Patents Post Grant Blog

Advancing Inter Partes Reexaminations Cited to CAFC

When faced with the assertion of a patent of dubious validity, prospective defendants increasingly resort to patent patent reexamination. Once a suit is filed, the opportunity to obtain a stay of an ongoing district court infringement action pending a parallel patent reexamination is a major benefit of the USPTO proceeding. Courts have the inherent power to manage their dockets, including the authority to stay patent infringement litigation pending the conclusion of a USPTO patent reexamination. A stay of the court proceeding enables defendants to halt, or altogether avoid cost prohibitive litigation discovery, which can be rather lengthy and painful.

For this reason, patent reexamination parallel to a district court is often initiated in an attempt to stay the more cost prohibitive court proceeding. In deciding whether or not to stay the court proceeding the courts look to many factors. (See factor based analysis here) 

If the Court proceeding is not stayed, both proceeding will proceed on parallel tracks. Should the Court proceeding continue on to the CAFC, can you try to persuade the appellate court to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of the reexamination? Read the rest of this entry »

Historical Patent Reexamination Statistics Belie Modern Practices

When considering whether or not to stay a parallel litigation in view of a pending patent reexamination a district court will consider several factors. While delay is common to all stayed cases, the degree of delay caused by patent reexamination can be considered prejudicial. For this reason, especially when it comes to inter partes patent reexamination, the average length of the proceeding can be instructive to the Court.

Hoping to convince the Court of a prejudicial delay, Patentees will argue that inter partes patent reexamination takes on the order of 5-7 years to complete through appeal, citing those cases that have been fully contested through appeal. Defendants, on the other hand, will cite to published USPTO statistics that indicate inter partes patent reexamination pendency to be an average of 36 months, including appeal. (As pointed out previously, the 36 month statistic is skewed by the small number of completed inter partes patent reexaminations that have been fully contested through appeal).

However, regardless of the statistical theory advanced to the court, what neither theory considers is that historical statistics are weighed down by years of past USPTO practices. As one plaintiff found out recently, the USPTO has greatly streamlined the processing of inter partes patent reexamination relative to past practices.

Read the rest of this entry »

Court Favors Staying Troll Suit

The existence of a competitive relationship between the litigants is often times an important consideration to district court judges considering a stay pending patent reexamination. When weighing the equities whether or not to grant a motion to stay the court action pending USPTO reexamination the trend has been to deny motions for direct competitors. This is because, when staying a litigation dispute between competitors, there is a danger that the delay could cause erosion of market share, customer loyalty, or other intangible business factors….not so with patent trolls.

Patent trolls, also known as “non-practicing entities” to some, do not compete with their infringement targets in the marketplace. Not surprisingly, courts have begun to emphasize the “troll” factor as favoring a stay of the litigation. Read the rest of this entry »

Parallel Litigation Stayed in View of “Tremendous” Reexamination Claim Count

When faced with the assertion of a patent of dubious validity, prospective defendants increasingly resort to patent patent reexamination. Patent reexamination can be a cost effective mechanism to dissolve the dispute, or at the very least, shift some leverage to the prospective defendant relative to willfulness, intervening rights, claim construction, etc.

Once a suit is filed, the opportunity to obtain a stay of an ongoing district court infringement action pending a parallel patent reexamination is a major benefit of the USPTO proceeding. Courts have the inherent power to manage their dockets, including the authority to stay patent infringement litigation pending the conclusion of a USPTO patent reexamination. A stay of the court proceeding enables defendants to halt, or altogether avoid cost prohibitive litigation discovery, which can be rather lengthy and painful.

For this reason, patent reexamination parallel to a district court is often initiated in an attempt to stay the more cost prohibitive court proceeding. In deciding whether or not to stay the court proceeding the courts look to many factors. (See factor based analysis here) Perceptions as to whether or not a stay is warranted will vary significantly, even though the same analysis is performed by each judge/court.  Attitudes vary across courts (ITC v. EDTX, v NDCA), even amongst judges of the same court.

Often times, the conduct of the litigating parties can be another factor impacting the court’s analysis. Read the rest of this entry »

District Court Stay Pending Patent Reexamination By-passed Via ITC

The initiation of patent reexamination parallel to a district court patent infringement proceeding has become quite routine over the past few years. The use of such a parallel reexamination proceeding offers many benefits to defendants, such as helping prove objectively reasonable behavior to avoid a finding of willful infringement, creating a further prosecution history estoppel/disclaimer record for Markman purposes, establishing an intervening rights defense, or demonstrating materiality of a reference underlying an inequitable conduct defense. Yet, one of the most common defendant uses of a parallel patent reexamination is the ability to shut down a district court proceeding altogether in favor of USPTO reexamination proceedings.

Stays pending patent reexamination are granted quite routinely, albeit inconsistently. Depending upon the court, a case may be stayed based upon the mere filing of a request for reexamination, or upon grant even though such requests are granted in roughly 95% of cases. Likewise, once a case is stayed, serial requests for patent reexamination, if tolerated by the judge, can ensure that the validity case remains with the USPTO indefinitely.

So, for those plaintiffs subject to a stay that are being damaged by continued infringement, aside from battling the a continuous stream of patent reexaminations requests for years on end, is there a way to resume the litigation battle without waiting for the reexamination(s) to end? Read the rest of this entry »

Extension of Time Request in Patent Reexamination Angers Court

A few days back, I explained the very unusual, abbreviated stay entered in MONKEYMedia Inc. v. Apple Computer, et al (WDTX). In order to ensure that the parallel reexaminations advanced, the Court ordered the parties to expedite their submissions to the USPTO, in addition, the Court ordered the USPTO to “expedite” the reexamination proceedings.

Only a couple of days after issuing the original Order, the judge had a change of heart. No, not because his Order was stretching the bounds of his jurisdiction relative to the USPTO, but due to the “monkeying around” of MONKEYmedia (couldn’t resist).

It seems Monkey Media, prior to the Order, had requested an extension of time (60 days) to respond to an Office Action in at least one of the reexaminations. Interestingly, this would have reset the due date to October 15…giving the USPTO one week to decide the issues under the previous Order. (i.e., Court ordered resolution by October 24th). Yet, the request for extension was denied by the Office.

MONKEYmedia then informed the court, after the Order was issued, that they intended to seek reconsideration of their request. Needless to say, the court was not amused, modifying the previous Order as follows (Modified Order here):

Obviously, the PTO cannot expedite its reexamination if the parties drag their feet. This Court ordered an abbreviated stay in this case on the assumption that all parties were interested in resolving matters quickly and in the hope that the case could retain its place on the Court’s busy civil docket. MONKEYmedia in particular was adamant any delay would be both wasteful and inequitable. However, because MONKEYmedia is apparently no longer in any hurry, neither is the Court. This case will proceed when the PTO has fully reexamined [the patents] and come to a final conclusion, a process whose length will be dictated primarily by the actions of the parties before the PTO.

Ouch.

This case was brought to my attention by the great Docket Navigator.

Is the USPTO Obligated to Follow a District Court Order?

Last Friday, the patent infringement action MONKEYMedia Inc. v. Apple Computer, et al (WDTX) was stayed pending the outcome of several patent reexaminations (U.S. Patents 6,393,158; 7,467,218; and 7,890,648). Interestingly, the stay is of a limited duration, 3 months, to allow time for the reexaminations to progress. In order to ensure that the reexaminations advance, the Court ordered the parties to expedite their submissions to the USPTO. What sets this decision apart from other is that the Court also ordered the USPTO to “expedite” the reexamination proceedings. (Order here)

Aside from the legal debate about whether or not the Judge has jurisdiction over the PTO, and whether or not the USPTO will follow the Order….lost on many is the fact that the USPTO would already do what the judge is asking, Order or not. Read the rest of this entry »

Success in Halting Infringement Case Varies Across Courts/Judges

Courts have the inherent power to manage their dockets, including the authority to stay patent infringement litigation pending the conclusion of a Patent Office reexamination. For this reason, patent reexamination parallel to a district court/ITC litigation is often initiated in an attempt to stay the more cost prohibitive court proceeding.

Perceptions as to whether or not a stay is warranted will vary significantly, even though the same analysis is performed by each court. (See factor based analysis here). Attitudes vary across courts (ITC v. EDTX, v NDCA), even amongst judges of the same court.

Thus, a threshold determination for any defendant becomes:

How does Court/Judge X view requests for patent reexamination?…and is there somewhere I can find this information? Read the rest of this entry »

Interval Licensing Litigation Stayed Pending Patent Reexamination

Former Microsoft founder Paul Allen has made headlines recently by asserting the patents of his company, Interval Licensing against the 11 industry stalwarts (Apple, Google, Facebook, NetFlix, AOL and others). The case was initially stalled when the court found the opening complaint lacking in detail, but this formality was quickly corrected. Last week, however, a much more significant roadblock was placed in the path of Mr. Allen’s litigation endeavor—-patent reexamination. A judge in the Western District of Washington has halted the proceedings against all 11 defendants pending patent reexamination.

As most readers of this blog realize, obtaining a stay of an ongoing district court infringement action is one of the many benefits of patent reexamination parallel with litigation. Defendants that are able to obtain a stay pending patent reexamination can avoid cost prohibitive litigation discovery during the course of the USPTO proceeding, which can be rather lengthy. 

In addition to cost savings, there are also tactical advantages to the USPTO proceeding. Unlike the courts, in patent reexamination, the USPTO does not recognize the presumption of validity. Moreover, the USPTO does not require the “clear and convincing” standard to demonstrate invalidity in patent reexamination, but employs the more liberal ”preponderance of the evidence” standard. As such, defendants can enhance the strength of their invalidity defense via patent reexamination. So, in essence, Interval Licensing is now facing a new challenge that must be overcome before the litigation resumes, and at much longer odds.

In considering if Interval Licensing’s interests would be prejudiced by a delay in the litigation of a length necessary to reexamine the patents at issue, the court  emphasized the fact that Interval licensing is a holding company (known as a patent troll to some).

The full decision Read the rest of this entry »

Recently Filed Reexaminations Sway California Court to Halt Proceeding

TiVo’s patent battles have been making headlines for quite some time now. Last week, the battle with EchoStar finally concluded with a $500 million dollar payout. During this dispute, TiVo’s “Time Warp” patent (6,233,389) escaped two separate challenges in patent reexamination relatively unscathed.

TiVo continues to battle AT&T and Microsoft over the same digital video recorder technology. In 2009 TiVo sued AT&T in Eastern District of Texas for infringement of several patents, including its Time Warp patent. As a result of that lawsuit, Microsoft has stepped in to the fray in Texas in an attempt to aid their customer AT&T. 

Perhaps more interestingly, in addition to joining forces with AT&T in Texas, Microsoft has sought to pound TiVo into submission in Texas by initiating multiple retaliatory suits of their own. Since January of 2010, Microsoft has pursued TiVo at the International Trade Commission (ITC), and Western District of Washington on 4 of their patents. In a separate suit filed the Norther District of California another 7 Microsoft patents are asserted against TiVo.  

The Washington case is now stayed pending the ITC action, which is set for trial this November.

Last week, the California court stayed further proceedings pending the ex parte patent reexamination of the seven Microsoft patents. The decision to stay this case highlights the difficulty of being a plaintiff the size of Microsoft. Read the rest of this entry »