Patents Post Grant Blog

GEOSPAN Corporation filed a lawsuit in March 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that Pictometry infringed  GEOSPAN’s U.S. Patent No. 5,633,946.

In a separate action on November 11, 2008, GEOSPAN requested the U.S Patent Office to reexamine Pictometry’s U.S. Patent Number 7,424,133, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Capturing, Geolocating and Measuring Oblique Images.” This action is a procedure used by the U.S. Patent Office to allow the claims in existing patents to be contested (Ref. No. 95/001,110)

In its request, GEOSPAN set forth substantial new questions of patentability based upon  a September 5, 2002 printed publication by David Rattigan, a reported for a Boston newspaper. The USPTO ordered inter partes reexamination of the ‘133 Patent, and subsequently issued a Non-Final Office Action on February 2, 2009 rejecting claims 17-24 on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Currently, the rejections are on appeal to the BPAI.

On May 25, 2010, the patent owner filed its brief. On the appeal, the Patent Owner is contesting  the USPTO’s conclusion that the submitted declaration evidence filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (swear behind) is insufficient as well as the conclusion that declaration evidence filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 is insufficient to disqualify the Rattigan publication based upon attribution. (MPEP 716.10). Of particular interest is the dispute between the USPTO and the Patent Holder as to whether declaration evidence can be used to disqualify a prior art reference as “attributed” to the  inventors’ work where none of the inventors is an author of the printed publication used to reject the claims.  Read the rest of this entry »

Expanded BPAI Panel Shoots Down Repackaged SNQ

Since In re Swanson, the standard for establishing a Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) in a patent reexamination has been quite liberal. A requester need only establish that the submitted art be presented in a new light. Thus, previously considered prior art can be re-used, if applied to the claims in a slightly different manner than that of the original prosecution. Understandably, since Swanson, arguing that a rejection adopted by the Office in patent reexamination does not in fact present the previously considered art in a new light has been an uphill battle.

Yesterday, the USPTO found a rare SNQ it didn’t like….and pigs were seen flying down Dulany Street. Read the rest of this entry »

If you are one of the foolish people out there under the impression that the U.S. banking and real estate crash has led to the current economic state, heightened unemployment, etc, you would be wrong. Turns out, the 18 month publication of patent applications, and 35 USC  § 102(e) have ruined the U.S economy….who knew?

On July 29, 2010 H.R. 5980 was introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) as the “Bring Jobs Back to America: Strategic Manufacturing & Job Repatriation Act.” How can anyone vote against that noble cause!?

Unfortunately, once past the flowery title, the substance of the bill, at least with respect to the proposed patent law changes is simply a collection of oddball provisions that would neither achieve any meaningful reform nor job repatriation. Read the rest of this entry »

Did the Patent Holder Miss the Boat on Claim Interpretation?

On Tuesday, the BPAI seemingly ended the 10 year saga of Ex Parte Gary E. Rhine affirming the examiner’s rejection of expired U.S. Patent 4,910,652.[1] The reexamination was  initiated in April 2000 on behalf of Casio Computer by the now long defunct law firm of Penny & Edmonds. At issue in the appeal was the patentability of a combination wristwatch/flashlight. In 2002, the Patent Owner amended claim 1 to require a fixed time delay, arguing that the prior art demonstrated an adjustable time delay. However, the reexamination lagged on for years, and prior to appeal, in 2007, the patent expired. On appeal, the USPTO explained that the amendment was effectively withdrawn upon patent expiration in 2007.

In a scathing supplemental brief (here) the Patent Owner pointed out that the reexamination had been pending some 10 years, including some unexplained year long gaps in prosecution, bounced appeal briefs, etc. The Patent Owner argued that in light of this delay, it was “outrageous” that the USPTO would withdraw the amendment.

While a 10 year pendency is extreme to say the least, this reexamination was filed in a time before the creation of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). This case is one of the few remaining with the general examining corps. Likewise, ex parte reexamination appeal rules have been changed to avoid the rejection of appeal briefs late in the game. While not much comfort to Mr. Rhine, fortunately, the patent reexamination landscape has changed significantly over the years.

Nevertheless, of perhaps greater interest is why the Patent Owner would amend the claims in the first place since the winning argument was right under his nose. Read the rest of this entry »

On August 20, 2010, a motion to stay the litigation between 3M Innovative Properties Co., et al. and Envisionware, Inc. (0-09-cv-01594) (NDM) pending the outcome of a parallel patent reexamination was denied. At issue in the litigation are three of 3M’s patents relating to RFID technology, namely 6,232,870, 6,486,780 and 6,857,568. Envisionware requested inter partes reexamination of the ‘780 and ‘568 Patents. Curiously, since the third patent, the ‘870 Patent does not qualify for inter partes reexamination, reexamination of this patent was not sought at all. A non-final office action rejecting  the ’568 Patent claims was issued by the USPTO, the ‘780 Reexamination has yet to begin. On August 2, 2010, Envisionware filed the motion to stay the litigation.

The court denied the motion to stay the litigation citing familiar factors, noting that (1) the stay would prejudice the plaintiff, (2) the stay would not likely simplify the issues in litigation and facilitate trial, and (3) discovery will soon be complete. Yet, clearly, of more interest to the court was why Envisionware chose to ignore the ‘870 Patent altogether. Read the rest of this entry »

Can an Ongoing Patent Reexamination be Stopped?

With most patent reexaminations now being conducted concurrent to a district court or ITC proceeding, a common question of such plaintiffs is “what becomes of the patent reexamination once the litigation settles?”

In the case of ex parte patent reexamination, the answer is simple, the reexamination continues unaffected. On the other hand, if the pending reexamination is an inter partes patent reexamination, the answer will depend on the nature of the settlement.

In other words, inter partes patent reexamination is subject to statutory estoppel provisions not applicable to ex parte patent reexamination. Depending upon the manner in which the case settles, and whether or not the case is before the ITC, a carefully worded consent judgment can be used to trigger 35 USC § 317 (b), effectively forcing the USPTO to vacate the proceeding by operation of estoppel. Read the rest of this entry »

Estoppel of 35 USC § 317(b) Applies Only to Inter Partes Patent Reexamination

One of the risks often associated with ex parte patent reexamination is that an outcome favorable to a patent holder is considered to “gold plate” a patent that is later asserted against the requester in district court, especially with respect to the same or similar art. This notion was tested recently in Crestron Electronics Inc. v. RGB Systems Inc., CV 09-8402 (CDCA).

Crestron’s U.S. Design Patent D569,863 is asserted against RGB in the California District Court. RGB had earlier sought ex parte reexamination of the same patent based upon the same prior art now applied in the district court proceeding. Not surprisingly, Crestron noted that the reexamination attempt based on the same art now before the district court had failed to invalidate the patent. In other words, without any presumption of validity, and the ability to invalidate the patent by a mere preponderance of the evidence, RGB failed. Thus, Crestron argued that the reexamination results should preclude an invalidity defense on the same art. The court decided that not only can RGB argue the same invalidity positions over again, but that the court need not even show deference to the reexamination results. Read the rest of this entry »

Silence in Original Prosecution History Used Against Patent Owner

As discussed previously, prosecution history is applied inconsistently in patent reexamination claim interpretation analysis. In applying a plain meaning analysis to claim language, prosecution history is considered as a necessary component in accordance with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303; 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Conversely, in analyzing the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of skill in the art, there is no consideration of prosecution history. This is because the BRI standard is rooted in patent application prosecution (where no previous history exists). As such, it is no surprise that the case law and MPEP are silent on the use of prosecution history as an aspect of a BRI in patent reexamination.

Yesterday, the BPAI analyzed a prosecution history for evidence that a Patent Owner disclaimed an argument now before the Board in an ex parte reexamination appeal. In doing so, the Board appears to be attempting to expand the waiver policy of Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived) Read the rest of this entry »

In a March Federal Register Notice, the USPTO outlined a new procedure for eliminating redundant appeal processing in patent applications. The redundancy was the result of both the examiner and BPAI performing the same review as to whether or not an Appeal Brief was compliant with the rules. Often times this led to the examiner accepting a non-compliant brief only to have the Board kick it back to applicant months or even years later for a previously overlooked informality. Likewise, some complained of examiners abusing the non-compliance notice as a way to avoid answering appeal briefs. The notice of March outlined a new mechanism by which the Chief Judge would be solely responsible for determining brief compliance prior to Examiner review. At the end of this notice, the USPTO pointed out that ex parte and inter partes patent reexamination appeals were not subject to the new mechanism, but the Office was considering such treatment in the future.

Back on May 26, 2010, the same mechanism was noticed in the Federal Register for ex parte patent reexamination appeals. Yesterday a notice was provided in the Federal Register adding inter partes reexamination to the BPAI review mechanism. These improvements should help avoid some of the more aggravating delays experienced in reexamination appeals to the BPAI. Of course, with a significant, and growing appeal backlog, any impact of this change may be offset by sheer numbers.

USPTO statistics demonstrate that Patent Owner’s fair much better in ex parte patent reexamination as opposed to inter partes patent reexamination. Current statistics indicate that all claims are canceled in patents subject to ex parte reexamination in 12% of cases, while the same statistic stands at 49% for patents subject to inter partes reexamination.

Of course, the number of concluded inter partes reexamination as compared to ex parte reexamination is still relatively small, likely skewing the statistics. Yet, it is quite clear that eliminating the active voice of the third party requester, as well as avoiding third party appeal of confirmed/allowed claims is highly desirable from a Patent Owner perspective.

Knowing that ex parte patent reexamination presents the most favorable odds to a Patent Owner, is there a preemptive strategy a patent owner can employ to diffuse the risk of inter partes patent reexamination? Read the rest of this entry »