ on-chip system patent (see inter partes Request No. (4)).  This is at least the second Sonicspatent challenged by Arteris.  Sonics has sued Arteris in the Northern District of California for infringement of those two patents, plus six other patents. (more…)

Anonymous Attack on Facebook’s User News Feed Patent Among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of May 21, 2012

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

This past March, Yahoo! sued Facebook for infringement of 10 social networking patents, and soon thereafter Facebook counter-claimed for infringement of 10 of its own social networking patents, most notably U.S. Patent 7,669,123 claiming a method for displaying “a news feed in a social network environment,” specifically, a news feed about people a user knows.  An unnamed party has now requested reexamination of Facebook’s ‘123 patent (see ex parteRequest No. (2)).  Yahoo! denies that it filed the request.  The ‘123 patent attracted a fair amount of negative comment in the blogosphere when it issued in 2010, most of it suggesting that the ‘123 claims were impossibly broad and could stifle competition.

Samsung requested reexamination of a video pixel labeling patent owned by ObjectVideo (see inter partes Request No. (1)). ObjectVideo has sued Samsung and others in the ITC for infringement of the patent.  A parallel infringement action in the Eastern District of Virginia has been stayed pending completion of the ITC case.

Finally, reexamination was requested by an undisclosed party for U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949, that claims a touch screen and names Steve Jobs as an inventor (see ex parte Request No. (8)).  Apple has sued Motorola, Samsung, and others for infringing the ‘949 patent.  Apple’s case against Motorola is scheduled to go trial in June before Judge Posner.  Excellent reports on these Apple cases can be found on almost a daily basis at http://www.fosspatents.com/ written by our friend Florian Mueller. (more…)

Facebook Attack on Wireless Ink Patent Among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of May 14, 2012

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

Last Monday, Facebook requested reexamination of Wireless Ink’s U.S. Patent 8,135,801 which claims a system for enhancing accessibility to data over a network (see inter partes Request No. (1)).  The ‘801 patent is the subject of an infringement action between the companies in New York.  Notably, Facebook has filed this reexamination request before answering Wireless’s complaint in court.  Facebook – like Apple and Google – has been quick to resort to reexamination when sued for infringement.  Wireless has also accused Facebook of infringing two other patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,599,983 and 7,908,342 – in unrelated infringement actions.

For the most part, foreign companies have been slow to use reexamination as a tool for attacking U.S. patents owned by competitors.  An exception is Chinese companies, who seem to be quick studies when it comes to reexamination.  For instance, last week Zhejiang Trimone and Fujian Hongan filed a request against a circuit interrupter patent owned by Leviton (see inter partesRequest No. (4)).

Reexamination was also requested by CBS Interactive and a series of other media companies for two more wireless messaging patents owned by Helferich Patent Licensing (see inter partes Request Nos. (3) & (7)).  See last week’s post for other Helferich reexaminations.

(more…)

Kyocera Challenge to ADC Personal Communicator Patent Among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of May 7, 2012

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

This past Friday, Kyocera requested reexamination of an ADC Technology patent – U.S. Patent No. 6,985,136 – for a “personal communicator,” i.e., a portable computer for wireless data transmission (see inter partes Request No. (4)).  ADC is currently pursuing an infringement action against Kyocera in Illinois.  The ‘136 patent survived an earlier reexamination attempt, with the patentability of all claims confirmed.