|
|
| Oracle v. Google - A Last Minute Present to Google from the USPTO |
 |
|
Friday, December 23 2011 @ 08:05 PM EST
|
The USPTO has delivered one final (rejection) holiday package to Google, this one at Oracle's expense. On December 20 the USPTO issued a final rejection in the ex parte reexamination of Oracle's U.S. Patent No. 6,192,476. All of the claims of the patent were subject to reexamination, including Claim 14. Claim 14 of the patent was the only claim being asserted by Oracle in this litigation.
In its final rejection the USPTO rejected 17 of the 21 claims of the '476 patent, including all seven of the patent's independent claims. Maybe the number of claims at issue in this litigation will be less than 26 after all.
Oracle still has until February 20, 2012 in which to seek reconsideration or appeal of the final rejection. In the meantime, the picture doesn't look pretty for Oracle.
Here is the final rejection in pdf form: Final Rejection
************
Docket
655 - Filed and Effective: 12/23/2011
Statement
Document Text: Joint Update on Re-Examination of 476 Patent by Oracle America, Inc.
(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/23/2011) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
Document
655
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
JOINT UPDATE ON REEXAMINATION
OF ’476 PATENT
Date: December 21, 2011
Time: 8:00 a.m.
Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
Oracle America, Inc. and Google Inc. jointly submit this update on the PTO’s progress in
reexamining the only asserted claim (Claim 14) of the ’476 patent. On December 20, 2011, the
PTO issued a final office action rejecting Claim 14 of the ’476 patent. Any response by Oracle
seeking reconsideration or appeal of this action is due on February 20, 2012.
1
Dated: December 23, 2011
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[email]
KENNETH A. KUWAYTI (Bar No. 145384)
[email]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[email]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[email address telephone fax]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[email address telephone fax]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[email address telephone fax]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[email]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[email]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No.
211600)
[email address telephone fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
2
Dated: December 23, 2011
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
By: /s/Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST (SBN 84065)
[email]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON (SBN184325)
[email]
DANIEL PURCELL (SBN 191424)
[email address telephone fax]
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[email]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email address telephone fax]
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. (SBN 112279)
[email]
CHERYL A. SABNIS (SBN 224323)
[email]
KING & SPALDING LLP
[address telephone fax]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
IAN C. BALLON (SBN 141819)
[email]
HEATHER MEEKER (SBN 172148)
[email address telephone fax]
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.
3
ATTESTATION
I, Michael A. Jacobs, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
JOINT UPDATE ON RE-EXAMINATION OF ̕476 PATENT. In compliance with General
Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Robert A. Van Nest has concurred in this filing.
Date: December 23, 2011
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
4
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 09:09 PM EST |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 09:09 PM EST |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- News Pick discussions - Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 10:02 PM EST
- I just got a call from GoDaddy... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 12:27 AM EST
- Go Daddy loses over 37,000 domains due to SOPA stance - Authored by: kjs on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 09:55 PM EST
- Stealing Secrets in the Sky ?WHY HOW - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 10:17 AM EST
- Greed - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Stupidity - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 02:22 PM EST
- Greed and Stupidity - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 05:01 PM EST
- Literary works written by a lawyer -- how about Yoda-speak? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 02:35 PM EST
- Warner Bros sued for copyright violation - Authored by: complex_number on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 03:18 PM EST
- Car Owner Takes Legal Fight Away From Lawyers - Authored by: crs17 on Tuesday, December 27 2011 @ 10:05 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 09:10 PM EST |
| Thank you [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 09:11 PM EST |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What OS does Santa use? (poll) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 10:46 PM EST
- Possible Impact of Piracy Act on U.S. Economy - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 01:41 AM EST
- The Facebook oracle - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 03:38 AM EST
- Beautiful- Titan, Dione, Tethys - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 03:43 AM EST
- Oracle's list of products that practice the patents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 07:54 AM EST
- A rare glimpse inside North Korea - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 10:15 AM EST
- Metro Doesn't Necessarily Scale Well To Office - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 12:43 PM EST
- Canada - The Year in Tech Law, from A to Z - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 03:20 PM EST
- Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 25 2011 @ 04:00 AM EST
- Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 25 2011 @ 01:38 PM EST
- Hackers Breach the Web Site of Stratfor Global Intelligence - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 25 2011 @ 10:53 PM EST
- Berkeley Explains Why Google Trumps Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 07:34 AM EST
- Censorship: What happened in Denmark - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 02:17 PM EST
- Mozilla gets $900M in search deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 03:30 PM EST
- What's in a name? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 26 2011 @ 09:10 PM EST
- WiFi on Steroids - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, December 27 2011 @ 08:18 AM EST
- Apple caught again - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 27 2011 @ 11:43 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 03:27 AM EST |
I wonder whether this patent will be considered in existence if this 'final
rejection' stands. I ask because PJ once responded to a poster here, that the
USPTO is not the final authority on the validity or invalidity of patents.
But I also see that one cannot infinge a patent that isn't on the books, which
includes rejected patents.
Can the courts force the USPTO to register a patent in dispute between iself and
a party in Oracles position?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 06:17 PM EST |
Did Oracle's expert calculate the damages resulting from this patent
specifically?
If so, Oracle should certainly have to subtract that amount from
their damages report.
If not, how is the report accurate now that a significant fraction
of the patents at issue (1/7 or so) is no longer valid?
--Jpvlsmv, not logged in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2011 @ 09:51 PM EST |
Can someone put a link to the latest chart? I can't figure out
where it is :([ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
