Comments on: CAFC Rules Patent Applicant’s Own Copyrighted Manuscript Not Publicly Accessible http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/27/patent-applicant-barely-avoids-%e2%80%9cpublicly-accessible%e2%80%9d-hazard-of-own-copyrighted-manuscript-on-playing-golf/id=6852/ Patents, Patent Applications, Patent Law Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:20:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jules http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/27/patent-applicant-barely-avoids-%e2%80%9cpublicly-accessible%e2%80%9d-hazard-of-own-copyrighted-manuscript-on-playing-golf/id=6852/#comment-9343 Jules Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:49:44 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6852#comment-9343 Well, I finally got around to reading SRI International v. Internet Security Systems. Quite a good read, with a good dissent. I think you are right about the lack of consensus in the Federal Circuit. One thing I would bet on is that we will probably see more cases like this one in the future. Looking forward to your article. It should help folks like me who must have been on vacation when that case was decided =) Well, I finally got around to reading SRI International v. Internet Security Systems. Quite a good read, with a good dissent. I think you are right about the lack of consensus in the Federal Circuit. One thing I would bet on is that we will probably see more cases like this one in the future. Looking forward to your article. It should help folks like me who must have been on vacation when that case was decided =)

]]> By: EG http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/27/patent-applicant-barely-avoids-%e2%80%9cpublicly-accessible%e2%80%9d-hazard-of-own-copyrighted-manuscript-on-playing-golf/id=6852/#comment-8876 EG Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:16:32 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6852#comment-8876 Jules, Glad you enjoyed my wrie up. I happen to be a "golf fanatic," so I had a great time sprinkling in some appropriate golf terminology. I've got a much longer article in progress (which includes the Lister case) on when electronically posted documents may become a "printed publication" bar. The "seminal" case on this subject is SRI International v. Internet Security Systems involving a document that was temporarily posed on an FTP server. There is a majority opinion by Judge Rader, and a partially dissenting opinion by Judge Moore in that case. Needless to say there's absolutely no consensus in the Federal Circuit on how to apply the "printed publication" bar in the Internet age. So far, I've come up with 4 issues/challenges in applying "printed publication" bars to electronically posted documents: 1. Use only “publicly accessible” criteria in judging electronically posted documents as “printed publication” bars. The Federal Circuit has created significant confusion by mixing together the “printed publication” bar criteria from the “publicly accessible” (e.g., “thesis/library”) cases, with the “printed publication” bar criteria from the “dissemination” (e.g., “public conference”) cases. Situations involving documents electronically posted are more analogous to a stationary library, so only "publicly accessible" cases are normally relevant. 2. Internet search capabilities should be assessed as of the time the “printed publication” bar allegedly occurred, and without reference to those capabilities at the time the case is decided. The SRI International case hints at the inherent danger of being potentially influenced and unduly prejudiced by current knowledge of Internet search capabilities. 3. It is the Internet search skills of the “target audience” that matters most to what is “publicly accessible,” and not their knowledge of the relevant “art.” The SRI International case also suggests challenges in correctly assessing and determining what the Internet search skills are of the relevant “person of ordinary skill in the art” (i.e., the “target audience”) who might be accessing the document which is electronically posted. 4. The potential “transitory” nature of electronically posted documents may affect what is “publicly accessible.” Realistically evaluating the “public accessibility” of such “transitory” content could be a significant challenge/issue. I hope to have this article completed by the end of this year or by early next year. Stay tuned. Jules,

Glad you enjoyed my wrie up. I happen to be a “golf fanatic,” so I had a great time sprinkling in some appropriate golf terminology.

I’ve got a much longer article in progress (which includes the Lister case) on when electronically posted documents may become a “printed publication” bar. The “seminal” case on this subject is SRI International v. Internet Security Systems involving a document that was temporarily posed on an FTP server. There is a majority opinion by Judge Rader, and a partially dissenting opinion by Judge Moore in that case.

Needless to say there’s absolutely no consensus in the Federal Circuit on how to apply the “printed publication” bar in the Internet age. So far, I’ve come up with 4 issues/challenges in applying “printed publication” bars to electronically posted documents:

1. Use only “publicly accessible” criteria in judging electronically posted documents as “printed publication” bars. The Federal Circuit has created significant confusion by mixing together the “printed publication” bar criteria from the “publicly accessible” (e.g., “thesis/library”) cases, with the “printed publication” bar criteria from the “dissemination” (e.g., “public conference”) cases. Situations involving documents electronically posted are more analogous to a stationary library, so only “publicly accessible” cases are normally relevant.

2. Internet search capabilities should be assessed as of the time the “printed publication” bar allegedly occurred, and without reference to those capabilities at the time the case is decided. The SRI International case hints at the inherent danger of being potentially influenced and unduly prejudiced by current knowledge of Internet search capabilities.

3. It is the Internet search skills of the “target audience” that matters most to what is “publicly accessible,” and not their knowledge of the relevant “art.” The SRI International case also suggests challenges in correctly assessing and determining what the Internet search skills are of the relevant “person of ordinary skill in the art” (i.e., the “target audience”) who might be accessing the document which is electronically posted.

4. The potential “transitory” nature of electronically posted documents may affect what is “publicly accessible.” Realistically evaluating the “public accessibility” of such “transitory” content could be a significant challenge/issue.

I hope to have this article completed by the end of this year or by early next year. Stay tuned.

]]> By: Jules http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/27/patent-applicant-barely-avoids-%e2%80%9cpublicly-accessible%e2%80%9d-hazard-of-own-copyrighted-manuscript-on-playing-golf/id=6852/#comment-8870 Jules Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:02:14 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6852#comment-8870 Nice write up on an interesting case. I especially like the quote at the end from the Federal Circuit. Nice write up on an interesting case. I especially like the quote at the end from the Federal Circuit.

]]>