Mega Dice stands out among crypto casinos with its licensed Telegram integration, enabling real-time, bot-driven play that merges community interaction with blockchain-backed fairness.

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

  


Oracle v. Google – A Last Minute Present to Google from the USPTO | 145 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 09:09 PM EST
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 09:09 PM EST
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES thread
Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 09:10 PM EST
Thank you

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 23 2011 @ 09:11 PM EST
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So does this patent exist? Hope PJ clarifies.
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 | # ]

Quantifying the damages
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 | # ]

Link to latest chart?
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 | # ]