Post-Grant USPTO Proceedings Seminar Live Blog: Patent Reexamination Practice and Evolution – USPTO Perspective

Welcome back to the Post-Grant USPTO Proceedings Seminar live blog! This morning’s panel is entitled Patent Reexamination Practice and Evolution – USPTO Perspective. Our featured panelist is Brian Hanlon, Director of the Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office. Below are some the highlights:

Revision of Standard for Granting an Inter Partes Reexamination Request: the final rule implements the part of Section 6 of the AIA directed to inter partes reexamination. Inter partes reexamination will be replaced by inter partes review. The reasonable likelihood standard is different from the substantial new question standard. It doesn’t require that the requester establish a prima facie case, and the reasonable likelihood standard doesn’t apply to ex parte reexaminations either.

Miscellaneous Post Patent Provisions Rule Package: The comment period closes March 5, 2012. The office has an obligation to make sure the reexamination isn’t being filed by someone who shouldn’t be filing it. This notice of propose rulemaking implements the estoppel provisions of sections 6(a) and 6(d), which bar a 3rd party requester from filing or maintaining an ex parte reexamination after a final decision has issued in a post grant or inter partes review on the same patent that was requested by the same 3rd party.

Supplemental Examination and Revisions of Reexamination Fees: Only a patent owner may request supplemental examination of a patent to “consider, reconsider, or correct information” believed to be relevant to the patent. There is no 3rd party participation permitted at all. Supplemental exam has 2 parts – the supplemental exam itself and the supplemental reexamination portion. “Information” that forms the basis of the request is not limited to patents and printed publications. Within 3 months from the filing date of the request, the Office must decide whether any of the items of information filed with the request raises a substantial new question of patentability.

We’ll be back after the break with more from the Post-Grant USPTO Proceedings Seminar!

Chief Judge Rader to Speak at Patent Law Institute on All-Star Panel!

Patent law heavyweights will convene for what looks to be two very special days in New York City at PLI’s 6th Annual Patent Law Institute on February 16-17th.

 Chief Judge Randall Rader of the Federal Circuit will participate in an all-star dialogue panel between the bench and bar along with United States District Judge William Young and nationally-recognized expert practitioners Donald Dunner, Seth Waxman and Dean John Whealan of the George Washington University Law School.

Robert Stoll, who recently retired as Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO, is slated to open the program with a PTO keynote address. Commissioner Stoll is expected to report the latest developments regarding the PTO’s on-going implementation of the America Invents Act and other critical PTO developments.

Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter (Faegre Baker Daniels LLP), Douglas R. Nemec (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) and John M. White (Berenato & White; Director of Patent Professional Development, Practising Law Institute) will navigate attendees through 6 exciting plenary sessions that discuss the practice impacts of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, AIA changes, current critical patent issues from the corporate counsel perspective, views from the District Court bench, the never-ending PTO changes and for good measure, an hour of legal ethics credit! (more…)

eBay Attack on Purple Leaf Electronic Transaction Patent Among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of Jan. 23rd

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

Last week eBay replied to an infringement action filed against it in the Eastern District of Texas by Purple Leaf by seeking reexamination of the patent-in-suit (see inter partes Request No. (2)).  The Purple Leaf patent claims a process for conducting electronic transactions and making payments over the Internet.

The winner for the most reexamination requests filed wasNanosolar that challenged three Solannex patents related to photovoltaic cells (see ex parte Request Nos. (5), (6) & (7)).  The companies are in litigation over these patents in the Northern District of California.

Ex parte Request No. (4), involving U.S. Patent No. 5,337,753 owned by Biosig Instruments and claiming a heart rate monitor, is interesting in that it expressly calls for the PTO to “clarify the record” regarding the meaning of the claims.  The Request notes the ‘753 patent has been through an earlier reexamination, but that the trial judge in a pending infringement action has refused to rely on the patentee’s assertions in that earlier reexamination because they are “ambiguous.”  (more…)

Challenge to Round Rock RFID Patent, Among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of Jan. 16th

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

In September, an unidentified party requested reexamination of four RFID patents owned by Round Rock Research.  Last Tuesday, reexamination was requested of another Round Rock RFID patent, Reissue 41,562, again by an anonymous party (see ex parte Request No. (1)).

Traditionally, reexamination has been requested of a substantial number electronics and Internet patents, but it is much less common for pharmaceutical and medical delivery patents.  In recent weeks, though, that pattern seems to be changing, with more reexamination requests directed to pharmaceutical and medical delivery patents.  That trend continued last week when reexamination was requested for two patents owned by Monosolclaiming film to be used in drug delivery systems (see ex parteRequest Nos. (3) & (4)).  Monosol has sued BioDelivery in New Jersey for infringement of the patents. (more…)

Google and Yahoo! Attack on Browser Patent, Among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of December 26, 2011

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

Google and Yahoo! have requested reexamination of a browser patent owned by Interval Licensing (see ex parte Request No. (3)). Interval had already sued the two companies for infringement of the patent. Google and Microsoft have requested reexamination of a patent owned by Paid Search Engine Tools for a bid management system (see inter partes Request No. (1)). As above, there is a pending infringement action regarding the patent in question.  This approach of two or more companies jointly requesting reexamination is becoming more common.

Ex parte reexamination was requested by an unidentified party against Intellect Wireless’ U.S. Patent No. 7,266,186 claiming a paging receiver and system (see ex parte Request No. (1)). Intellect Wireless has sued a number of companies – among them HTC, RIM, AT&T Mobility – for infringement of the ‘186 patent, as well as for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,310,416. HTC America filed inter partes requests against the ‘186 patent at the beginning of October, and against the ‘416 patent in November. Non-final rejections have already issued against both Intellect Wireless patents. According to HTC, the infringement action has been “effectively stayed pending a ruling” on HTC’s motion for summary judgment of inequitable conduct. The various reexaminations might have an impact on HTC’s inequitable conduct allegations.