Tag Archives: patent claims

Reexamination Practice: One Size Does Not Fit All

I attended a reexamination roundtable at the Patent Office last week where ideas for reexamination reform were proposed.  The Patent Office listened and took notes.  I thought it was a very productive meeting overall.  As the various speakers presented their comments … Continue reading

Posted in Special Dispatch, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Fractus SA Gets $23M Verdict Against Samsung in Antenna Patent Litigation

In Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (6:09-CV-203, EDTX), a jury gave a verdict of patent infringement of four different patents owned by Fractus S.A. against Samsung to the  tune of $23,129,321 in damages.  The jury found that … Continue reading

Posted in Appealable, Damages, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, Litigation, past damages, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TiVo’s Reexamination Strategy Helps Win a Stay in the Northern District of California

The chronology of the dispute between TiVo, AT&T and Microsoft is complex and so are the digital video recorder (DVR) technologies covered in the patents that are asserted.  All of these complexities seemed to weigh in favor of a stay in … Continue reading

Posted in Appealable, ex parte reexamination, factors for stay, Litigation, reexamination generally, stay, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lockwood Cert Petition Seeks Clarification of Redress for Alleged “Sham” Reexamination Request

In a Petition for Writ of Certiorari dated April 28, 2011, inventor Lawrence B. Lockwood and his company, PanIP, LLC, requested review of the judgment of the Federal Circuit denying its petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.  (The underlying order … Continue reading

Posted in ex parte reexamination, Litigation, reexamination generally, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can Post Grant Review Enhance Patent Quality?

We have all heard about the new post grant review (PGR) aspect of the patent reform legislation.  It is supposed to provide a mechanism for review of the patent initiated in the first year of the patent’s issue.  Please indulge me for … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, Post Grant Review, reexamination generally, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Federal Circuit Decision in In re Tanaka

You might recall that we discussed the BPAI decision in In re Yasuhito Tanaka in an earlier post.  On April 15, the Federal Circuit reversed the BPAI decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.  … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, doctrine of claim differentiation, Ex Parte Prosecution, intervening rights, Litigation, past damages, Reissue, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent Prosecution in View of Reexamination

In my last post I introduced reexamination briefly.  Once you understand that patent claims can be cancelled in a reexamination, it begs the question of how patent applications and claims can be drafted to survive reexamination.  I have both good news and bad news.  THE BAD NEWS … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, reexamination generally | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment