Patent Law Practice Center

HTC Claims Intervening Rights Against Apple In ITC Case

Scott Daniels, Partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing the pending ITC investigation of HTC’s mobile communication devices.  Daniels raises interesting questions regarding HTC’s latest motion asking the ITC  for a determination that it does not infringe one of Apple’s patents because it’s entitled to “absolute intervening rights” against Apple.

HTC might be making a comeback in the ITC’s investigation of mobile communication devices  (337-TA-710).  In July Administrative Law Judge Charneski issued an Initial Determination (ID) against HTC, finding that its accused communication devices infringe two data manipulation patents owned by Apple.  That determination, if affirmed by the full Commission, would likely result in exclusion from entry into the United States of HTC’s infringing devices.

But in September the full Commission announced that it was reviewing Judge Charneski’s ID against HTC.  And, in a step that will interest reexamination practitioners, HTC asked the ITC for a determination that it does not infringe one of the Apple patents – U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 – because HTC is entitled to “absolute intervening rights” created in a co-pending reexamination of Apple’s ‘647 patent. (more…)

Patentee’s Arguments in Reexamination Create Intervening Rights Erasing $29.4 Million Verdict

Scott Daniels, Partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing Tuesday’s CAFC decision in the Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon case. In a decision that seems to encourage reexamination, the Court held that “intervening rights” apply to unamended claims based on statements made during reexamination.  Daniels discusses the history of the case and highlights the key points of the CAFC decision.

The CAFC panel decision [Tuesday] in Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon will do more to popularize reexamination than all the proselytizing by all the reexamination lawyers and bloggers ever could.  The Court held that an argument made by the patentee traversing a rejection in reexamination constituted a disclaimer of patented subject matter; this disclaimer triggered absolute intervening rights for the accused infringer under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307(b), thereby eliminating all damages for the period before the issuance of the reexamination certificate.  The Court also suggested that the accused infringer might also be protected by equitable intervening rights for the period after issuance of the reexamination certificate and sent the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding. (more…)