Patents Post Grant Blog

For those looking to add CLE in 2010, or to keep abreast of the changing post grant landscape, there are two upcoming programs in March, one offered in New York  this coming Monday (March 1st and 2nd) and one in Chicago (March 11th and 12th).  The editors of patentspostgrant.com are faculty for the Practicing law Institute and will be speaking at each upcoming event, Scott Mckeown will present at the New York PLI program on ”Increased Utilization of Inter Partes Reexamination with Concurrent Litigation” (4th Annual Patent Law institute).   Philippe Signore will be speaking this coming Monday on the proposed patent reform legislation, and Stephen Kunin will be speaking at the Chicago events on Inter Partes Reexamination Mechanics with Todd Baker.  More information on these programs is found below, hope to see you there!

4^th Annual Patent Law Institute NYC

Reissue & Reexamination Strategies and tactics Concurrent with Litigation (Chicago March 11th and 12th)

–E.D. of Texas Defendants Seek to Ride Off Into the Sunset– 

The E.D. of Texas is well established as the premiere plaintiff forum for patent holders, speedily deciding patent cases, and finding patents invalid relatively infrequently. Similarly, the emergence of patent reexamination as an effective tool in avoiding litigation costs by staying a concurrent litigation has proved effective in the E.D. of Texas sporadically at best; Judge Ward and Judge Davis in particular very rarely, if at all, stay an action in favor of a pending patent reexamination.  

Since In re TS Tech, 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008), a motion to transfer to a more convenient venue from a Texas court has become a marginally effective defendant strategy.  Now, as a matter of course, defendants will seek transfer of a patent infringement case to a more “convenient” forum.  Of course, convenience is rarely a mere issue of geography, but rather a basis for moving the dispute to a less patent friendly forum. In the eyes of defendants, less patent friendly would describe practically any other forum. Yet, as noted in the chart below, infringement cases seeking transfer in 2008-2009[1] increasingly sought California as a destination of “convenience.” 

A closer look at the 2008-2009 cases however, may reveal more than just a simple transfer strategy, but a two-step, tactical dance. Read the rest of this entry »

As explained in my earlier post entitled Effectively Presenting a Request For Reexamination (Part I), I pointed out that requests for reexamination commonly include argumentation that is irrelevant to a proper SNQ analysis.  For example, these arguments relate to inequitable conduct, litigation infringement positions, and 112 issues of original claims.  However, in the case of reexamination concurrent with litigation, there is a clear tactical advantage to including such argumentation as a litigation tactic. 

In other words, the Office may be, unknowingly, encouraging this behavior. The reason being, while much of reexamination is not admissible (see our four part series on this topic) as evidence at trial, when seeking a stay of a concurrent litigation, Office communications will be thoroughly reviewed. 

For example, in a recent reexamination concurrent with litigation that was stayed, the requestor attacked the original patent claims as reciting subject matter not supported by the specification.  Read the rest of this entry »

Admissibility in Litigation?

Courts have recently been faced with the issue of whether evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings should be considered at trial.  In our prior posts, “Is Evidence of Parallel Reexamination Proceedings Admissible at Trial? (Parts I, II and III)”, we discussed using pending reexamination proceedings to support invalidity contentions, prove inequitable conduct, and rebut allegations of willful infringement.  Accused infringers have also attempted to use evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings to support and oppose motions for preliminary injunction.

Reexamination Evidence Used to Support or Oppose Motions for Preliminary Injunction

When deciding to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, the courts consider four factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships between the parties; and (4) the public interest.  Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global Inc., 459 F.3d 842, 847 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  To defeat a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, alleged infringers will attempt to attack the infringement, validity, or enforceability of the patent at issue.  Specifically, to diminish likelihood of success on the merits with regard to a patent’s validity, accused infringers have attempted to introduce evidence that the patent is undergoing parallel reexamination proceedings. Read the rest of this entry »

Admissibility in Litigation?

As a result of the popularity of reexamination, courts are frequently faced with the issue of whether evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings should be considered at trial.  In our previous posts, “Is Evidence of Parallel Reexamination Proceedings Admissible at Trial? (Parts I and II),” we discussed using pending reexamination proceedings to support invalidity contentions and prove inequitable conduct.  Accused infringers have also attempted to use evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings to rebut allegations of willful infringement.

Reexamination Evidence Used to Rebut Willfulness

Willful infringement exists where an accused infringer acted “despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent” and the “objectively defined risk (determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding) was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”  In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Thus in order for willful infringement to be found, the accused infringer must have known or should have known that the relevant patent was valid.  Willfulness is to be evaluated “under the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 1369.  Thus, alleged infringers accused of willful infringement have asked the court to consider the existence of pending reexamination proceedings.  The theory asserted by alleged infringers is typically a variant of the following: where the PTO has granted a request for reexamination, and thus concluded that substantial questions of patentability exist, an alleged infringer could not have acted “despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.”  In other words, where the PTO has called into question the validity of the patent by granting reexamination, any infringement thereafter could not have been willful. Read the rest of this entry »

Admissibility in Litigation?

 

Courts have recently been faced with the issue of whether evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings should be considered at trial.  In our prior post, “Is Evidence of Parallel Reexamination Proceedings Admissible at Trial? (Part I of IV)”, we discussed using pending reexamination proceedings to support invalidity contentions.  Accused infringers have also attempted to use evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings to prove inequitable conduct on the part of the patentee. Read the rest of this entry »

Admissibility in Litigation?

Several courts have recently been faced with the issue of whether evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings should be admissible at trial. Parties in these cases have attempted to use the existence of pending reexamination proceedings to prove or disprove invalidity, inequitable conduct, and willful infringement. Opponents generally argue that evidence of parallel reexamination proceedings is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and/or contrary to the statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.

Presented with both points of view, the rulings of courts vary, and whether this evidence is allowed tends to depend on the circumstances of the case. Many courts quickly reject Read the rest of this entry »

The Impact of the Pending Reexamination on i4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft (E.D. Tx)

i4i filed suit against Microsoft back in March of 2007 in Texas for infringing U.S. Patent 5,787,449, relating to certain XML data structures.  Faced with an injunction at the conclusion of trial in August of 2009, Microsoft was granted an emergency stay pending the further review of the Federal Circuit.  As widely reported yesterday, the Federal Circuit has refused to overturn the injunction threatening the continued sale of Microsoft Word®, now scheduled to go into effect on January 11, 2010.

While Microsoft may have a few appellate tricks up their sleeve to perhaps stave of the injunction a bit longer, it appears  that the game is all but over.

But what of the pending reexamination of the i4i Patent ordered at the USPTO? Read the rest of this entry »

On December 15, 2009 the USPTO issued a ‘Notice of Intent to Issue an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate’ confirming the patentability of Merck’s billion dollar Singulair patent, U.S. 5,565,473.  This development effectively concludes the reexamination of the Singulair patent.  In initiating the reexamination, the USPTO issued a single nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting reexamination rejection.  Double patenting rejections relate to the ability of a Patent Holder to obtain multiple patents on obvious variations of a single invention.  This rejection, if maintained by the Office would not have invalidated the patent, but instead, could have potentially shortened the term of the Singulair patent.  However, the rejection was withdrawn by the USPTO.

The reexamination was initiated by a third party, Article One.  Article One claimed to have uncovered Read the rest of this entry »

The face of patent litigation in the U.S. has evolved greatly in the last 5 years with respect to patent reexamination. For patent litigators, throughout the U.S. and especially the Northern District of Illinois, the emergence of this now seemingly reliable strategic option is an important case management consideration. Indeed, if not adequately considered in the course of litigation counseling, reexamination ignorance may create malpractice opportunities for unsuccessful defendants.

For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see my guest post on ChicagoIpLitigation.com