objectWhere an order has been granted to stay a patent litigation pending the outcome of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit, there is little likelihood that patent owner will be able to successfully appeal the decision ordering the stay of litigation.  Such orders are generally not appealable, because they are not considered final decisions.  See Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  There is an exception where the stay “effectively could put one of the appellants out of court” or if some “patent issue would escape review by a federal court if the case is stayed.”  See Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[

top.docjs = this;

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function noNextViewDoc() {
alert(‘No Next Document’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function noPrevViewDoc() {
alert(‘No Previous Document’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function no_next_doc_in_search_results() {
alert(‘This is the last document in your search results for this category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function no_prev_doc_in_search_results() {
alert(‘This is the first document in your search results for this category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function no_next_doc_in_search_category() {
alert(‘This is the last document in your current search category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function no_prev_doc_in_search_category() {
alert(‘This is the first document in your current search category.’);
return;
}

//This function takes the user to the first hit of this document
function goto_first_hit() {
var anchor_length = document.anchors.length;
var found = false;

for (i=0; i < anchor_length; i++) {
if (document.anchors[i].name == “ctx1”) {
found = true;
}
}

if (found) {
document.location.hash = “ctx1”;
} else {
alert(“This document is the first hit. Use Next Doc to progress through your search results list..”);
}

return;
}

function next_hit(cur_hit) {
hit = cur_hit + 1;

if (top.docjs.total_hits && (cur_hit < top.docjs.total_hits)) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + hit;
} else {
if (top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
}

function prev_hit(cur_hit) {
hit = cur_hit – 1;
document.location.hash = “ctx” + hit;
}

function new_next_hit() {
if (top.hldoc && top.hldoc.cur_hit) {
this_hit = top.hldoc.cur_hit;
} else {
this_hit = 0;
top.hldoc.cur_hit = 0;
}

next_hit = this_hit + 1;

if (top.docjs.total_hits) {
if (this_hit < top.docjs.total_hits) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + next_hit;
if (this_hit != 0)
{
document.getElementById(“idctx” + this_hit).className = “display_hl_text”;
}
document.getElementById(“idctx” + next_hit).className = “display_hl_text_active”;
top.hldoc.cur_hit++;
} else {
if (top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
} else {
alert(“Please let the whole page load before using this feature.”);
top.document.location.reload(true);
}
}

function new_prev_hit() {
if (top.hldoc && top.hldoc.cur_hit) {
this_hit = top.hldoc.cur_hit;
} else {
this_hit = 0;
top.hldoc.cur_hit = 0;
}

prev_hit = this_hit – 1;

if (prev_hit >= 1) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + prev_hit;
document.getElementById(“idctx” + this_hit).className = “display_hl_text”;
document.getElementById(“idctx” + prev_hit).className = “display_hl_text_active”;
top.hldoc.cur_hit–;
} else {
if (top.docjs.prev_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.prev_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
}

function no_search_results() {
alert(‘Your search results are not in your user session.\nYou will need to re-execute your query to use this functionality’);
return;
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
var search_template = “/iplw/5000/search_doc_hit_highlight.adp”;

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
var product = “iplw”;

var personalization_allowed = false;

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function getFavoriteDocName( ) {
top.smallPopUp(‘/iplw/core_adp/get_favorite_doc_name.adp’, 360, 250);
}

function trimwhitespaces(str) {
while (str.charAt(0)==’ ‘)
str = str.substring(1,str.length);

while (str.charAt(str.length-1)==’ ‘)
str = str.substring(0,str.length-1);

return str;
}

function saveDoc() {
if( document.getDocName.name.value == “” ) {
alert(“You must enter a name in order to save a document to your Favorite Document List.”);
return false;
} else {
var aName = trimwhitespaces(document.getDocName.name.value);

if ( aName.length == 0 ) {
alert(“You must enter at least one alphanumeric char for the document name.”);
return false;
} else {
document.getDocName.name.value = aName;
document.getDocName.docid.value = “[bwd::get_cgi_var docid]”;

if (window.opener.data) {
document.getDocName.calling_url.value = window.opener.data.document.location.href;
} else if (window.opener) {
document.getDocName.calling_url.value = window.opener.document.location.href;
} else {
document.getDocName.calling_url = “[bwd::get_cgi_var calling_url]”
}

for (i = 0; i < document.getDocName.elements.length; i++) {
if (document.getDocName.elements[i].name == “hpage”) {
if (document.getDocName.elements[i].checked) {
document.getDocName.dhpage.value = “Y”;
} else {
document.getDocName.dhpage.value = “N”;
}
}
}

document.getDocName.action = “/iplw/core_adp/save_favorite_doc_name.adp”;

return true;
}
}
}

function get_selected_docName_value() {
if( document.docList ) {
if( document.docList.numDoc.value == 1 ) {
return(document.docList.selectedDoc.value);
} else {
for( i=0; i<document.docList.numDoc.value; i++ ) {
if( document.docList.selectedDoc[i].checked ) {
return (document.docList.selectedDoc[i].value);
}
}
}

return(“”);
} else {
return(“”);
}
}

function get_selected_doc_list(action) {
var count=0;
var i=0;

if (document.docList) {
for (i = 0; i < document.docList.elements.length; i++) {
var elementType = document.docList.elements[i].type;

if (document.docList.elements[i].name.substring(0,6) == action &&
elementType.toLowerCase() == “checkbox” &&
document.docList.elements[i].checked) {
count++;
}
}
}
return (count);
}

function delete_favorite_doc() {
var count=get_selected_doc_list(“delete”);

if (count == 0) {
alert(“Please select a document to delete.”);
} else {
document.docList.calling_url.value = this.document.location.href;
document.docList.action = “/iplw/core_adp/delete_favorite_doc.adp”;
document.docList.submit();
}
}

function update_favorite_doc_hpage() {
var count=get_selected_doc_list(“update”);

if (count > 10) {
alert(‘The maximum number of favorite documents for display on the home page is ten.’);
} else {
document.docList.calling_url.value = this.document.location.href;
document.docList.action = “/iplw/core_adp/update_favorite_doc_hpage.adp”;
document.docList.submit();
}
}

function rename_favorite_doc(docid) {
top.smallPopUp(‘/iplw/core_adp/get_new_favorite_doc_name.adp?docid=’ + docid+ ‘&calling_url=’+this.document.location.href, 350, 195);
}

function renameDoc() {
if( document.getDocName.name.value == “” ) {
alert(“You must enter a name in order to save a favorite document.”);
return false;
} else {
var aName = trimwhitespaces(document.getDocName.name.value);

if ( aName.length == 0 ) {
alert(“You must enter at least one alphanumeric char for the new document name.”);
return false;
} else {
document.getDocName.doc_name.value = aName;
document.getDocName.action = ‘/[bwd::get_product]/core_adp/rename_favorite_doc_name.adp’;
document.getDocName.action = ‘/iplw/core_adp/rename_favorite_doc_name.adp’;

return true;
}
}
}

function closeWindow() {
window.close();
}

function forbid(obj) {
alert(“This document is no longer valid. Please pick another document to be displayed on the home page.”);
obj.checked = false;

}
function forbid_exceed(obj) {
alert(‘You have reached the maximum number (10) of favorite documents for display on the home page.’);
obj.checked = false;
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function makeRequest(url, obj) {

// Number of documents selected
var batchprint_count = 0;
if (window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count) {
// alert (window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count);
batchprint_count = window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count;
// Initial page load
} else if (document.batchprint.batchprint_count){
batchprint_count = document.batchprint.batchprint_count.value;
}

if (document.batchprint) {

if (obj.checked) {
// limit is 25 documents
if (batchprint_count >= 25) {
alert (“You have reached the maximum number of documents (25) for batch printing. Click on the print icon to print your selections.”);
window.location.reload(true);
} else {
url = url + ‘&action=add’
frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].location.href = url;
}
} else {
url = url + ‘&action=delete’;
frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].location.href = url;
}
}
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function openPrintView() {
URL = “/iplw/display/batch_print_dialog.adp?fedfid=3635215&vname=ippqcases2&wsn=520004000&searchid=10686607&doctypeid=1&type=court&mode=doc&split=0&scm=5000&pg=0”;
top.smallPopUp(URL,650,500,’batchprint’);
}

function openHierPrintView(hprint) {
URL = “/iplw/display/batch_print_dialog.adp?fedfid=3635215&vname=ippqcases2&wsn=520004000&searchid=10686607&doctypeid=1&type=court&mode=doc&split=0&scm=5000&pg=0” + “&hprint=” + hprint;
top.smallPopUp(URL,650,500,’batchprint’);
}

// ]]>

Federal courts have often found jurisdiction to review stays in favor of state court suits when the state court judgment would have a fully preclusive effect on the federal action or moot the federal action entirely.  See , e.g. , Cone , 460 U.S. at 10; Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. 900 Bar, Inc. , 887 F.2d 1213, 1218-21 (3d Cir. 1989).  Stays in favor of administrative proceedings are similarly reviewed on an “effectively out of court” standard. See Gould , 705 F.2d at 1341; Hines v. D’Artois , 531 F.2d 726, 730-32 (5th Cir. 1976).

It is difficult to identify many circumstances in which an “effectively out of court” situation would be presented for substantive issues based on concurrent reexamination. 
Continue Reading Appelate Review of Stays Pending Patent Reexamination?

smoking-gunass=”size-full wp-image-2005 alignleft” title=”smoking-gun” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/smoking-gun.jpg” alt=”smoking-gun” width=”135″ height=”143″ /> The legislative history of 35 U.S.C. § 312 suggests that a purpose of the substantial new question of patentability (“SNQ”) prerequisite is to prevent patent owner harassment via seriatim requests for reexamination.[1] Consistent with that purpose, MPEP § 2240.II provides:  

In certain situations, after a grant of a second or subsequent request for ex parte reexamination, where (A) the patent owner files a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 as part of the statement or as the statement, and (B) it appears clear that the second or subsequent request was filed for purposes of harassment of the patent owner, if the petition is granted, prosecution on the second or subsequent reexamination would be suspended.  {Emphasis added.}

However, absent an overt and documented threat to tie up a patent in reexamination, can a patent owner establish a “clear” intent by the third party requester to harass a patent owner?
Continue Reading Preventing Harassment in Patent Reexamination: MPEP § 2240’s Smoking Gun Requirement

250px-Twins2

–A Glitch in the Matrix?–

As noted in Part I of our series on intervening rights, claim amendments in reexamination and/or reissue at the USPTO may create absolute and/or equitable intervening rights. Although the doctrine of intervening rights is codified as a component of reissue statute 35 U.S.C. § 252, reexamination statutes 35 U.S.C. § 307 (ex parte) and 35 U.S.C. § 316 (inter partes) incorporate the reissue statute in this regard.

35 U.S.C. § 252 Effect of Reissue.

The surrender of the original patent shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent, and every reissued patent shall have the same effect and operation in law, on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising, as if the same had been originally granted in such amended form, but in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical, such surrender shall not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing, and the reissued patent, to the extent that its claims are substantially identical with the original patent, shall constitute a continuation thereof and have effect continuously from the date of the original patent. (emphasis added)

As can be appreciated, 35 U.S.C. § 252 states that substantially identical claims are treated no differently with respect to liability (damages) than original claims.[1]

Of course, this provision begs the question:

What types of claim changes can be made
Continue Reading Intervening Rights & The Substantially Identical Standard

expiredOn March 15, 2010, an expanded BPAI panel that included Chief APJ, Michael Fleming and Vice Chief APJ, Allen MacDonald rendered a decision on rehearing of an expired patent of the infamous Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing L.P portfolio. The rehearing addressed the standard for claim construction in expired U.S. Patent No. 5,561,707. A copy of the decision is found (here).

The original BPAI decision contained a statement that, in construing the claims of an expired patent during a reexamination proceeding, “the claims will not be narrowed by interpretation not required by the claim language.”  The expanded BPAI panel clarified the statement made in the original panel decision by stating that “[i]t does not say that the claim terms cannot be interpreted using different words or limit the sources of claim meaning.”

The expanded panel agreed that
Continue Reading Expanded BPAI Panel Rehears Reexamination Decision on Expired Katz Patent

keyAs noted by USPTO reexamination statistics, the majority of recent patent reexaminations are also involved in concurrent litigation.  A recurring issue for litigants involved in such disputes is the fashioning of an appropriate protective order to adequately protect confidential materials. Such issues become particularly contentious in litigation between direct competitors.

Understandably, defendants typically seek protective orders providing  maximum protection of confidential materials, forbidding litigation counsel from using these materials in the prosecution of plaintiff’s patent applications. This prohibition known as a “patent prosecution bar,” is largely standard practice.  However, it is well established that patent reexamination does not involve “patent applications.” Thus, a thornier issue is presented when attempting to extend this bar to include barring participation by individuals with access to confidential information in ongoing reexamination proceedings.

Courts have taken divergent paths on the issue.  Some courts
Continue Reading Protective Orders: Patent Reexamination & Concurrent Litigation in Delaware

top5ass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1688″ title=”top5″ src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/top5.jpg” alt=”top5″ width=”116″ height=”114″ />Although the link to the left side provides a top 5 postings of sorts, the ranking is skewed significantly by spam bot visits (seeking to leave advertising comments on the same few posts over and over).  Until we can figure out a way to correct the calculation,

resetass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1653″ title=”reset” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/reset.jpg” alt=”reset” width=”169″ height=”175″ />

— Reducing  Infringement Liability Via
         Intervening Rights (PART I)–

As reported last week, USPTO reexamination of Amazon’s “1-click patent” concluded with the amendment of the broadest claims. In response, many Internet news sources, and IP blogs decried the reexamination process and the USPTO as a failed system. Yet, lost in the hysteria and naiveté is a very fundamental concept of post-grant proceedings at the USPTO, namely, the doctrine of intervening rights.

USPTO statistics very clearly bear out that complete cancellation of ALL patent claims via ex parte reexamination, such as was conducted of Amazon’s 1-click patent, is the exceptional case, not the rule.  Indeed, as of December 2009, only 11% of ex parte reexaminations conclude with all claims cancelled. Yet, roughly 600 requests for ex parte reexamination have been filed every year since the inception of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). With only 11% of patents having all claims cancelled over a 20+ year period, clearly the strategy behind ex parte reexamination requests is something other than outright cancellation.[1]

Certainly, a third party requestor would be pleased with the cancellation of all claims of a patent in reexamination, however
Continue Reading Flicking the Patent Reset Switch

truth_and_lies_tg class=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1643″ title=”truth_and_lies_t” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/truth_and_lies_t.gif” alt=”truth_and_lies_t” width=”314″ height=”115″ />–Guest Posting–

Mr. Raymond Mercado is a doctoral student in political science at Duke University

The Use and Abuse of Patent Reexamination

The presence of a threshold requirement (the “substantial new question of patentability” or “SNQ”) intended to protect patent holders from unwarranted reexamination proceedings reflects Congressional recognition that reexamination—like the patent application process—is susceptible to fraud and other misconduct.  Yet, whereas the literature and caselaw dealing with inequitable conduct by patentees is vast, there has been surprisingly little exploration of misconduct on the part of reexamination requesters.  My paper, The Use and Abuse of Patent Reexamination, attempts to fill this gap by examining the vulnerabilities of the reexamination process and the impact of unwarranted reexamination proceedings on patent holders.

Suppose that a third-party requester were to fabricate or mischaracterize prior art, for example by misrepresenting the publication date of an obscure reference, deliberately mistranslating a foreign reference, altering the drawings and figures, or simply by proffering an elaborate but objectively unreasonable interpretation of the prior art. 
Continue Reading Recourse for Abuse of The Patent Reexamination Process?

amazon_craveass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1626″ title=”amazon_crave” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/amazon_crave.jpg” alt=”amazon_crave” width=”181″ height=”119″ />Various stories began appearing yesterday noting the recent termination of the ex parte reexamination Amazon’s famous “1 – click patent” (USP 5,960,411). This patent was the subject of a patent dispute between Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.com.  As most recall, B&N was subject to a preliminary injunction during the 1999 holiday season. The suit was settled in 2002, terms of the settlement remain confidential. Amazon appears to have been fairly successful in licensing the patent thereafter.  

In 2006, a New Zealand actor appearing in such films as Lord of the Rings, decided to go on a quest to invalidate the 1- click patent (I’m picturing Frodo, I don’t know about you) requesting ex parte reexamination of all claims. The request for reexamination was granted with respect to the claims of the patent (1-26). Claims 6-10 recited a shopping cart component and were confirmed patentable over the submitted art of the request.

Not surprisingly, the shopping cart feature of the confirmed claims was later introduced by Amazon into rejected claims 1-5 and 11-26 by amendment.  This amendment was submitted to the USPTO in 2007.  It is unclear why the USPTO took so long to terminate the reexamination, however, the termination is not the least bit surprising as the writing has been on the wall for several years now. So, one would expect that the conclusion of this reexamination would be rather uneventful right? 

Wrong

Yesterday the typical
Continue Reading Hobbits & Wizards –The Amazon 1-Click Reexamination —

6a00d8341c51c053ef00e5508783d08834-800wiass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1450″ title=”6a00d8341c51c053ef00e5508783d08834-800wi” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/6a00d8341c51c053ef00e5508783d08834-800wi.jpg” alt=”6a00d8341c51c053ef00e5508783d08834-800wi” width=”222″ height=”165″ />

Two weeks ago, it was widely reported that the BPAI upheld the reexamination rejection of the broadest claim of Pfizer’s US Patent 6,469,012 relating to Viagra®. Lost in the outrage over the 7 year pendency of the reexamination proceedings was the degree to which the Pharma industry stacked the deck against Pfizer, and how special dispatch seemingly ends at appeal.

The reexamination of the ‘012 patent was kicked off by the USPTO in 2003, identifying four substantial new questions of patentability (SNQs).  It is worth noting that in 2003, there was no such thing as a Central Reexamination Unit (CRU).  Instead, this patent reexamination went to the patent examining corps.  As most practitioners are aware, while the patent examining corps certainly has the technical expertise to handle such issues, special dispatch was far from assured. This deficiency, in part, led to the creation of the CRU in 2005. The CRU implemented a coordinated management of the USPTO’s reexamination caseload, and staffed reexamination proceedings with teams of three experienced primary examiners.

In addition to the initiation of the Viagra® reexamination in this period of USPTO transition, the Pharma industry implemented a strategy of
Continue Reading Stacking the Deck Against Viagra