The Reexamination Center

On August 31, 2010, District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga denied Fusilamp’s motion for a preliminary injunction where an ex parte reexamination request was granted by the PTO. The court found that while the PTO’s decision to reexamine the patent-in-suit was not “dispositive on the issue of validity” it was nonetheless relevant to whether a substantial question of invalidity has been raised. Ultimately the court found that the presumption of validity does not relieve a patentee who moves for a preliminary injunction from carrying the normal burden of demonstrating it will likely succeed on all disputed liability issues at trial.

This week the Official Gazette noticed six inter partes reexamination requests. CSR PLC filed a request against Skullcandy’s patent on a personal portable integrator for music player and mobile phone. Fluxion Biosceinces filed a request against Cellectricon’s patent on a system and method for obtaining and maintaining high-resistance seals in patch clamp recordings. Plas-Pak Industries filed a request against Richard Parks Corrosion Technologies’ patent on dual component dispensing and mixing systems for marine and military paints. Seda, SPA filed a request against Packaging Tools Machinery’s patent on a double-walled paperboard cup. SiRF Technology filed two requests against Global Locate’s patents on a method and apparatus for computing signal correlation and a method and apparatus for time-free processing of GPS signals.

This week the Official Gazette noticed six ex parte reexamination requests. The Ohio Willow Wood Company filed a request against Applied Elastomerics’ patent on tear resistant, crystalline midblock copolymer gels and articles. Anonymous third parties filed requests against patents assigned to Lonza Biologics, Halliburton Energy Services, Vegas Amusement, and Digital Image Systems.