Whose Prior Art Filing Triggered Eolas Reexam?

theodp writes "The Eolas patent case history shows another prior art filing was quietly made ten days before the widely-publicized W3C filing and two weeks before Tim Berner-Lee's reexam request. Now Ray Ozzie speculates the earlier filing was one being floated at the time that was jointly signed by a number of other parties who supported W3C member Dave Raggett's prior art, which Microsoft unsuccessfully tried to use in the $521 million Eolas lawsuit. Ozzie also notes that those involved argued for all to stand solidly behind the Raggett prior art and not cite anything else. So who are these other parties, and was it their filing and lobbying that triggered the Eolas reexam?"

Comments

I find the patent

[Srividya]

This is the Eolas text. Who thinks such a thing novel?

What this is all about

[milgr]

The poster could have indicated what all these patents were about - instead of referencing them by somewhat obscure names.

These patents deal with browser plugins - and relate to a lawsuit that Microsoft lost.

Re:Answer here

[SlashdotLemming]

From the greatest site ever: $2000 without a lawyer.

Re:Serious Question for L's and IANAL's

[Anonymous Coward]

Filing papers isn't too hard, but you'll want to be sure you are using the right form: (PTO/SB/42)

http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0042.pdf

There are several ways to file prior art depending on the status of the application, but this is likely what you are looking for. This filing, known as a "501", is free. It is unlikely that the PTO will decide to reexamine a patent on their own volition(known as sua sponte). Usually you have to file a request for a reexamination. The fee is about $9,000, plus the cost of counsel.

If you'd like to do some light reading on this kind of filing, it was created under Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, rule 1.501 (cited as 37 C.F.R. 1.501). You can find a reference in the United States Code at 35 U.S.C. 301 (the law) and in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), the book the patent examiners use, at MPEP 2202. All of these resources are on the web, but check that you are looking at the latest revision (Feb 2003, 8th edition, first revision). These are all available at the USPTO website.

This isn't intended to be legal advice, and this doesn't mean that I am accepting you as a client. If you are planning to try and take down a major patent (or do much of anything with the USPTO) you really ought to seek qualified representation. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a member of the patent bar (basically I have a license to file for patents).

case lost?

[wine]

Dan Gillmor link to the Patent Application Information Retrieval for this patent. All actions with regard to this patent are being logged there in the The File Contents History.

A interesting entree from 02-23-2001 says: Case Reported Lost! Unfortunately it was found again. :(

In other words, a patent law DOS attack

[John Murdoch]

Hi!

I can understand why filing a patent costs a lot of money. But if a bad patent is granted it should be easy to have it revoked, not $9000+. After all, we're essentially doing the job that the reviewer should have done in the first place.

Or, we're abusing the patent process to jerk around a competitor. Or we're abusing the process to defeat the nefarious schemes of companies we despise. Or maybe we're senior citizens that have adopted filing patent claims as a hobby....

Once upon a time patents cost very little--and the actual costs of the USPTO (like lots of parts of the U.S. government) were borne by the average taxpayer. In the 1970s and following the government moved toward "user fees"--charging the recipients of a federal program for its costs. Thus visitors to most national parks pay a fee, cruise ship operators pay a fee for Coast Guard inspections, and children pay an annual fee to participate in 4-H. This is the same thing: the people who do business with the USPTO help fund its operation. And the cost structure deters people (hopefully) from clogging it unnecessarily.

Re:Another Harpy dives on Al Gore's corpse

[Zenjive]

The Washington press corps took Gore's statement, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," and changed "initiative" to "invent" which makes it mean something else entirely. In fact it becomes an absurd statement, one the RNC was glad to jump on like flies on shit and paint Gore as a liar.

Go here and scroll down to "Where does spin come from? Inventing the Internet".