Re: Baxter and Hit Piece
Once again I have to bring up this point. Baxter was a EX partes reexamination and VHC vs Apple is an INTER partes reexamination
Please read below.....
What are the differences between an ex parte reexamination and an inter partes reexaminations?
Ex parte and inter partes reexaminations differ in several important respects. The differences between the two should be carefully considered before a request for reexamination is filed. Ex parte reexamination requests may be filed anonymously by any party, at any time. Inter partes reexamination requests must identify the real party in interest filing the request, and can only be filed for patents that issued from an original application filed in the United States on or after November 29, 1999. In ex parte reexamination, a patent owner is permitted (but not required) to submit a statement in response to a third party’s request for reexamination. The third party requestor is entitled to respond to the statement. However, after that point in an ex parte reexamination, a third party requestor cannot otherwise participate in the reexamination proceeding and cannot appeal the United States Patent and Trademark Office decisions, although the third party requester will receive copies of office actions and patent owner replies. In inter partes reexamination, the third party requester is entitled to file comments in response to submissions made by the Patent Owner (e.g., Replies to Office Actions and petitions) and can appeal the PTO’s decisions. The estoppels created as a result of an inter partes reexamination and concurrent litigation may be the most important difference between the two types of reexamination. Estoppels in an inter partes reexamination flow two ways—from the inter partes reexamination to the civil action and from the civil action to the inter partes reexamination. In a subsequent civil action, a party cannot argue invalidity of a claim finally determined to be valid or patentable on any ground which that party raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination. The third party is not, however, precluded from asserting invalidity based on newly discovered art that was unavailable to the third party requester and the PTO at the time of the inter partes reexamination. Similarly, once a final decision has been entered against a party in a civil action that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim in suit, the party and its privies cannot request inter partes reexamination on the basis of issues that the third party raised or could have raised in the civil action. No such estoppel provisions exist for ex parte reexaminations.