Patent Law Practice Center

Reexamination Request Against MobileMedia Smart-Phone Patent, Among Those Filed Week Of 4/4/11

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

An ex parte request has been filed – probably by HTC – against one ofMobileMedia Ideas’ 11 smart-phone patents that are the subject of its pending infringement litigation against HTC (see ex parte Request No. (2) for U.S. Patent No. 5,915,239).  MobileMedia obtained the ‘239 patent from Nokia Capital.  Reexamination was ordered last month (90/011,436) for one of the other MobileMedia patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,253,075; reexaminations against the other nineMobileMedia patents might be pending as well.  MobileMedia has two parallel smart-phone infringement law suits pending, one against Apple, and one against RIM.

On the heels of its earlier requests against three XRPT patents, eBayrequested reexamination of two additional XPRT patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (2) & (3)).

Finally, Beckman Coulter requested reexamination of a GeneOhm Sciences Canada patent claiming a method for detection of certain methicillin-resistant bacteria (see inter partes Request No. (5)). (more…)

Attack By ebay On Automatic Auction Patents, Among 28 Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of 3/28/11

Echostar Challenge To Northpoint Set-Top Box Patent Among 24 Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of 3/21/11

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

Friday afternoon EchoStar requested reexamination of Northpoint’sU.S. Patent No. 6,208,636 which claims a TV set-top box for processing multiple datastreams.(see ex parte Request No. (19)). Northpoint is suing EchoStar, DirecTV and Dish Network in the Western District of Texas for infringement of the ‘636 patent. According to Northpoint’scomplaint, Dish Network has used the claimed box for 14.1 million direct broadcast satellite subscriptions as of December 2009.

Reexamination was requested against AU Optronics’ U.S. Patent No. 7,125,157 (see inter partes Request No. (4)), probably by Sharp, though the accessible PTO records are not clear.  AU Optronics suedSharp earlier this month in Delaware for infringement of the ‘157 patent, as well as five other patents.

Formax and Prosure requested reexamination of four Patriot Universal Holdings patents related to machines for “molding foodpatties,” presumably hamburgers (see ex parte Request Nos. (6), (7), (8) & (9) – the two companies had been sued by Patriot in Wisconsin for infringement of the patents.  The same day Formax also filed in Wisconsin its own complaint for patent infringement against two additional companies. (more…)

Auburn V. IBM Among The Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of March 14, 2011

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

Auburn v. IBM is not a “sweet-sixteen” match-up.  It’s an infringement litigation pending in the District Court in Alabama since 2009.  IBM has now requested reexamination of Auburn’s patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,194,366 & 7,409,306, both claiming ways of estimating the reliability of integrated circuits and thereby reducing the cost of making chips (see inter partes Request Nos. (2) & (3)).

Xilinx continued its assault on Intellectual Ventures’ patents – this week requesting reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,301 (see inter partes Request No. (7)), and perhaps U.S. Patent Nos. 6,065,880 and 6,687,865 (see ex parte Request Nos. (16) & (18)). The PTO records are, as yet, unclear regarding the requester of the latter two requests, but it appears to have been Xilinx.

Apple, the clear leader in recent times in the number of requests filed, continued its practice of seeking reexamination of each patent-in-suit whenever it is sued (see ex parte Request Nos. (10), (11) & (13)).  Other noteworthy requests include those filed against Lincoln Globaland 3M patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (1) & (11) and ex parteRequest No.(1)). (more…)

What Happens After A Case Is Stayed Pending Patent Reexamination?

Scott A. McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing what happens to a district court/ITC litigation when the Court stays the ongoing case pending the outcome of a parallel reexamination.  According to the article, a large percentage of these cases end favorably for the defendants.  McKeown examines whether or not this reality will ultimately result in increased reexamination filings.

42% of 2007 Cases Remain Stayed

Patent reexamination parallel to a district court/ITC litigation is often initiated in an attempt to stay the more cost prohibitive court proceeding. Court’s will stay the ongoing litigation pending the patent reexamination outcome in the interests of judicial economy.

But, what happens to these cases? Are they ultimately dismissed altogether? Do the majority of these cases resume? Do the answers to these questions vary based upon the type of patent reexamination request? (more…)