USPTO Rejects 2nd Claim by Motorola

In 2007, Motorola filed a lawsuit against Aruba Networks, claiming that Aruba infringed on four of its patents.  But last week, Aruba announced that the USPTO had issued a preliminary report that rejected all of the claims in one of the patents.  Today was another good day for Aruba, as it announced that 12 of 14 claims in a second patent asserted by Motorola have been rejected by the Patent Office.

In the report announced today, CNNMoney reported that the rejected claims would narrow the Motorola patent, as well as nullifying any claims for damages from past infringement of the invalidated claims. 

“For the second time in the month of February, the USPTO has issued an action that is very favorable to Aruba,” said Mike Reinemann of Cesari and McKenna, patent counsel to Aruba. “The preliminary ruling finds that the great majority of claims in Patent No. 6,625,454 are unpatentable, and the two surviving claims are not at issue in the case. We look forward to receiving initial rulings from the Patent Office in the pending re-examinations of Motorola’s other two patents.”

Last September, Aruba filed a patent infringement countersuit against Motorola and two of its subsidiaries.  Aruba alleges that Motorola infringed on two of Aruba’s patent related to managing wireless computer networks and network security.

USPTO Rejects Claims Asserted by Motorola

In 2007, Motorola asserted four patents against Aruba Networks, a maker of wireless LANs and secure mobility solutions.  Aruba soon filed a counter suit alleging that Motorola infringed on two of their own patents, while also requesting the USPTO re-examine all four patents based on prior art.  Earlier today, Aruba announced that the USPTO had issued a preliminary re-examination report that rejected one of the patents asserted by Motorola in 2007.

According to CNNMoney.com, requests for re-examination are often successful in having the patent either changed or completely revoked.  The rejected patent was actually owned by a Motorola subsidiary, Wireless Valley, and Aruba claimed that Wireless Valley’s user manual predated its patent application by over twelve months.  Wireless Valley failed to provide this manual in full to the USPTO, and apparently this was enough for the patent to become invalidated.  The three other re-examinations are still pending.

As for the countersuit, Aruba is seeking a permanent injunction against use of its patented technologies, as well as monetary damages.  The first patent in question was assumed by Aruba as part of its acquisition of AirWave Wireless, while the second was issued to Aruba in May of 2008.