Cooper Cameron: First Inter Partes Reexam Appeal to the Federal Circuit

Cooper Cameron v. SAFOCO (Fed. Cir. 2009) (2009-1435) (Reexam No. 95/000,017)

The Cooper Cameron case looks to be the first inter partes reexamination appeal heard by the Federal Circuit. In a recent filing to the Federal Circuit, PTO Solicitor Ray Chen filed an interesting brief – indicating that the PTO should be captioned as a party in the case under 35 USC 143. Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2009-1435.pdf . Substantive briefs have not yet been filed in the case.

In the parallel infringement litigation, the S.D. Tex. court recently held that the reexamination is not yet “finally determined” under the estoppel provisions of Section 315(c) because (1) a reexamination certificate has not yet issued and (2) all appeals are not final. CooperCameron.pdf

Notes: A parallel case with the same parties is also pending appeal for Reexam No. 95/000,015. The BPAI treated these cases jointly in a December 2008 decision. The patents cover a valve actuator for hydraulic systems.

7 thoughts on “Cooper Cameron: First Inter Partes Reexam Appeal to the Federal Circuit

  1. 7

    Noise, I don’t understand what you want from me. The USA is a world leader in “innovation” which includes innovations in workplaces on Wall Street, in Hollywood and on Madison Avenue. That would be pretty much undisputed, I would think, all over the world. POTUS is right, to remind Americans that innovation creates wealth, so the conditions in which such innovation thrives need to be nurtured.

    To be provocative, I would suggest that Madison Avenue, Wall Street and Hollywood were all just as innovative prior to State Street, that there is no evidence that State Street has helped innovation, and that such evidence we have is that State Street has harmed innovation (in the sense that investors in the manufacture of innovatory products in America are, in the wake of State Street, more uncertain and more afraid).

    For what they’re worth then, those are my thoughts.

  2. 6


    Perhaps you can see through your misplaced adoration of 6 and compare and contrast the statements above. Yes, I am asking you to actually think (yet again).

  3. 4


    compare and contrast your posts with a quote from 6 on another thread:

    “That doesn’t change the fact that the patent “bargain” is between the gov and the inventor, for the purpose of advancing the state of knowledge directly, not for the purpose of providing jobs to sorta kinda maybe eventually advance the state of knowledge. The market is “supposed” to take care of that, so far as I’m aware.”

  4. 3

    Why wouldn’t the PTO be a party? 35 USC 143 says that the PTO participates in appeals from ex parte cases, and “all reexaminations.”

  5. 2

    Obama also said today:

    “I’ve also proposed reducing to zero the capital gains tax for investments in small or startup businesses. Because small businesses are innovative businesses; small businesses produce 13 times more patents per employee than large companies.”

  6. 1

    Obama said today: “The United States led the world’s economies in the 20th century because we led the world in innovation. Today, the competition is keener; the challenge is tougher; and that’s why innovation is more important than ever. That’s the key to good, new jobs in the 21st century. That’s how we will ensure a high quality of life for this generation and future generations.”

Comments are closed.