arrow3 Comments
  1. […] related items here: Ding! WARF Wins Round 2 As Stem Cell Patent Upheld WARF Stem Cell Patents Knocked Down in Round One Posted June 17th, 2008 by Stephen Albainy-Jenei […]

  2. Editor
    Mar 04 - 7:11 am


    You are correct that one always has to be very careful in initiating a re-exam. You might come out worse in the end.

    Whether to pursue patent reexamination, either Inter Partes or Ex Parte, involves the balancing of significant considerations. There are certain disadvantages to the reexamination process.

    One important consideration is that the process gives the patentee the opportunity to amend its claims and add new claims. While the patentee may not broaden the scope of its claims, the patentee may amend the claims to (1) make them patentable in view of the prior art, including the new prior art cited by the challenger, and (2) make them more clearly cover the challenger’s allegedly infringing product. Another major disadvantage to the challenger, in the Inter Partes process, is that the challenger is estopped from challenging the patent in court, except in very limited circumstances. Thus, the patent may exit the process bulletproof.

    The Inter Partes challenger must be prepared to do its best job before the PTO because it is unlikely to get another opportunity if it fails to achieve the results it desires there.


  3. Ronald J Riley
    Mar 03 - 6:50 pm

    FTCR and PUBPAT are great examples of outfits which spew lots of hype with minimal substance. After all, they represent the interests of people and companies who are always second our later to the invention finish line. Interests who claim to be close but are never close enough to win an award.

    Both entities run fast and lose with facts. But PubPat takes first place in that race.

    They strut around whenever a patent gets a first office action rejection, neglecting to mention that such rejections are routine. And when they lose, and they are usually losing, they neglect to mention that they made the patents they are opposing much stronger.

    All of which is not a surprise, because the free software movement really needs to grow up and recognize that they cannot prop up their consulting business model with stolen intellectual property of others. Giving away software as a loss leader which is built on theft of others’ property to promote their business model is not acceptable conduct.

    Personally I view this group as a bunch of (at best) second raters who massage their egos by claiming that their recoding other’s inventions in software in a marginally different way makes them as good as the actual inventor.

    This is just not the case. They are thieves, pure and simple. They are in my opinion no better than those who acquire stolen cars and sell off the pieces.

    Ronald J. Riley,

    Speaking only on my own behalf.
    President – – RJR at
    Executive Director – – RJR at
    Senior Fellow –
    President – Alliance for American Innovation
    Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
    Washington, DC
    Direct (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 9 pm EST.

Mobile Theme