§Why CasetextPricing

In re Ricoh Company Ltd. Patent Litigation

Reply Memorandum re MOTION to Stay NOTICE OF OFFICE ACTION REJECTING ALL CLAIMS OF '432 PATENT AND RENEWED REQUEST FOR STAY

14 Cited authorities

  1. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 655 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

  2. Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

    102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 249 times
    Holding that the limitation "perforation means for tearing" was not a means-plus-function claim because the word "perforation" constituted sufficient structure

  3. Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc.

    450 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2006)   Cited 114 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that four requests for reexamination that were missing necessary elements suggested movant was taking tactical advantage of opportunities for delay

  4. Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C. v. Charter Communications, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 03-cv-2223-ABJ-BNB (D. Colo. Jul. 11, 2006)   Cited 6 times

    Civil Action No. 03-cv-2223-ABJ-BNB. July 11, 2006 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PATENT 6,076,094 BY UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ALAN JOHNSON, District Judge The above-captioned matter comes before the Court on Defendant Charter Communications, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of the U.S. Patent 6,076,094 By United States Patent and Trademark Office. Plaintiffs Broadcast Innovation, LLC and IO Research Pty, Ltd. have resisted this

  5. Everything for Love.com, Inc. v. Tender Loving Things, Inc.

    No. CIV 02-2605-PHX-EHC (D. Ariz. Jul. 21, 2006)   Cited 3 times
    Indicating that although the "case is mature" in that discovery was complete and the case was originally scheduled for trial approximately one year prior, a stay was warranted because the defendant had not "abused the reexamination process in an attempt to delay trial proceedings" and a stay would avoid inconsistent results and allow the court to benefit from the PTO's expertise

  6. Syntex

    882 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that third party challengers cannot appeal adverse decisions on patentability in the ex parte reexamination process

  7. Boston Scientific Corporation v. Micrus Corporation

    No. C 04-04072 JW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2006)

    No. C 04-04072 JW. March 21, 2006 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS JAMES WARE, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Boston Scientific Corporation and Target Therapeutics, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") bring suit against Micrus Corporation ("Defendant") for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Presently before the Court is Micrus' motion to stay proceedings. The motion was discussed during a case management conference held on March 20, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

  8. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,055 times   446 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,937 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,896 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  11. Section 302 - Request for reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 302   Cited 180 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a request for a reexamination must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying the prior art to the patent at issue

  12. Section 303 - Determination of issue by Director

    35 U.S.C. § 303   Cited 122 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Governing ex parte reexamination

  13. Section 1.104 - Nature of examination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.104   Cited 52 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Providing reasons for patent examiner's rejection of claims, including rejection for prior art "unless the entire rights to the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned by the same person . . ."

  14. Section 1.510 - Request for ex parte reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.510   Cited 29 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Providing that where ex parte reexamination request does not meet requirements, requester is "generally...given an opportunity to complete the request within a specified time"