Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective
|
|
- Marshall Sherman Bishop
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective AIPLA 2007 Spring Meeting June 22, 2007 Jeffrey M. Fisher, Esq. Farella Braun + Martel LLP jfisher@fbm.com 04401\
2 INTRODUCTION Reexamination proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO ) are becoming an increasingly more common forum for addressing invalidity issues that arise in patent infringement litigation. Having an understanding of these proceedings is therefore essential for any patent litigator. This paper discusses the potential benefits and pitfalls of reexamination proceedings from the perspective of the alleged infringer. Specifically, after providing an overview of both ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, this paper discusses issues alleged infringers should consider when facing or contemplating reexamination proceedings. OVERVIEW OF REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS There are two forms of reexamination proceedings: ex parte and inter partes proceedings, described below. Ex Parte Proceedings Procedures relating to ex parte reexamination proceedings are set forth in 35 U.S.C , 37 C.F.R and Chapter 2200 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure ( MPEP ). The reexamination statute was enacted in 1980 to accomplish three principal goals: First, the new procedure could settle validity disputes more quickly and less expensively than the often protracted litigation involved in such cases. Second, the procedure would allow courts to refer patent validity questions to the expertise of the Patent Office. Third, reexamination would reinforce investor confidence in the certainty of patent rights by affording the PTO a broader opportunity to review doubtful patents. Patlax Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 602 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). A request for ex parte reexamination may be filed by any person, including the patent holder or the alleged infringer. The reexamination request must cite prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. 35 U.S.C Reexamination will occur if there is a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent. See id. 301, 303, 304. Although the patent holder may not enlarge the scope of any claims, during the course of the reexamination proceedings the patent owner may propose any amendment to his patent and a new claim or claims thereto, in order to distinguish the invention as claimed from the prior art cited under the provisions of section 301, or in response to a decision adverse to the patentability of a claim of a patent. Id In general, although an alleged infringer can initiate ex parte proceedings (id. 302) and file one response (id. 304), the alleged infringer 07811\
3 has no other ability to participate in ex parte reexamination proceedings. The patent holder, however, may conduct personal or telephone interviews with the examiner. See MPEP Inter Partes Proceedings 1 Procedures relating to inter partes proceedings are set forth in 35 U.S.C , 37 C.F.R and Chapter 2600 of the MPEP. Enacted in 1999 to provide another alternative to litigation (at least in part because ex parte reexamination proceedings were viewed by some to unfairly favor patent holders), inter partes proceedings are similar to ex parte proceedings in that (1) they may be filed by any third party requester and must be based on prior art patents or printed publications, (2) reexamination will proceed if there is a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent, and (3) there is no ability of the patent holder to enlarge the scope of its claims. See 35 U.S.C. 311, 312, 314. Unlike in ex parte proceedings, however, the alleged infringer can comment upon any response filed by the patent holder in inter partes proceedings. See id. 314(b)(2) ( Each time the patent owner files a response to an action on the merits from the Patent and Trademark Office, the third-party requestor shall have one opportunity to file written comments addressing issues raised by the action of the Office or the patent owner s response thereto, if those written comments are received by the Office within 30 days after the date of service of the patent owner s response. ). In addition, there is no right for the patent holder to interview with the examiner. The alleged infringer also has a right to appeal the PTO s ultimate decision. 35 U.S.C. 315(b). There is a price to pay for the alleged infringer s enhanced participation in the process, however. If the alleged infringer s inter partes request results in an order, the alleged infringer will be estopped from asserting at a later time the invalidity of any claim finally determined to be valid and patentable on any ground which the third-party requestor raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings. Id. 315(c). 2 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FOR ALLEGED INFRINGERS There are several advantages to the alleged infringer of using the alternate forum of the PTO to attack the validity of a patent asserted against it. First, if the PTO determines that the patent is indeed invalid during reexamination proceedings, the claims of the patent are canceled and the patent holder can no longer pursue an infringement action against it. Second, there is no presumption of validity during reexamination proceedings. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 856 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 605 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Given this lesser standard, the alleged infringer may be more likely to 1 Inter partes reexamination proceedings are only available for patents that were filed on or after November 29, See 37 C.F.R This provision does not prevent the assertion of invalidity based on newly discovered prior art unavailable to the third-party requestor and the Patent and Trademark Office at the time of the inter partes reexamination proceedings. Id \
4 obtain a favorable result in reexamination proceedings than in the district court (particularly where the alleged infringer is litigating in what it perceives to be an unfriendly jurisdiction). Some empirical evidence is emerging that inter partes reexamination proceedings may offer alleged infringers a greater change of invalidating a patent than in litigation. See R. Shang and Y. Chaikovsky, Inter Partes Reexamination of Patents: An Empirical Evaluation, 15 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1 (Fall 2006) (finding a staggering 57% all-cancellation rate in inter partes proceedings). Third, during reexamination proceedings, the patent holder may be forced to make amendments or engage in colloquy with the PTO that will narrow or clarify to scope of the claims. Fourth, reexamination proceedings are heard by the PTO examiner, and not a jury. If the patent holder has particularly effective witnesses or a compelling story, it will not have the ability to take advantage of these assets as part of its presentation to the PTO. Fifth, there is no danger of getting an adverse judgment requiring payment of damages or being enjoined from the PTO. This may allow the alleged infringer to have a better feel for the lay of the land such that, if the patent does come out of the reexamination process, the alleged infringer has an opportunity to settle or take a license prior to any adverse ruling in the district court. This may therefore increase the chances that the matter may be resolved prior to resolution in the district court. Sixth, in patent battles where the parties have seemingly endless resources, putting the patent holder s patent into reexamination opens up another front in the battle where the alleged infringer could obtain a favorable result. There have been many examples of these types of multi-front patent battles in recent years, i.e., NTP v. RIM. Finally, while the cost of participating in reexamination proceedings will obviously vary from case to case, there is little doubt that the costs of reexamination proceedings to the alleged infringer will be considerably less than full-blown patent litigation. Not only are out of pocket costs less, but there will be considerable savings in terms of discovery costs (both in terms of money and time) for the alleged infringer, i.e., no document production, no depositions, etc. These cost savings will only be realized, however, if the district court stays the underlying litigation. A Note About Stays Of Litigation Pending Reexamination District courts have discretion to, and often do, stay litigation pending reexamination proceedings. Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also ASCI Corp. v. STD Entertainment USA, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1378, 1381 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ( [T]here is a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the outcome of reexamination proceedings. ). Among the factors the court will consider are whether the stay would prejudice the non-moving party or provide a tactical advantage to the moving party, whether the stay would simplify the issues and whether discovery is complete and/or a trial date set. See, e.g., Whatley v. Nike Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1124, 1125 (D. Or. 2000); GDAC Inc. v. D.W.W. Enterprises Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1129, (D.N.J. 1992) \
5 The alleged infringer should therefore give careful consideration to whether it should seek a stay or oppose a request for a stay made by the patent holder. While obtaining a stay of the district court action certainly saves costs, it will also serve to delay resolution of the litigation. This may be a positive thing for many alleged infringers. For example, delaying resolution of the district court action allows more time to design a work around, to develop noninfringement or invalidity arguments, seek to settle the case, etc. There are, of course, also instances where it is beneficial for the alleged infringer to have prompt resolution of the infringement question, i.e., where the patent holder s infringement accusation are impacting customers and the alleged infringer wants to clear the air. A Further Note About Litigating Claims That Have Been Changed During Reexamination As noted above, even if the patent comes out of reexamination, the claims may have been narrowed during the proceedings and/or the patent holder may have made significant concessions. The reexamination proceedings must be carefully evaluated, as they may have changed the scope of the claims significantly. Even if there is infringement of the new claim(s), claims added during reexamination are not infringed by activity prior to issue when the claims differ in scope. 35 U.S.C. 307(b); see also 35 U.S.C. 252 (reissue). This doctrine is discussed, for example, in Bloom Engineering Co. v. North American Manufacturing Co., 129 F.3d 1247, (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Fortel Corp. v. Phone-Mate, Inc., 825 F.2d 1577, (Fed. Cir. 1987). POTENTIAL PITFALLS FOR ALLEGED INFRINGERS There are also a number of potential pitfalls for the alleged infringer in reexamination proceedings. First, there is a significant risk the alleged infringer s position will not prevail in the PTO. Indeed, although there is no presumption of validity during reexamination proceedings, it is certainly conceivable that the PTO, which issued the patent in the first place, will not change its conclusions. Alternatively, the claims may be narrowed, but in a manner that still covers the alleged infringer s product(s). This is of particular concern in ex parte reexaminations, where, although the alleged infringer may get the first word if it initiates the proceedings, it has a limited ability to participate in the proceedings thereafter. The patent holder, however, may not only submit responses, but may also arrange for interviews with the examiner. If the patent does come out of the reexamination process, it can have significant adverse consequences to the alleged infringer. Most notably, it is less likely the patent will be invalidated. Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970, (Fed. Cir. 1986); Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 755 F.2d 1549, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (reissue). Indeed, the PTO s decision to uphold the validity of reexamined patent claims is strong evidence the district court must consider in assessing whether the party asserting invalidity has met its burden of clear and convincing evidence. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This is particularly important given that there is no ability of the alleged infringer to appeal a finding by the PTO should come out of ex parte reexamination proceedings \
6 This second blessing of the patent by the PTO may have a significant impact on the trial judge and/or jury. See Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Industries, Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (dismissing claim for patent invalidity where, inter alia, patent claims had twice passed the scrutiny of the PTO, including a reexamination procedure in the [the accused infringer] participated as the requester ). In the case of inter partes proceedings, of course, the alleged infringer who participated in the proceedings will be estopped from raising invalidity arguments considered by the PTO. This estoppel effect must be carefully considered when evaluating whether to initiate an inter partes reexamination proceeding. Second, although reexamination proceedings are commonly thought to take less time than litigation, this may not be the case. Indeed, reexamination proceedings sometimes take several years, while certain district courts are routinely resolving patent disputes in a year or less. There is therefore no guarantee that pursuing reexamination proceedings will result in prompt resolution of invalidity issues. SHOULD YOU PARTICIPATE AT ALL? While participating in reexamination proceedings ensures that the alleged infringer s position is at least considered, the decision to participate in reexamination proceedings if initiated by the patent holder must be given careful consideration. Deciding to participate in the proceedings may limit the ability of the alleged infringer to argue to the district court that the PTO s actions should not be afforded any deference. The accused infringer therefore runs a risk in participating in a reexamination proceeding and turning its best prior art over to the PTO. If the alleged infringer decides to participate, it should be aware of the possibility that its own conduct in the reexamination proceedings may have unforeseen, adverse consequences in any subsequent litigation. See, e.g., Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (failure of alleged infringer to cite prior art reference to PTO in reexamination proceedings weighs heavily against argument that prior art was material prior art for purposes of inequitable conduct claim). CONCLUSION As an alleged infringer, deciding whether to initiate or participate in reexamination proceedings involves many difficult and often hard to predict issues which should be carefully considered in the face of patent infringement allegations. Given that reexamination proceedings have continued to become more prevalent in patent infringement litigation, having an understanding of the risks and benefits of these proceedings is essential \
7 JEFFREY M. FISHER has a diverse intellectual property and high technology disputes practice including patent, trademark and copyright infringement, as well as antitrust, trade secret and unfair competition cases. He is chair of the Farella Braun + Martel s intellectual Property & Technology Department. Mr. Fisher has litigated patent infringement actions relating to digital data compression, encryption software, silicon wafer drying technology, cellular telephones, motion picture soundtrack technology and a screen for Down s Syndrome during pregnancy. He received his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law, summa cum laude, where he received the Order of the Coif and was editor of the University of Illinois Law Review. He serves as Vice President of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society and Vice Chair of the Intellectual Property Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco \
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O R D E R
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DATATREASURY CORP., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., et al. Defendants. O R D E R 2:06-CV-72-DF Before the Court
More informationReexamination Tactics: Present and Future
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DESK REFERENCE PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS AND RELATED TOPICS PATENT Reexamination Tactics: Present and Future Mitchell G. Stockwell and Bonnie M. Grant WWW.KILPATRICKSTOCKTON.COM
More informationCase 4:08-cv SBA Document 38 Filed 10/03/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case :0-cv-0-SBA Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 TOKUYAMA CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, VISION DYNAMICS, LLC, Defendant. / No.
More informationSophisticated Use of Reexamination and Reissue. Robert M. Asher Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar 2005
Sophisticated Use of Reexamination and Reissue Robert M. Asher Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar 2005 Strategies for Patentee AVOID REISSUES File Continuation Applications
More informationCase 1:12-cv GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904
Case 1:12-cv-00617-GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AIP ACQUISITION LLC, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 12-617-GMS LEVEL
More informationE-FILED on 10/15/10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
E-FILED on // IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE AOL LLC, YAHOO! IAC SEARCH &MEDIA, and LYCOS
More informationCommissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) IN RE CHAMBERS ET AL. REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS Control No. 90/001,773; 90/001,848; 90/001,858; 90/002,091 June 26, 1991 *1 Filed:
More information15 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall Article
15 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall 2006 Article INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION OF PATENTS: AN EMPIRICAL EVALUATION Roger Shang, Yar Chaikovsky a1 Copyright (c) 2006 State
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
More informationInter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation
Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Debbie Gibson v. Tiffany
More informationDo-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years +
Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + By: Brian M. Buroker, Esq. * and Ozzie A. Farres, Esq. ** Hunton & Williams
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:11-cv-02964-TCB Document 72 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BARCO, N.V. and BARCO, INC., v. Plaintiffs, EIZO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, TIVO INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No.:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HTC CORPORATION, et al., HTC CORPORATION, et al., KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., V. PLAINTIFF, KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., SAN JOSE DIVISION
More informationThe America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys
The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys James Morando, Jeff Fisher and Alex Reese Farella Braun + Martel LLP After many years of debate,
More informationPATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM
More informationCase 2:13-cv LDD Document 23 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-01999-LDD Document 23 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 13-cv-01999
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HOCKERSON-HALBERSTADT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, CONVERSE INC., Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 98-1501 HOCKERSON-HALBERSTADT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERSE INC., Defendant-Appellee. Richard E. Backus, Flehr Hohbach Test Albritton &
More informationReexamination and Improving Patent Quality
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 7 Issue 2 Spring Article 3 Spring 2009 Reexamination and Improving Patent Quality Recommended Citation, Reexamination and Improving Patent
More informationPatent Owner Use of Reexamination for Patents Granted Prior to KSR v. Teleflex. Stephen G. Kunin Partner. AIPLA Webcast, April 20, 2011
Patent Owner Use of Reexamination for Patents Granted Prior to KSR v. Teleflex Stephen G. Kunin Partner AIPLA Webcast, April 20, 2011 Should Patent Owners Use Reexamination to Strengthen Patents Issued
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationPATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO
PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC, v. Plaintiff, MILLENIAL MEDIA, INC., Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION infringement of the asserted patents against
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More informationT he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
More informationTerry Guerrero. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 23)
Case 8:12-cv-01661-JST-JPR Document 41 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1723 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Terry Guerrero Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
More informationPATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.
PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will
More informationOLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationThe Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews
The Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews By: Lawrence Stahl and Donald Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) includes
More informationCAN A PATENT ONCE ADJUDICATED TO BE INVALID BE RESURRECTED? RONALD A. CLAYTON Partner FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO NEW YORK, NEW YORK
CAN A PATENT ONCE ADJUDICATED TO BE INVALID BE RESURRECTED? RONALD A. CLAYTON Partner FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO NEW YORK, NEW YORK INTRODUCTION It has long been considered black letter law that
More informationOBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY
OBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY Mark P. Levy, Intellectual Property Practice Group Leader, Thompson Hine LLP., Dayton, Ohio I. The name of the game is the claim. As Judge Rich, one of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. No SLR ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BELDEN TECHNOLOGIES INC. and BELDEN CDT (CANADA INC., v. Plaintiffs, SUPERIOR ESSEX COMMUNICATIONS LP and SUPERIOR ESSEX INC., Defendants.
More informationHOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE:
HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE: #8 Collected Case Law, Rules, and MPEP Materials 2004 Kagan Binder, PLLC How to Evaluate When a Reissue violates the Recapture Rule: Collected
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-290 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MICROSOFT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More informationCase 1:09-cv SC-MHD Document 505 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-09790-SC-MHD Document 505 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) BRIESE LICHTTENCHNIK VERTRIEBS ) No. 09 Civ. 9790 GmbH, and HANS-WERNER BRIESE,
More information#$.$+%, -$''$$/" $"%.-# +$.$$1%% " " % - +".%".$7$8 -.,$$/ &$,%9+$ %/ -"! % 8$''
!"%""%&'"(%'' ) * '++!"+ ) - )./"%&'"(%/!."(0%'1-. '%&'"(%/.%+-%.(0'"../+2%%" 3 +" --'!!"+ 3 * +" +/.%" + +%'(++ 34 34 3 35! " " 35 " 3 % & '! 3 ( )! 3 * +! 36-36. 3 / 3 0 1 3 22 3 33.+% -''/" "%.- +.1%%
More informationAmerica Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011
America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor
More information$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA
AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS John B. Scherling Antony M. Novom Sughrue Mion, PLLC July 30, 2013 1 $2 to $8 million 2 1 $1.8 billion $1.5 billion $1.2 billion
More information3 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Spring, 1995 METAMORPHOSIS IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
3 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 249 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Spring, 1995 METAMORPHOSIS IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Al Harrison a1 Copyright (c) 1995 by the State Bar of Texas,
More information196:163. Executive summary for clients regarding US patent law and practice. Client Executive Summary on U.S. Patent Law and Practice
THIS DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY PREPARED BY ALAN S. GUTTERMAN AND IS REPRINTED FROM BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS SOLUTIONS ON WESTLAW, AN ONLINE DATABASE MAINTAINED BY THOMSON REUTERS (SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED) THOMSON
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAFE STORAGE LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-1624-GMS DELL INC., Defendant. SAFE STORAGE LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-1625-GMS
More informationShould Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Parag Shekher 3
Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and Parag Shekher 3 Introduction The Federal Circuit stated that it granted a rare petition for a writ of mandamus
More informationThe Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings
The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Presented by: Gina Cornelio, Partner, Patent Clint Conner, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation June 20, 2018 The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Gina
More informationIntellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings
Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings By Ann Fort, Pete Pappas, Karissa Blyth, Robert Kohse and Steffan Finnegan The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created
More informationPresented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney. AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016
Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016 2016 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP Overview Introduction to Proceedings Challenger
More informationIS THE DEFINITION OF SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN 37 CFR VALID? 1
IS THE DEFINITION OF SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN 37 CFR 42.401 VALID? 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and Joshua D. Sarnoff 3 INTRODUCTION Section 135(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Public Law
More informationL DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f
Case 1:13-cv-03777-AKH Document 154 Filed 08/11/14 I USDC Page SL ~ y 1 of 10 I DOCJ.. 1.' '~"'"T. ~ IFLr"l 1-... ~~c "' ' CALL\ ELED DOL#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT L DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f SOUTHERN
More informationCase: 3:13-cv bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9
Case: 3:13-cv-00346-bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationCORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS
CORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS 2012 IP Summer Seminar Peter Corless Partner pcorless@edwardswildman.com July 2012 2012 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP Types of Correction Traditional
More informationPOST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP
POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction... 1 II. Post-Grant Review Proceedings... 1 A. Inter-Partes
More informationVECTRA FITNESS, INC., TNWK CORPORATION, (formerly known as Pacific Fitness Corporation),
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 98-1192 Plaintiff-Appellant, VECTRA FITNESS, INC., v. TNWK CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. (formerly known as Pacific Fitness Corporation), Ramsey
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationEllen Matheson. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 100)
Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 116 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:3544 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Ellen Matheson Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT
More informationThe Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO
The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous
More informationDon t Forget That Inventorship Issues Can Be Determined in an Interference! Reyna), was a 35 USC 256 action to correct inventorship on two patents
Don t Forget That Inventorship Issues Can Be Determined in an Interference! By Charles L. Gholz 1 Hor v. Chu, F.3d, USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2012)(opinion by C.J. Prost, joined by C.J. Newman; concurring
More informationPTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences 2015 National CLE Conference Friday, January 9, 2015 Presented by Denise
More informationSTATUS OF. bill in the. Given the is presented. language. ability to would be. completely. of 35 U.S.C found in 35. bills both.
STATUS OF PATENTT REFORM LEGISLATION On June 23, 2011, the United States House of Representatives approved its patent reform bill, H.R. 1249 (the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act). Thee passage follows
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1173, -1174 EXXON CORPORATION (now known as ExxonMobil Corporation) and EXXON CHEMICAL PATENTS, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, PHILLIPS PETROLEUM
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SPEEDTRACK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENDECA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND WALMART.COM USA, LLC, Defendants-Cross-Appellants.
More informationNew Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes
More informationAIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP
AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
More informationBusiness Method Patents on the Chopping Block?
Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block? ACCA, San Diego Chapter General Counsel Roundtable and All Day MCLE Eric Acker and Greg Reilly Morrison & Foerster LLP San Diego, CA 2007 Morrison & Foerster
More informationThe Patent Reexamination Reform Act of 1994: A New Era of The Third Party Participation
Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 5 March 1995 The Patent Reexamination Reform Act of 1994: A New Era of The Third Party Participation Shannon M. Casey Follow this and additional
More informationProfessor Sara Anne Hook, M.L.S., M.B.A., J.D AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 14, 2011
Professor Sara Anne Hook, M.L.S., M.B.A., J.D. 2011 AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 14, 2011 The month of May in Indiana is particularly important because of the Indianapolis 500, an event that is officially
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationCase 1:05-cv TSE-TCB Document 38 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:05-cv-01447-TSE-TCB Document 38 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 1 of 21 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT ) AMERICA INC.,
More informationComments on: Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications, 78 Fed. Reg (January 15, 2013)
The Honorable Teresa Stanek Rea Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Patent and Trademark Office
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ARMACELL LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13cv896 ) AEROFLEX USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BEATY,
More informationIntellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims
Intellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims News from the State Bar of California Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section From the January 2018 E-Brief David
More informationCase 1:12-cv GMS Document 34 Filed 07/02/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1399
Case 1:12-cv-01744-GMS Document 34 Filed 07/02/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1399 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NESTE OIL OYJ, v. Plaintiff, DYNAMIC FUELS, LLC, SYNTROLEUM
More informationIntersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing
Intersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing May 28, 2014 R. David Donoghue Holland & Knight LLP 131 South Dearborn
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER Civil File No (MJD/AJB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER Civil File No. 09 3601 (MJD/AJB) FURUNO ELECTRIC CO. LTD., FURUNO U.S.A., INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER STAYING CASE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-61798-CIV-COHN/SELTZER JLIP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. STRATOSPHERIC INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER STAYING CASE THIS CAUSE
More informationPost-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus
Post-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus I. CHALLENGING PATENT VALIDITY AT THE PTO VIA POST-GRANT REVIEW, INTER PARTES REVIEW, BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW, AND REEXAMINATION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 6 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1578 FINA TECHNOLOGY, INC. and FINA OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, JOHN A. EWEN, Defendant-Appellant, ABBAS RAZAVI,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellant 2016-1173 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
More informationBest Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct
PRESENTATION TITLE Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct David Hall, Counsel dhall@kilpatricktownsend.com Megan Chung, Senior Associate mchung@kilpatricktownsend.com
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 MAl LEu.usp1o.gov MAR 08 Z007 CENTRAL REEXAMINATION
More informationWarner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.:
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.: Apt Reconciliation of Supreme Court Precedent, and Reasoned Instruction to a Trusted Federal Circuit 1997 by Charles W. Shifley and Lance Johnson On March
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. REPORT TO CONGRESS on INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION. Executive Summary
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE REPORT TO CONGRESS on INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION Executive Summary The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examines patent applications and grants
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CABINET VISION and LARRY CORNWELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, CABNETWARE,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 96-1420 CABINET VISION and LARRY CORNWELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CABNETWARE, Defendant-Appellee. John Allcock, Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich,
More informationPatent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and
Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Techniques ALFRED R. FABRICANT 20 th Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Conference April 12, 2012 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Leveling
More informationUS reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims
US reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2011 Author(s): Charles R. Macedo In re Tanaka, No. 2010-1262, US Court of Appeals for
More informationTen Years of Inter Partes Patent Reexamination Appeals: An Empirical View
Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 29 Issue 2 Article 2 2-28-2013 Ten Years of Inter Partes Patent Reexamination Appeals: An Empirical View Eric J. Rogers Follow this and additional works at:
More informationWHAT TO DO IF YOUR CLIENT MAY INFRINGE BOTH OF TWO INTERFERING PATENTS? Charles L. Gholz 1, 2
I. Introduction WHAT TO DO IF YOUR CLIENT MAY INFRINGE BOTH OF TWO INTERFERING PATENTS? By Charles L. Gholz 1, 2 What should you do if you suspect that your client may be held to infringe both of two interfering
More informationNorthern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Northern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules Law360,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1483 INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LTV STEEL COMPANY, Defendant, and USX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Jonathan S. Quinn, Sachnoff
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
More informationNew Local Patent Rules In Northern District Of Ill.
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com New Local Patent Rules In Northern District
More informationSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S.
SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S. The 10 th Annual Generics, Supergenerics, and Patent Strategies Conference London, England May 16, 2007 Provided by: Charles R. Wolfe, Jr. H. Keeto
More informationNewly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense
September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September
More informationPre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act
Pre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act By Alan Kendrick, J.D., Nerac Analyst The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law By President Obama in September 2011 and the final
More informationExecutive Summary. 1 All three of the major IP law associations-- the American Bar Association IP Law Section, the American Intellectual Property
Why The PTO s Use of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Patent Claims in Post- Grant and Inter Partes Reviews Is Inappropriate Under the America Invents Act Executive Summary Contrary to the recommendations
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Case:-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 J. Rick Taché (#00) rtache@swlaw.com Deborah S. Mallgrave (#0) dmallgrave@swlaw.com Harsh P. Parikh (#0) hparikh@swlaw.com SNELL & WILMER Costa Mesa, CA - Telephone:
More informationCase 1:03-cv RJS Document 206 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiffs, No. 03-cv-3816 (RJS) ORDER. Plaintiffs, No. 03-cv-3817 (RJS) ORDER
Case 1:03-cv-03816-RJS Document 206 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., et al., r-- IUSDS SDNY, DOCUt.1ENT 11 i 1 ELECTRONICALLY HLED!
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1541, 04-1137, -1213 EVIDENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant- Appellant, and PEROXYDENT GROUP, v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Counterclaim
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1539 PREDICATE LOGIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRIBUTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Christopher S. Marchese, Fish & Richardson
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V.,
Case: 16-1346 Document: 105 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2016-1346 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee.
More information