USPTO Rules in Favor of AirTight

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. -- The USPTO (Patent and Trademark Office) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) today ruled in favor of AirTight Networks and its U.S. Patent No. 7,002,943 in an interference action provoked by competitor, AirDefense. AirDefense provoked the interference by adding new claims to one of its pending patent applications. While AirDefense designed the new claims to look similar to AirTight’s already-issued patent claims, the BPAI specifically found AirDefense’s application lacked written support for its claims, and therefore ”has no standing to challenge the patentablility” of AirTight’s patent claims. The BPAI entered judgment against AirDefense and in favor of AirTight.

“It is apparent that AirDefense read our patent and wrote claims to read similarly to our invention in an apparent attempt to gain control of it. The court however found that there is no support for the rewritten claims in AirDefense’s patent application which shows that AirDefense was not in possession of the invention recited by the rewritten claims when they filed their patent application and hence AirDefense cannot obtain a patent with those re-written claims,” said Dr. Hemant Chaskar, Director Technology for AirTight. “We are pleased the PTO agreed with us that AirTight is the rightful owner of the coveted broad patent covering WIPS technology which was the subject of the interference, and which is an important aspect of effective WIPS protection.”

“It is apparent to us that AirDefense recognized the value of AirTight’s unique and valuable patented technology and sought to obtain control of it through this interference action. In the end the USPTO awarded AirTight a resounding victory in this action. This ruling by the USPTO for our seminal patent granted to AirTight in 2006 re-affirms AirTight’s leadership position as the first company to invent, deliver and patent a truly effective WIPS solution,” said Pravin Bhagwat, CTO of AirTight Networks. “It was our contention all along that the claims made by our competitor would be proven false and without merit.”

AirTight Networks Inc.