You may recall from our last communication on this case that the judge declined to issue a stay of the case pending the anticipated reexamination of the asserted patents because the USPTO had yet to accept the reexamination request. Well, that worm has now turned.

According to a status report filed with the court by Yahoo! (see full text below), the reexamination requests with respect to three of the four patents have been granted, and we should expect to hear about the fourth any day now.

Two of the reexamination requests (those for patents 6263507 and 6034652) were filed as ex parte requests. That means the requesting party has submitted what they believe to be relevant prior art, but it is entirely up to the examiner to assess the relevance of that prior art and apply it with no further input from the requesting party. In the other two cases (patents 6788314 and 6757682) the requests are for inter partes reexaminations, meaning the requesting party is an on-going participant to the reexamination process. Why were two of the requests made ex parte and the other two inter partes? For patents issued with filing dates before November 11, 1999, a requesting party may only request ex parte examination.

So how extensive are these reexamination requests? See for yourself. Linked below are the reexamination requests, the order granting the reexamination, and, where applicable, the non-final rejection for each of the three cases accepted for reexamination so far. We will add the fourth case when it is accepted (which it almost certainly will be). We have not converted these documents to text because they are really long.

Patent No. 6263507
Control No. 90/011577
Granted 5/6/11

Request for Ex Parte Reexamination [PDF]

Order Granting Reexamination [PDF]



Patent No. 6034652
Control No. 90/011576
Granted 5/20/11

Request for Ex Parte Reexamination [PDF]

Order Granting Reexamination [PDF]



Patent No. 6788314
Control No. 95/001577
Granted 5/19/11

Request for Inter Partes Reexamination [PDF]

Order Granting Reexamination [PDF]

Non-Final Rejection [PDF]



Patent No. 6757682
Control No. 95/001576
Not yet granted

Request for Inter Partes Reexamination [PDF]

***************************

Honorable Marsha J. Pechman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

INTERVAL LICENSING LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AOL, INC.; APPLE, INC.; eBAY, INC.;
FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE INC.; NETFLIX,
INC.; OFFICE DEPOT, INC.; OFFICEMAX INC.;
STAPLES, INC.; YAHOO! INC.; and YOUTUBE,
LLC,

Defendants.

_______________________

Case No. 2:11-CV-00716-MJP
Lead Case No. 2:10-CV-01385-MJP

STATUS REPORT REGARDING
PETITIONS FOR
REEXAMINATION

As instructed by the Court during the April 25, 2011 Hearing on Defendants’ Motions to Sever (Dkt. 229, 230), the parties, through their undersigned whips, advise the Court of the status of the Requests for Reexamination that are pending with respect to each of the Patents-In- Suit.

Patent No.	Request for Reexamination Filed (Control No.)	Status
6,263,507	March 17, 2011 (90/011,577) (ex parte)	Reexamination Granted 5/6/2011
6,034,652	March 16, 2011 (90/011,576) (ex parte)	Reexamination Granted 5/20/2011
6,788,314	March 16, 2011 (95/001,577) (inter partes)	Reexamination Granted and First Office Action Issued 5/19/2011
6,757,682	March 16, 2011 (95/001,576) (inter partes)	Awaiting Response from PTO

FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP

Dated: May 24, 2011 By: s/Mark P. Walters
Mark P. Walters, WSBA No. 30819
Dario A. Machleidt, WSBA No. 41860
[address, phone, fax, email]

Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo! Inc.

By: s/Justin A. Nelson
Justin A. Nelson
SUSMAN GODFREY
[address, phone, email]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Interval Licensing

**********

UPDATE

The reexamination request on the last of the four Interval patents has now been granted. The updated information on that reexamination is listed below:

Patent No. 6757682
Control No. 95/001576
Reexamination grante 6/3/2011

Request for Inter Partes Reexamination [PDF]

Notice of Non-Final Action [PDF]

*************