Back in February, I noted the “interesting” decision of plaintiff EveryMD to file suit against the Republican presidential candidates. The suit, captioned EveryMD v. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich(C.D.CA) explains that U.S. Patent 7,644,122 is infringed by Facebook, and as business customers of
Previously, the substantially identical standard enunciated by 35 U.S.C. § 252 was analyzed in Aspex Eyewear, Inc., et al., v Marchon Eyewear Inc., et. al., (SDFLA). In the lower court ruling, the court found that claims changed/added in patent reexamination were in fact substantially identical to the previously issued claims. This was because, the claim changes made during patent reexamination added claim features the district court previously ruled to be embraced by the originally issued claim scope.
The lower court explained (decision here) that Aspex was barred from re-litigating these new claims against the previous defendants, reasoning:
The [previous action] was fully adjudicated on the merits. The dismissal release . . . made clear that the settlement dismissed with prejudice as to any causes of action “any claim which could have been had by and between the Parties arising from or connected with [the earlier dispute]. Plaintiffs argue that it alleged legally separate causes of action in their complaint because claim 23 and claim 35 [reexamination changes] did not exist at the time the [previous actions] were being litigated. The reexamination of the ‘545 Patent does not entitle Plaintiffs to circumvent claim preclusion because the amended claims relate back to the original ‘545 Patent reissue date. (emphasis added)
In affirming the lower court, the CAFC reasoned (decision here):
Continue Reading CAFC Denies Assertion of Claims Added in Reexamination
This past Monday, EveryMD filed suit against the Republican presidential candidates for…well..using Facebook. The suit, captioned EveryMD v. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich(C.D.CA) explains that U.S. Patent 7,644,122 is infringed by Facebook, and as business customers of Facebook receiving messages, that there
A patent reexamination proceeding is terminated by the USPTO upon issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue a Reexamination Certificate (NIRC). Thereafter, the proceeding formally concludes with the issuance of the actual reexamination certificate. The certificate functions to communicate the results of the proceeding to the public (claim changes/cancellations, etc.)
Historically, upon issuance of the NIRC the USPTO would hand the file off to a government printing contractor located in Pennsylvania for printing of the reexamination certificate. Once in the hands of the printing contractor, the file would be reviewed to ensure completeness (and was often times shuffled back to the agency for administrative oversights, largely related to IDS filings). Thus, from the time a NIRC is issued, it is not uncommon for a certificate print cycle to span 4-6 months in duration. This delay was more than just a minor inconvenience for Patentees as amended/new claims do not legally exist until printed. In other words, potential infringement damages for such amended/new claims are lost to bureaucratic inefficiency even though the substantive aspect of the reexamination proceeding is effectively finished.
The good news is that the USPTO has now addressed the printing delay and has drastically reduced the duration of the print cycle in recent weeks.
Continue Reading USPTO Shaves Months Off Patent Reexamination Pendency
As previously discussed, the CAFC has agreed to reconsider Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. (here) en banc. The Court will reconsider whether or not intervening rights are created for a claim that is not literally amended in a post grant proceeding by a change in verbiage, but instead, by operation of prosecution disclaimer on the part of the Patentee. (earlier post here)
Interestingly, last week the Court considered a somewhat similar circumstance of claims that were confirmed in patent reexamination without amendment in Krippelz v. Ford Motor Company (here).
Continue Reading CAFC Again Considers Patent Reexamination Disclaimer
As mentioned on Monday, the proposed rule package for supplemental examination is expected this week; in fact, it will publish tomorrow. In addition to the expected rule package on the new supplemental examination proceeding, the USPTO has included proposed revisions to existing patent reexamination fees.
The existing fee for requesting ex parte patent reexamination is $2520. The Notice proposes to raise this fee, to account for actual agency costs for conducting the proceeding, to a whopping $17,750. The notice also raises the fees for filing a petition (using the same justification) in either ex parte or inter partes patent reexamination to $1932. This new fee will apply to any petition filed under Rules 181,182, or 183. (The petition fee increase excludes extensions of time and some other minor petitions). Current fees are on the order of $200-$400. It may be that the increase in petition fees will help reign in the abusive practices currently plaguing the Office.
Certainly the Office should raise reexamination fees as they are presently quite low, but the jump to the proposed levels, especially as it relates to the hefty request fees, is unlikely to be received very favorably by the public.
Continue Reading USPTO Proposes 400-600% Increase in Patent Reexamination Fees
One purpose for introducing evidence of an ongoing patent reexamination in a parallel litigation is to avoid a post filing (i.e., complaint) willfulness determination. The existence of an ongoing patent reexamination may be admitted to demonstrate that the accused infringer was not objectively reckless in its actions irrespective of its prior knowledge of the asserted patent.
Some courts have found that reexamination evidence defeats a finding of willfulness, these courts typically examine the status of the claims in the reexamination proceeding at the time of the willfulness determination, finding that the weight of the reexamination evidence depends on whether the reexamination proceedings are complete and whether the patent claims have undergone substantive changes in reexamination. When seeking introduction of such evidence, depending upon the court, the stage of the parallel litigation (Summary Judgment, JMOL, Pre-Trial Motions) may determine whether or not it is admissible.
In recent years, courts have been reluctant to admit evidence of an ongoing patent reexamiantion at trial. This is because the presumption of validity may be undermined by communicating to the factfinder(s) that the USPTO has changed their mind. This trend is especially prominent in plantiff forums such as Texas.
Continue Reading Evidence of Ongoing Patent Reexamination at Trial
2011 was perhaps the most significant year to date in terms of post grant patent practice. The perennial legislative effort generally known as “patent reform” finally bore fruit as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA); patent reexamination filings in 2011 reached an all time high; patent reissue practice was explored and clarified by the CAFC; and patent litigation parallel with patent reexamination continues to expand as a well established strategic practice.
As to the America Invents Act, several entirely new post grant patent proceedings have now been enacted into law (effective September 16, 2012). A summary of these proceedings, and discussions of their expected impact are linked below (and throughout the blog).
Transitional Business Method Patent Challenge
The USPTO is scheduled to
Continue Reading 2011 Year in Review — Patent Reform & The New Post Grant Landscape
Last week’s CAFC decision in In re Construction Equipment decided the validity of U.S. Patent 5,234,564…..again. In the first appeal, decided in 2001, the CAFC upheld the validity determination of the District Court. In the second appeal, decided last week, the CAFC considered an appeal from the USPTO rejecting the claims of the ‘564 patent in ex parte patent reexamination. In their second decision, the CAFC found the ‘564 Patent invalid in light of some of the very same prior art references at issue in the first appeal.
In her dissent Judge Newman questioned the constitutionality of the USPTO looking over the shoulder of the CAFC.
In a case of “turnabout is fair play,” last Friday, a United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut considered, and disregarded, the USPTO’s reexamination analysis of the same prior art in Jacobs Vehicle Equipment Co. v. Pacific Diesel Brake Co. et al. (D.Conn).
Continue Reading District Court Rejects USPTO Analysis in Patent Reexamination
Patent reexamination is often initiated in parallel with an ongoing infringement litigation. In the case of a parallel inter partes proceeding (IPX), the first of the proceedings to conclude (litigation or IPX) controls the outcome of the other by operation of statutory estoppel. As such, a final holding in the parallel court proceeding will end an ongoing IPX. Moreover, the losing party would be precluded from seeking IPX at a later date.
On the other hand, ex parte patent reexamination (EXP) has no such statutory “shut off valve.” Thus, even a party that was bound by IPX estoppel could file a request for ex parte patent reexamination. In this way, the infringer could attempt to “undo” the effect of the earlier, final, court judgement by invalidating the patent via the EXP filing.
As I explained this past August, the CAFC questioned this “do-over” practice during the oral argument of In re Construction Equipment. Last week the CAFC issued a decision in this case. In the process, the CAFC disturbed the holding of their first decision, issued some 10 years earlier.
Continue Reading Judge Newman Questions Constitutionality of Second Chance Patent Reexamination