Timebase Pty Ltd v. Thomson Corporation, The

Filing 63

STATUS REPORT by Timebase Pty Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Declaration of Arthur A. Gasey)(Gasey, Arthur)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 07 C 0460 Honorable George W. Lindberg JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TIMEBASE PTY LTD., Plaintiff, vs. THE THOMSON CORPORATION, Defendant. 1. 2 . 2008. DECLARATION OF ARTHUR A. GASEY I, Arthur A. Gasey, declare: I am one of the attorneys for TimeBase Pty Ltd. in this case. The documents attached are accurate copies of PTO data as of September 30, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on December 5, 2008. /s/ Arthur A. Gasey Arthur A. Gasey UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2008 1. Total requests filed since start of ex partes reexam on 07/01/81 .................................. 9585 1 a. By patent owner b. By other member of public c. By order of Commissioner 2. Number of filings by discipline a. b. c. d. 3. Chemical Operation Electrical Operation Mechanical Operation Design Patents 2811 3261 3357 156 29% 34% 35% 2% 3567 5853 165 37% 61% 2% Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings Fiscal Yr. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 No. 78 (3 mos.) 187 186 189 230 232 240 268 Fiscal Yr. No. 1989 243 1990 297 1991 307 1992 392 1993 359 1994 379 1995 392 1996 418 Fiscal Yr. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 No. 376 350 385 318 296 272 392 441 Fiscal Yr. 2005 2006 2007 2008 No. 524 511 643 680 4. 5. Number known to be in litigation}}}}...}.........................................2849..................30% Decisions on requests..............................................................................9219 a. No. granted............................................................ ...8467......................92% ..... (1) By examiner (2) By Director (on petition) 8354 113 b. No. denied ..................................................................752..................8% (1) By examiner (2) Reexam vacated 1 717 35 Of the requests received in FY 2008, 7 requests have not yet been accorded a filing date, and preprocessing of 15 requests was terminated for failure to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.510. See Clarification of Filing Date Requirements for Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings, Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 44219 (August 4, 2006). 1 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reserved by Director).....................................830 a. Patent owner requester b. Third party requester 441 389 53% 47% 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date) a. Average pendency b. Median pendency 24.5 (mos.) 19.0 (mos.) Owner Requester 22% 8% 70% 3rd Party Requester 28% 13% 59% Comm'r Initiated 12% 21% 67% Overall 25% 11% 64% 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: a. b. c. All claims confirmed All claims cancelled Claims changes 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 present) ...........................6457 a. Certificates with all claims confirmed b. Certificates with all claims canceled c. Certificates with claims changes 1624 721 4112 25% 11% 64% 10. Reexam claim analysis requester is patent owner or 3rd party; or Comm'r initiated. a. Certificates PATENT OWNER REQUESTER .........................................2722 (1) All claims confirmed (2) All claims canceled (3) Claim changes b. 611 214 1897 22% 8% 70% Certificates 3rd PARTY REQUESTER ..................................................3588 (1) All claims confirmed (2) All claims canceled (3) Claim changes 995 476 2117 28% 13% 59% c. Certificates COMM'R INITIATED REEXAM ..........................................147 (1) All claims confirmed (2) All claims canceled (3) Claim changes 18 31 98 12% 21% 67% 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?