Patents Post Grant Blog

The seemingly never ending Microsoft v. i4i dispute continued on to the doorstep of the Supreme Court last week. In 2009, Microsoft was found to have infringed i4i’s 5,787,449 patent, which allegedly claims certain XML translation features of Microsoft Word. An appeal to the CAFC earlier this year was unsuccessful. On August 27th, Microsoft filed a petition for certiorari questioning the lower court’s use of the clear and convincing standard relative to art not before the USPTO during prosecution of the original patent application.

Along the way, Microsoft sought ex parte reexamination of the ‘449 Patent (90/010,347), largely as an afterthought to hedge against a willfulness finding. Not surprisingly, since the request ignored definitions of certain claim terms of the ‘449 Patent specification, the reexamination attempt was unsuccessful and all claims exited reexamination in July of this year. With the trail now over, and appeal options exhausted (save the last ditch appeal to the Supreme Court), it would seem that at least the patent reexamination chapter of this saga was complete.

Yet, as reported by IPWatchdog yesterday, Microsoft has filed a second request for ex parte reexamination of the ‘449 patent (90/011,198) just last Tuesday. So, what exactly is Microsoft hoping to accomplish?  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 »

Monsanto Co. v. Geerston Seed Farms

In the recent Supreme Court case of Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, the Court shed some additional light on how district courts should assess the factors required to determine whether to impose an injunction.  The Monsanto decision did not concern patents, however it raises some interesting issues that would apply to injunctions in the patent context, particularly when a patent is found to be infringed in a district court litigation, but is also under concurrent reexamination.  See our earlier discussion of the use of patent reexamination to defeat an injunction for more information on this issue. 

Specifically, the Monsanto decision noted that “[a]n injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course.  If a less drastic remedy … was sufficient to redress respondents’ injury, no recourse to the additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction was warranted.”  Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 177 L. Ed. 2d 461, 481 (June 21, 2010).

In Monsanto, applying the traditional four-factor test for injunctions, the Supreme Court found that the District Court had abused its discretion in enjoining a federal administrative agency from deregulating a species of plant pending the completion of an environmental impact statement.  Id. at 481.  The Court felt that simply vacating the federal administrative entity’s decision could redress Respondents’ injury, thus it was unnecessary to resort to the “additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction.”  Id.

The potential effect of Monsanto on patent litigation involving concurrent reexamination was not lost on patent practitioners.  Just a few short weeks after the decision in Monsanto, in an amicus brief to the Federal Circuit, Verizon Communications, called attention to Monsanto’s aversion to injunctions.  Br. for Verizon Commc’n at 4, Tivo, Inc. v. Echostar Corp., No. 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2010). Read the rest of this entry »

As discussed last week, patent reexamination is often leveraged concurrent with district court litigation for strategic purposes. As district court pendencies continue to rise, even in districts known for relatively speedy resolutions, an early filed reexamination will very likely mature in time to provide additional fodder for claim construction. (Markman). In some cases, even where the reexamination concludes favorably to the Patent Holder, the discussion in the reexamination prosecution history may still carry the day.

Last week, a Markman Order was issued in Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civ. No.09-72-SLR (July 26, 2010) (More info on the Sigram Schindler patent reexamination is found here)

Interestingly, in the Markman Order, Sigram Schindler is called out by the Court for taking inconsistent positions before the USPTO in patent reexamination. Read the rest of this entry »

In our February series on the use of reexamination evidence in concurrent litigation, specifically “Is Evidence of a Concurrent Reexamination Admissible in Litigation? (Part III of IV),” we observed that some courts are, at best, ambivalent about the presentation of evidence pertaining to a related patent reexamination for rebutting a charge of willful infringement. Those courts typically express concern that juries may become prejudiced or confused if they learn that the same agency that originally issued the patent — the PTO — has declared that a substantial new question patentability exists or has rejected the patent’s claims.

Notwithstanding those potential problems, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas may soon hear that three claims of the patent-in-suit currently stand rejected in reexamination proceedings. Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Florida cited to the PTO’s Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data in denying an accused infringer’s request for a stay pending reexamination of the patent-in-suit. Fusilamp, LLC v. Littlefuse, Inc., Case No. 10-20528 (S.D. Fla. June 7, 2010). Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga pointed out that statistics show that “the reexamination process takes on average 25.4 months to complete, and another 24 months on average for appeals.” Defendant Littlefuse had filed its request for ex parte reexamination prior to the commencement of the district court action. Although judicial economy favored a stay, Judge Altonaga found the uncertainty in the length of reexamination proceedings disconcerting: “the length of the stay, if issued in this case, appears to be indefinite, and as such, is immoderate and unlawful.”

In ex parte reexamination, the percentage of reexaminations concluded with all claims confirmed is roughly 24% based upon USPTO statistics. Confirmation of original claims in patent reexamination (i.e., allowance without amendment) is highly desirable for Patentees to maintain the availability of past damages.  This is because changes to patent claims during patent reexamination typically result in intervening rights that effectively foreclose the ability to pursue past damages (i.e., prior to amendment).

However, the confirmation statistic only tells part of the story in many instances. A successful reexamination from an infringer’s perspective does not always result in an overt claim change or cancellation. In other words, even where claims are confirmed, statements in the reexamination record that are inconsistent with arguments made in a concurrent litigation, or that rise to the level of an outright disclaimer may provide new, non-infringement positions to infringers.

This past week, such a reexamination misstep was analyzed Read the rest of this entry »

As noted in our post yesterday, prior to their Memorial Day break, the Federal Circuit issued two decisions touching upon patent reexamination practice, the second decision is discussed below.

In Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd., (Fed. Cir. 2010), the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims of  U.S. Patent No. 6,961,737 (the ‘737 Patent, claiming a method for generating computer web pages) are invalid as obvious. The court also addressed a related patent, 6,295,530 (the ‘530 Patent).

The court noted that the ‘737 Patent is the subject of an ex parte reexamination proceeding. In the concurrent patent reexamination, claims 1-6 of the ‘737 Patent stand finally rejected as anticipated. In footnote number three of the CAFC decision, the court lamented the fact the reexamination was not yet completed through appeal to the BPAI, stating:

An ultimately final rejection of the claims by the PTO, would fatally undermine Read the rest of this entry »

Last Friday two decisions of the Federal Circuit touched upon patent reexamination practices.  In this post we will examine the first decision, Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc./Shanghai Meihao Electric Inc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc.

In this decision, the question of whether or not inequitable conduct may be cured in a subsequent, post-grant proceeding of the USPTO was considered.

The question before the CAFC in Levitton was whether or not a summary judgment finding of inequitable conduct in the district court should stand. Perhaps, being overly cautious in view of the pending en banc review in Theresense, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Co., and indicating that summary judgment of inequitable conduct is the rare case, the court reversed the lower court. Confusingly however, the majority indicated that conduct during patent reexamination may be indicative of a “good faith” intent. Read the rest of this entry »

Unlike pre-grant patent prosecution, the submission of declaration evidence under 37 CFR 1.131/132 in patent reexamination is not only common, but the norm. This is due to the fact that there are no opportunities to continue patent reexamination via RCE as in pre-grant prosecution. Likewise, amending claims in patent reexamination is problematic as the Patent Holder may surrender past damages under the doctrine of intervening rights. Where a Patent Holder has invested significant time and money in enforcing their portfolio, intervening rights are of paramount concern. As such, convincing the USPTO of patentability without amendment typically requires more than attorney argument, hence the heightened importance of declaration practice in patent reexamination.

A threshold issue in patent reexaminations concurrent with litigation is whether or not the declarant should be the same expert who is expected to testify at trial, or a new expert retained for reexamination purposes only. This decision is affected by several factors, including the risk of two experts taking inconsistent positions and the likelihood that the declarant in the reexamination will be deposed. Read the rest of this entry »