I thought Vringo recieved notice that the patents on most claims held up. Now
they get a second rejection by examiners. What is going on???????????? Now the one thing I didn't see in the PR is the words "This is common practice" in patent cases. I can't believe Vringo didn't see this coming or at least lay out the possibilities of what to expect. "LOOPHOLE" found hence Google has been denying infringement all this time!
This is not a loophole, what are you talking about? Please read the actual re-exam before posting. First this pertains to claims Ex Parte Reexamination that was ONLY granted for claims 10, 14, 15, 25, 27, and 28. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16-24, 26, and 29-36 are not subject to reexamination. The basis of the rejection is because the context of the word "wire" and "wire system" was not clear enough in those claims in question. This type of thing happens all the time and it does not mean anything other than Vringo will appeal it and narrow the claim (that is what you do) - however they probably do not need to even narrow the language in order to win against Google's inevitable appeal. This is what patent litigation is all about, chiiiiilllllaaaaxxxx randog.
"Requests for re-examinations are a standard tactic used by defendants in patent litigation cases"
On September 25, 2012, the USPTO issued a first, non-final office action where it adopted the rejections proposed by Google. Today, the USPTO notified I/P Engine that examiners assigned to the re-examination maintained their rejections of the claims of the `420 patent.
Cameron, help me here. Are you saying the rejections are against Google's claims or that they defend Google's claims? Is this a sentence you have to read forwards and backwards to understand. Why would Vringo mention filing an appeal regarding this action if good news?