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?

the-end-is-nearass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1999″ title=”the-end-is-near” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/the-end-is-near.jpg” alt=”the-end-is-near” width=”264″ height=”400″ />… or is it?  Rumors of the demise of interferences via patent reform have been greatly exaggerated for years.  Whether S.515 will have a different fate than other recent patent reform bills is uncertain at best.  In any event, we continue our review of S.515 provisions related to post grant matters.  On March 4th and 5th, we outlined the provisions in S.515 which would change reexamination and implement a new Post-Grant Review revocation mechanism, respectively.  Today, we discuss what little of substantive interference practice[1] will remain if S.515 is enacted — namely, derivation proceedings.[2]  Currently, derivation cases are a species or type of interference decided by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”).  In an interference proceeding at the BPAI, derivation is proven by establishing prior conception of the interfering subject matter and communication of the conception to the opposing party.  Examiners rarely, if ever, suggest an interference sua sponte.   Consequently, in the vast majority of cases, an applicant wishing to initiate a derivation proceeding is required to suggest an interference pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.202.  The suggestion of an interference is initially considered by an examiner, who is instructed by the MPEP not to even consider the suggestion of interference until after he or she has decided that the targeting applicant’s claims are in condition for allowance, but for the existence of the targeted application or patent.  Therein, lies the rub.  As stated in MPEP Continue Reading S.515 Provisions for a Post Interference World

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

uselessOn March 23, 2010, Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia refused to revisit his decision of February 22, 2010 to deny a stay of Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. (Case No. 09-cv-01098) pending the outcome of  reexamination of the patent-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 5,115,497).  The patent-in-suit entitled “OPTICALLY INTRACONNECTED COMPUTER EMPLOYING DYNAMICALLY RECONFIGURABLE HOLOGRAPHIC OPTICAL ELEMENT” issued  May 19, 1992 and expired May 19, 2009.  The stay was denied despite the fact that no depositions had been taken in the patent litigation and no claim construction order had issued. On February 19, 2010, the USPTO ordered ex parte reexamination of claims 1-4, 11-12, 16-19 and 34-35 of the ‘497 patent based on a request filed by AMD. (Reexamination Control No. 90/010,783).  Since the ‘497 patent expired, no claim amendments can be made during the reexamination proceedings and claims will not be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (see our earlier discussion on the issue here).  Rather much like what Judge Batten will do in his claim construction order, the USPTO will interpret the patent claims not only based on the words of the claims read in light of and consistent with supporting specification of the ‘497 patent, but also consider its prosecution history and any extrinisic evidence submitted  in the form of expert declarations or affidavits as to the meanings of words in the claims, as to how they would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the technology of the patent at the time the invention was made.

mulligan1ass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-2028″ title=”mulligan1″ src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/mulligan1.png” alt=”mulligan1″ width=”225″ height=”225″ />All hackers err… golfers know there are both appropriate and inappropriate times to take a mulligan.  When is it OK to take a mulligan via reissue?  The 3-step test to determine whether the recapture rule prohibits a mulligan in reissue has been well-established since In re Clement[1] was decided in 1997.  As set out by the MPEP in § 1412.02, the 3-step test requires an examiner to make the following determinations:

(1) whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.  {Emphasis added.}

You may recall the 2003 Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) precedential decision Continue Reading Treatment of the Recapture Doctrine at the BPAI post North American Container

 

untitled–Part I–

Since the storied emergence of the patent troll (non-practicing entity (NPE) for those preferring the multisyllabic, PC terminology), it is not uncommon for an entire industry to find themselves on the same side of the defendant fence of a patent infringement suit. Where the targeted industry includes a mixture of small to large competitors, it is especially common for smaller targets to form temporary litigation alliances amongst themselves, and with their larger, deep pocket competitors.

These alliances are memorialized as written contracts or “joint defense agreements” (JDA). The purpose of such agreements is to provide for a structured exchange of information for mutual defense benefit, and protect this communication from discovery requests under the auspices of the joint-defense privilege.

When such agreements are in place, and inter partes reexamination is sought as a concurrent litigation strategy, a common concern is the applicability of the estoppel provision of 35 USC § 315(c) to the co-defendants as participants of the joint defense.  As explained next, it is clear that the USPTO Continue Reading Joint Defense Agreements & Inter Partes Patent Reexamination

plavixLast Friday the USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) for U.S. Patent 4,847,265, directed to the well known blood thinner Plavix.®  The Plavix Patent was challenged by Apotex Inc, a Canadian manufacturer of a generic version of the drug.  

Apotex was unsuccessful in their challenge of the patent in district court, resulting in a court injunction against Apotex’s sale of a generic Plavix until after the patent expires. The reexamination was an attempt to dislodge the injunction prior to expiration of the patent. As a result of the successfully concluded reexamination, it appears Apotex will just have to wait for expiration (2012).

doors-options

–Pick a Winner–

The revised version of S. 515 has introduced provisions that will serve to preclude the instituting or maintaining of an inter partes review or post-grant review proceeding under certain circumstances. These circumstances are set forth in proposed changes to §§ 315 and 325 in title 35 of the United States Code.

§§ 315 and 325 provide that an inter partes review or post-grant review may not be instituted or maintained if the petitioner or real party in interest has filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.  In other words, you cannot file a Declaratory Judgment and seek to prove invalidity at the USPTO at the same time. Moreover, an inter partes review or post-grant review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 3 months after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or his privy is required to respond to a civil action alleging infringement of the patent.  Thus, you cannot answer a complaint for infringement and then seek to prove invalidity at the USPTO at the same time; you must file at the earliest possible time before answering. Thus, the new post grant provisions are really designed to be alternatives to litigation, not after thoughts Continue Reading How will S.515 Impact Patent Litigation?

OopsSection 17 of the March 5, 2010 version of S. 515 (the Patent Reform Act of 2010) makes certain curious changes to Sections 116 (Joint Inventions), 184 (Filing in a Foreign Country), 185 (Foreign Filing Without a License), 251 (Reissue of Defective Patents), and 253 (Disclaimer) that would eliminate the “without deceptive intent” eligibility proscription.  The effect of these changes would be to eliminate the prohibition against gaining access to these statutory provisions where the applicant had committed fraud on the Patent Office.

If these so called technical amendments were enacted into law applicants could  add or delete named inventors to correct an error in inventorship that was made with deceptive intent.  That is, even where the applicants filed the patent application with the deceptive intent to exclude an inventor, Continue Reading Does Patent Reform Go Too Far in Eliminating Inequitable Conduct?

office-sign-brain–Procedural Alchemy–

The general policy of the USPTO is that the examination of a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination proceeding will not be conducted separately at the same time as to a particular patent. MPEP § 2686.03.  The reason for this policy is to permit timely resolution of both the reissue and the inter partes reexamination, to the extent possible, and to prevent inconsistent, and possibly conflicting, amendments from being introduced into the two files on behalf of the patent owner.  If both a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination proceeding are pending concurrently on a patent, a decision will normally be made to merge the reissue application examination and the inter partes reexamination proceeding or to stay one of the two.[1]

Where a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination proceeding are pending concurrently on a patent, the patent owner, i.e., the reissue applicant, has a responsibility to notify the Office of such. 37 CFR 1.178(b), 1.985.  See also MPEP § 1418.  In addition, the patent owner should file in the inter partes reexamination proceeding, as early as possible, a Notification of Concurrent Proceedings pursuant to 37 CFR 1.985 to notify the Office in the inter partes reexamination proceeding of the existence of the two concurrent proceedings.

The decision on whether or not to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding or which (if any) is to be stayed (suspended), will generally Continue Reading Merger Considerations in Patent Reissue and Inter Partes Patent Reexamination Proceedings