{"id":7459,"date":"2012-08-03T16:57:13","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T11:27:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/?p=993"},"modified":"2012-08-03T16:57:13","modified_gmt":"2012-08-03T11:27:13","slug":"parallel-reexamination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html","title":{"rendered":"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>This Legal Update is Contributed By: Aakarsh Kamra<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In an Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Case No. 04-CV-8604, the appellate panel agreed that statements made in an ongoing, pending reeexamination were relevant to the claim construction.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In this case, however, the Federal Circuit held that the reexamination statements were not direct enough to constitute prosecution disclaimer.\u00a0The appellate court\u2019s approach here looked particularly to the words used by to the patentee in the reexamination to identify any actual limitations or disclaimers and refused to read-between-the-lines to find implied disclaimers. In this sense, the decision supports the long-held prosecution strategy of keeping the prosecution history file thin.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Federal Circuit then offered its own broader construction of the term and remanded the case for reconsideration.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Background<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment of noninfringement to the defendants (Mako Products, Inc.; Air Sea Land Productions, Inc.; CineVideoTech, Inc.; Spectrum Effects, Inc.; Blue Sky Aerials, Inc.; Jordan Klein\u2019s, Sr.; Jordan Klein\u2019s, Jr.; and Oppenheimer Cine Rental, LLC) on the patent owned by David Grober and Voice\u00a0International, Inc. (\u201cAppellants\u201d). Several defendants cross-appeal the district court\u2019s denial of attorney\u2019s fees. For the reasons recited below, this court affirms-in-part, vacates-in-part, and remands to the district court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In 2006, David Grober won an academy award for the best technical achievement of the year for his \u201cperfect horizon\u201d camera stabilization head. The camera head is designed to compensate for motion during land, air, and sea operations of a camera. Grober\u2019s patent No. 6,611,662 covers the camera head and is the subject of this appeal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This case is like many that involve parallel legal proceedings. Grober filed an infringement action in 2004, Mako then filed an inter partes reexamination request \u2013 asking the USPTO to take a fresh look at the patent. The district court stayed the litigation until 2006. At that time, the court became antsy and reopened the case. After claim construction, the district court ruled that the accused products did not infringe the asserted claims and dismissed. Later, during the course of the appeal, the USPTO finally decided the reexamination by confirming the patentability of the asserted claims.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The court finds no error in the district court\u2019s personal jurisdiction determinations. Appellants did not show that the Kleins or Oppenheimer performed any \u00a0relevant activities to establish general or specific personal\u00a0jurisdiction. This court concludes that the district court\u00a0properly declined personal jurisdiction over the Kleins\u00a0and Oppenheimer.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The court vacates the district court\u2019s claim construction and vacates the grant of summary judgment for non-infringement. This court\u00a0remands for further proceedings. Finally, this court affirms the district court\u2019s personal jurisdiction determination.<\/p>\n<p><a title=\"Finnegan\" href=\"http:\/\/www.finnegan.com\/files\/Publication\/2d6441cf-2d84-42f4-8eff-67ceb76fb2c2\/Presentation\/PublicationAttachment\/da8f148d-e0ab-4b41-8ec1-682db139c5c2\/10-1519%207-30-12.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">.. Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This Legal Update is Contributed By: Aakarsh Kamra In an Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Case No. 04-CV-8604, the appellate panel&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[47],"tags":[1615,2441],"class_list":["post-7459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-update","tag-intellectual-property","tag-parallel-re-examination","no-post-thumbnail","clearfix","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v23.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"appellate court\u2019s approach here looked particularly to the words used by to the patentee in the reexamination to identify any actual limitations or disclaim\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"appellate court\u2019s approach here looked particularly to the words used by to the patentee in the reexamination to identify any actual limitations or disclaim\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lex.warrier.page\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lex-Warrier\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LexWarrier\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LexWarrier\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lex-Warrier\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lex-Warrier\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/person\/ab2bb19b344a2bfcbc373777495f8f82\"},\"headline\":\"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html\"},\"wordCount\":467,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\",\"Parallel re-examination\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Legal Update\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html\",\"name\":\"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00\",\"description\":\"appellate court\u2019s approach here looked particularly to the words used by to the patentee in the reexamination to identify any actual limitations or disclaim\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/\",\"name\":\"The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal\",\"description\":\"ISSN (O): 2319-8338\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.lex-warrier.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/The-Lex-Warrier-Online-Law-Journal-1.png?fit=496%2C160\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.lex-warrier.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/The-Lex-Warrier-Online-Law-Journal-1.png?fit=496%2C160\",\"width\":496,\"height\":160,\"caption\":\"The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lex.warrier.page\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LexWarrier\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/person\/ab2bb19b344a2bfcbc373777495f8f82\",\"name\":\"Lex-Warrier\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b7ad5c6449779ff1b8138f13b99bc7373067c121ed40965fc4da29ee734eeb28?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b7ad5c6449779ff1b8138f13b99bc7373067c121ed40965fc4da29ee734eeb28?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Lex-Warrier\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee","description":"appellate court\u2019s approach here looked particularly to the words used by to the patentee in the reexamination to identify any actual limitations or disclaim","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee","og_description":"appellate court\u2019s approach here looked particularly to the words used by to the patentee in the reexamination to identify any actual limitations or disclaim","og_url":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html","og_site_name":"The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lex.warrier.page\/","article_published_time":"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00","author":"Lex-Warrier","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LexWarrier","twitter_site":"@LexWarrier","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lex-Warrier","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html"},"author":{"name":"Lex-Warrier","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/person\/ab2bb19b344a2bfcbc373777495f8f82"},"headline":"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee","datePublished":"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00","dateModified":"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html"},"wordCount":467,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#organization"},"keywords":["Intellectual Property","Parallel re-examination"],"articleSection":["Legal Update"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html","url":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html","name":"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00","dateModified":"2012-08-03T11:27:13+00:00","description":"appellate court\u2019s approach here looked particularly to the words used by to the patentee in the reexamination to identify any actual limitations or disclaim","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/parallel-reexamination.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parallel reexamination can serve as a trap for a plaintiff-patentee"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/","name":"The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal","description":"ISSN (O): 2319-8338","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#organization","name":"The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal","url":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.lex-warrier.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/The-Lex-Warrier-Online-Law-Journal-1.png?fit=496%2C160","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.lex-warrier.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/The-Lex-Warrier-Online-Law-Journal-1.png?fit=496%2C160","width":496,"height":160,"caption":"The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lex.warrier.page\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LexWarrier"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/person\/ab2bb19b344a2bfcbc373777495f8f82","name":"Lex-Warrier","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b7ad5c6449779ff1b8138f13b99bc7373067c121ed40965fc4da29ee734eeb28?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b7ad5c6449779ff1b8138f13b99bc7373067c121ed40965fc4da29ee734eeb28?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Lex-Warrier"}}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ACRt-1Wj","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7459\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lex-warrier.in\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}