Patent Law Practice Center

You filed suit on a patent with a pending SNQ? Really?

Written by Brandon Baum , of baum legal and Practice Center Contributor.

Orinda Intellectual Properties filed suit on April 25, 2011 against a long list (50!) of electronics companies alleging infringement of US 5,438,560 purporting to cover recording and reproducing optical information on Blu-ray discs. Fine, lots of patents in the Blu-ray arena.

But a quick look at public PAIR shows that the USPTO found a substantial new question of patentability on March 7, 2011 and ordered a re-exam of all 3 claims of the ’560 patent.

 

 

 

 

Call me old-fashioned, but shouldn’t you get that substantial question of patentability straightened out before suing fifty companies for patent infringement?  Maybe there is some strategy I am not aware of (willfulness?), but I can imagine a judge being pretty upset with the plaintiff if the patent goes down in flames at the USPTO.

 

Accused Infringer Uses Reexamination To Defeat Willfulness Allegation

Scott Daniels, partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian LLP and Practice Center Contributor, sent along his analysis on the recent District Court decision, Plumley v. Mockett.  In a decision that may surprise many,  the District Court held that the accused infringer may use reexamination to obtain summary judgment of no willful infringement.  According to Daniels, “the first goal of a third party requesting reexamination is to
 invalidate the patent claims.  But even if the Patent Office confirms 
the validity of the claims, the reexamination may significantly benefit
 the requester on other issues, such as claim construction,  infringement, 
and inequitable conduct.”

Below is Scott Daniels’ analysis…

A party accused of patent infringement requests reexamination at the PTO to attack the patent as being anticipated or obvious in view of a prior art patent or printed publication.  An accused infringer, however, may also achieve other less obvious goals by seeking reexamination, such as creating an estoppel, creating a disclaimer limiting claim scope, or establishing the materiality of a prior art reference for an inequitable conduct defense.  Or, as in Plumley v. Mockett, the accused infringer may use reexamination to obtain summary judgment of no willful infringement.  2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57254 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2010). (more…)