http://www.ipwatchdog.com Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Sat, 18 May 2013 16:14:35 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/#comments Tue, 14 May 2013 19:16:13 +0000 John Kong http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40344 Related posts:

1. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
2. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
3. Is IBM’s Watson Still Patent Eligible?Watson? It is an artificially intelligent computer system that is capable of answering questions presented in natural language. It is, in essence, the modern day equivalent to the all knowing Star Trek computer. It is flat out ridiculous to be asking whether the Star Trek omnipotent computer could be patent eligible, that that is where we find ourselves because what makes the computer unique is the software that makes it possible for Watson to perform 80 trillion operations per second. But Federal Circuit Judges say that mere fact that software is fast doesn't make it patent eligible unless there is...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/feed/ 6 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/12/5-cafc-judges-say-computers-patentable-not-software/id=40251/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/12/5-cafc-judges-say-computers-patentable-not-software/id=40251/#comments Sun, 12 May 2013 16:54:45 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40251 Related posts:

1. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
2. Is IBM’s Watson Still Patent Eligible?Watson? It is an artificially intelligent computer system that is capable of answering questions presented in natural language. It is, in essence, the modern day equivalent to the all knowing Star Trek computer. It is flat out ridiculous to be asking whether the Star Trek omnipotent computer could be patent eligible, that that is where we find ourselves because what makes the computer unique is the software that makes it possible for Watson to perform 80 trillion operations per second. But Federal Circuit Judges say that mere fact that software is fast doesn't make it patent eligible unless there is...
3. Are Robots Patent Eligible?Why have claims if the claims don't matter. Essentially Judge Lourie, and the Canadian Patent Office too, are saying ignore the claims and read the specification to determine what the innovation is and then without regard to the language of the claims make your determination. Under this viewpoint claims are simply irrelevant. Yet we know that claims are not irrelevant, and such a view is directly contrary to the Patent Act itself. Ignoring claims is utterly ridiculous given inventions are not patentable. Patent claims are supposed to be evaluating NOT the entirety of the invention. The sine quo non of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/12/5-cafc-judges-say-computers-patentable-not-software/id=40251/feed/ 17 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/#comments Fri, 10 May 2013 17:26:50 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40230 Related posts:

1. Did the Federal Circuit Ignore the Supreme Court in CLS Bank?While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. Signature Financial, in Bilski v. Kappos, 8 out of 9 Justices (i.e., everyone except Justice Scalia) signed onto an opinion that recognized that the patent claims in State Street displayed patent eligible subject matter. Indeed, the dissenters in Bilski specifically acknowledged that the claims at issue in State Street did not deal with processes, but dealt with machines. See Footnote 40 of the Steven's dissent. The import of this is that machines are specifically patent eligible subject matter, so if...
2. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
3. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/feed/ 280 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/14/in-re-jeffrey-hubbell-an-inventor-changing-jobs-creates-double-patenting-problem/id=37446/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/14/in-re-jeffrey-hubbell-an-inventor-changing-jobs-creates-double-patenting-problem/id=37446/#comments Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:45:11 +0000 Scott Daniels & Steve Adrian http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=37446 Related posts:

1. Do Patent Applicants have a Chance at the CAFC?Do patent applicants appealing a rejection of their claims from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board have a chance of success at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? What about patentees appealing to the CAFC from rejections in reexamination proceedings? The candid answer is not much of a chance. Of course, every case is different and needs to be considered on its own merits. Yet, the standards for review of Board decisions, followed by the CAFC, significantly favor affirmance of those decisions....
2. Divisional of Divisional Reaches Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C § 121Some may recall my “dissertation” on the case of Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. See CAFC: A Divisional By Any Other Name Is Not a Divisional .  In Amgen, the Federal Circuit made it clear that you had better characterize an application as a “divisional” if you wanted the benefit of the “safe [...]...
3. CAFC: A Divisional By Any Other Name Is Not a DivisionalThe Federal Circuit, in Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, has made it clear that you had better characterize an application as a “divisional” if you want to the benefit of the “safe harbor” provided by 35 U.S.C § 121. And if you don’t, you’re going face obviousness-type double patenting problems.  The Federal Circuit [...]...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/14/in-re-jeffrey-hubbell-an-inventor-changing-jobs-creates-double-patenting-problem/id=37446/feed/ 5 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/08/hall-v-bed-bath-beyond-design-infringement-can-proceed/id=34684/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/08/hall-v-bed-bath-beyond-design-infringement-can-proceed/id=34684/#comments Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:30:32 +0000 Jason Williams http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=34684 Related posts:

1. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory v. Yujiro Nagata: Assignor Estoppel is Affirmative Defense, No Supplemental JurisdictionSemiconductor Energy Laboratory (“SEL”) appealed the decision of the District Court of California that dismissed with prejudice SEL’s complaint versus Yujiro Nagata (“Nagata”) due to a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) –lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The CAFC also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a number of state law claims. Ultimately, the CAFC affirmed the decision of the district court stating in part: “[b]ecause the district court did not err in holding that there is no federal cause of action based on assignor estoppel and did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state...
2. CAFC Rules Validity of Design Patent Judged by Ordinary Observer TestLast year, an en banc Federal Circuit ruled in the seminal case of Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. that the so-called “point of novelty” test was no longer valid in determining design patent infringement.  Instead, design patent infringement was to be judged solely by the “ordinary observer” test from the 1871 Supreme Court case [...]...
3. Patent Trolling? ExoTablet Sues Over Allegedly Infringing PadFoneThe complaint alleges that two ASUS products sold by Negri Electronics violate a patent that ExoTablet currently holds for combination laptop/cell phone devices: the PadFone and the PadFone 2. ExoTablet is seeking compensation for infringement, lost profits due to infringement, prejudgment interest and treble damages. Negri Electronics does not seem to be too concerned, or at least believes that it has a very strong legal case in defense. Ryan Negri said that the company was very surprised by the legal action, and that they consider the case to be “frivolous.” “The technology industry has been rife with patent trolling in...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/08/hall-v-bed-bath-beyond-design-infringement-can-proceed/id=34684/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/16/cafc-favors-non-practicing-entities-on-domestic-injury/id=33231/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/16/cafc-favors-non-practicing-entities-on-domestic-injury/id=33231/#comments Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:30:45 +0000 Cindy Chen http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=33231 Related posts:

1. GE Wins at Federal Circuit in Mitsubishi Wind Turbine CaseOn Friday, July 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in General Electric Co. v. ITC. The Federal Circuit, per Judge Newman with Chief Judge Rader and Judge Linn, did not give GE a total victory, but victory enough over Mitsubishi. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the original decision of the ITC, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the decision. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit ruled that claim 15 of the '985 patent, correctly construed, covers the domestic industry turbines. Of note, the CAFC continues...
2. Do you have what it takes to bring suit at the ITC? — Standing and the ITC’s domestic industry requirementPut simply, Section 337 requires that an ITC complainant show that, as of the time of filing, (a) it maintains a certain level of economic activity within the United States in connection with the asserted intellectual property right, and (b) this economic activity is devoted to exploiting the intellectual property right at issue (in the case of a patent, at least one claim of the asserted patent). Alternatively, the complainant may show that a domestic industry “is in the process of being established.” This standing requirement is called the “domestic industry requirement,” and the two sub-requirements listed above are called...
3. Patent Mass Aggregators: The Giants Among UsThe types of returns promised to investors and the types of benefits offered to participants are also quite different from garden-variety non-practicing entities, as are some of the tactics used in organizing the entities and in asserting the patents. Finally, the scale itself is simply mind-boggling. Mass aggregators operate on a scale and at a level of sophistication and complexity that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. They have taken the prototype strategies pioneered by a prior generation of non-practicing entities and changed them into some of the cleverest strategies yet seen in the intellectual property rights field....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/16/cafc-favors-non-practicing-entities-on-domestic-injury/id=33231/feed/ 1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/10/29/aipla-honors-judge-newman-with-excellence-award/id=29365/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/10/29/aipla-honors-judge-newman-with-excellence-award/id=29365/#comments Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:30:47 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=29365 Related posts:

1. UNH Law Honors Newman, Gajarsa Named Distinguished JuristThere is much to write about the event, but I will start my week long coverage with an overview of the event. As the week progresses I will delve into some interesting substantive discussions that took place over this Intellectual Property weekend in the Granite State, including: (1) Chief Judge Rader tell me during the Judges' panel: "You aren't making any sense..."; (2) Chief Judge Rader daring anyone to come up with proof that the Supreme Court's decision in KSR did anything to change previous Federal Circuit case law on obviousness (I'll take that challenge!); and (3) Jon Dudas, the...
2. AIPLA Bestows Annual AwardsThe American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) bestowed its highest awards on professionals in the IP industry during the 2012 Annual Meeting, October 25-27 in Washington, DC. ...
3. IPO Honors Judge Michel and Dupont Inventors at SmithsonianAt these types of ceremonies everyone says such nice things, but what Judges Newman, Linn and Lourie said about Judge Michel seemed particularly heartfelt, and they seemed almost saddened to see their friend choose to leave and set out to make a difference advocating rather than opining. The video also included flattering comments from Chief Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica of the Third Circuit, one of Judge Michel's former clerks and executives of the IPO. It was extremely tasteful, gave an appropriate but not lingering recap of his career and did not linger or go on at an uncomfortable length as...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/10/29/aipla-honors-judge-newman-with-excellence-award/id=29365/feed/ 2 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/23/outside-the-box-innovations-v-travel-caddy-is-a-misstatement-of-small-entity-status-per-se-material-to-patentability/id=28184/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/23/outside-the-box-innovations-v-travel-caddy-is-a-misstatement-of-small-entity-status-per-se-material-to-patentability/id=28184/#comments Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:25:51 +0000 Eric Guttag http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=28184 Related posts:

1. Federal Circuit Re-Settles Law of Inequitable ConductJudge Rader wrote: "Left unfettered, the inequitable conduct doctrine has plagued not only the courts but also the entire patent system." Chief Judge Rader would go on to say that materiality is a "but-for" test, and actually breathed real life into the intent requirement, saying: "Proving that the applicant knew of a reference, should have known of its materiality, and decided not to submit it to the PTO does not prove specific intent to deceive." The Federal Circuit did decline to adopt the USPTO version of the duty of candor outlined in Rule 56, which I have advocated for, instead...
2. PTO Studying Therasense v. Becton Decision; Guidance Soon Today the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is carefully studying the important en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson to assess how it may impact agency practices and procedures. The agency also announced that it expects to soon issue guidance to applicants related to the prior art and information they must disclose to the Office in view of Therasense....
3. US Patent Office Proposes Adopting Therasense StandardIn view of Therasense, the Patent Office is proposing to revise the materiality standard for the duty to disclose information to the Office in patent applications and reexamination proceedings. It is the belief of the Patent Office that the Therasense standard will reduce the frequency with which applicants and practitioners are being charged with inequitable conduct, thereby reducing the incentive for applicants to submit marginally relevant information to the Office. Thus, the Therasense standard should curtail the practice of filing Information Disclosure Statements that refer to boxes full of prior art that is of marginal significance, allowing patent examiners to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/23/outside-the-box-innovations-v-travel-caddy-is-a-misstatement-of-small-entity-status-per-se-material-to-patentability/id=28184/feed/ 2 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/12/divided-infringement-uncertain-despite-en-banc-ruling-by-cafc/id=27876/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/12/divided-infringement-uncertain-despite-en-banc-ruling-by-cafc/id=27876/#comments Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:25:51 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=27876 Related posts:

1. The Discordant En Banc Ruling in Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies Part II*In challenging the correctness of the per curiam majority ruling, Judge Linn’s dissenting opinion makes four points. Point No. 1 is that the per curiam majority’s approach “is contrary to both the Patent Act and the Supreme Court’s longstanding precedent that “if there is no direct infringement of a patent there can be no contributory infringement,” citing Aro Manufacturing and Deepsouth Packing, as well as the Federal Circuit’s Joy Technologies. But as discussed above, none these cases specifically holds that direct infringement of the claimed method for the purposes of liability for indirect infringement requires that all steps of the...
2. CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum: The Discordant En Banc Ruling in Akamai Technologies & McKesson Technologies, Part 1*In Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies (August 31, 2012), with an opinion over 30 pages long, a bare six judge per curiam majority found it unnecessary to resolve the joint infringement issue. Instead, the per curiam majority ruled that the Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies cases should be resolved by applying the doctrine of inducing (indirect) infringement under 35 U.S.C § 271(b). The majority also ruled that such indirect infringement could occur as long as all steps of the a claimed method are performed, but didn’t requiring that all steps be performed by a single actor, expressly overruling the 2007...
3. The Impact of the CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum on Protecting Interactive TechnologiesThe conundrum created by the Federal Circuit’s joint infringement doctrine and its impact on protecting interactive computer-based technologies got worse last week with McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp. McKesson Technologies involved a patented interactive electronic method for communicating between healthcare providers and patients about personalized web pages for doctors. Judge Linn’s majority opinion (and a “thin” at majority at that) ruled that, because the initial step of the patented method was performed by the patient while the remaining steps were performed by the software provided by the healthcare provider, there was no infringement, direct, indirect, joint or otherwise...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/12/divided-infringement-uncertain-despite-en-banc-ruling-by-cafc/id=27876/feed/ 1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/11/santarus-v-par-pharmaceutical-rader-and-newman-disagree-on-written-description-support-for-negative-limitations/id=27866/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/11/santarus-v-par-pharmaceutical-rader-and-newman-disagree-on-written-description-support-for-negative-limitations/id=27866/#comments Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:30:09 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=27866 Related posts:

1. The Doctrine of Claim Differentiation: Who Got It Right in Retractable Technologies?Whether the term “body” encompassed “multi-piece” structures became the crux of the claim construction issues in Retractable Technologies. The District Court for Eastern Texas, apparently applying the doctrine of claim differentiation, construed independent Claims 1 and 43 to cover a “body” which might be a “multi-piece” structure. Accordingly, the District Court denied post-trial motions by the alleged infringer (Becton Dickinson or “BD”) to overturn the jury verdict that BD infringed these Claims of the ‘224 patent. Judge Lourie (writing for the panel majority) reversed the District Court, ruling that the term “body” was limited to a “one-piece” structure in light...
2. CAFC Refuses to Clarify Claims Construction Law, DeferenceI have wondered out loud whether the Judges of the Federal Circuit realize that the outcome is unpredictable until the panel has been announced. It seems that at least some do. How is that defensible? How do others not on the Court not see a problem? The law needs to be certain and predictable and at the Federal Circuit far too many times it is neither. Claims construction is but one of the areas as clear as mud. The Federal Circuit was created to bring certainty to the law, but what has transpired over the course of the last 10...
3. Momenta Pharmaceuticals: The Hatch-Waxman “Safe Harbor” Widens to Include Post-FDA Approval Activity*While the Supreme Court may have expanded the reach of the Hatch-Waxman “safe harbor,” the Medtronic and Merck cases only involved pre-marketing FDA approval activity. But the recent split Federal Circuit panel decision in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has now (alarmingly in my view) further widened the applicability of this “safe harbor” beyond such pre-marketing FDA approval activity. In Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Judge Moore (writing for the majority joined by Judge Dyk) ruled that this “safe harbor” could also apply to post-FDA approval activity, even if that activity was at least arguably commercial in nature....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/11/santarus-v-par-pharmaceutical-rader-and-newman-disagree-on-written-description-support-for-negative-limitations/id=27866/feed/ 13 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/05/the-discordant-en-banc-ruling-in-akamai-technologies-and-mckesson-technologies-part-ii/id=27820/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/05/the-discordant-en-banc-ruling-in-akamai-technologies-and-mckesson-technologies-part-ii/id=27820/#comments Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:46:20 +0000 Eric Guttag http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=27820 Related posts:

1. CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum: The Discordant En Banc Ruling in Akamai Technologies & McKesson Technologies, Part 1*In Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies (August 31, 2012), with an opinion over 30 pages long, a bare six judge per curiam majority found it unnecessary to resolve the joint infringement issue. Instead, the per curiam majority ruled that the Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies cases should be resolved by applying the doctrine of inducing (indirect) infringement under 35 U.S.C § 271(b). The majority also ruled that such indirect infringement could occur as long as all steps of the a claimed method are performed, but didn’t requiring that all steps be performed by a single actor, expressly overruling the 2007...
2. The Impact of the CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum on Protecting Interactive TechnologiesThe conundrum created by the Federal Circuit’s joint infringement doctrine and its impact on protecting interactive computer-based technologies got worse last week with McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp. McKesson Technologies involved a patented interactive electronic method for communicating between healthcare providers and patients about personalized web pages for doctors. Judge Linn’s majority opinion (and a “thin” at majority at that) ruled that, because the initial step of the patented method was performed by the patient while the remaining steps were performed by the software provided by the healthcare provider, there was no infringement, direct, indirect, joint or otherwise...
3. Divided Infringement Uncertain Despite en banc Ruling by CAFCRecently the Federal Circuit has been interpreting 25 U.S.C. 271(b) to mean that unless the accused infringer directs or controls the actions of the party or parties that are performing the claimed steps, the patentee has no remedy, even though the patentee’s rights would be plainly being violated if the actions of the various partiers were combined. The Federal Circuit decided to go a different route and broke with that line of cases, specifically saying: "We now conclude that this interpretation of section 271(b) is wrong as a matter of statutory construction, precedent, and sound patent policy." But there were...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/05/the-discordant-en-banc-ruling-in-akamai-technologies-and-mckesson-technologies-part-ii/id=27820/feed/ 2 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/20/flashback-seagate-indifference-to-patent-rights-of-innovators/id=27097/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/20/flashback-seagate-indifference-to-patent-rights-of-innovators/id=27097/#comments Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:20:52 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=27097 Related posts:

1. Patent Litigation Treatise Gets Important UpdatesThe PLI Patent Litigation treatise edited by Laurence Pretty has just been updated and includes updates of five chapters, providing you with the information and strategies you need to litigate patent cases successfully. Contributors for this release are John M. Skenyon (chapter 2), Andrei Iancu, Lisa Partain, and Kenneth Weatherwax (chapter 3), Brian E. Ferguson [...]...
2. Microsoft Wins at CAFC, 25% Reasonable Royalty Rule DiesWhile the Federal Circuit ruled that Microsoft did infringe and the patent claim in question (claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216) was valid, it was Microsoft who was the big winner here. The damages awarded by the jury to Uniloc were $388 million, which was set aside by the district court, a ruling that the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Federal Circuit also agreed there was no willful infringement. So while Uniloc has won at least something from Microsoft as a result of its infringement of a valid patent claim, it seems like it will be far less than the...
3. Apple v. Samsung: Jury Verdict Lacks Sufficient Detail To Support Enhanced DamagesThe relative paucity of design patent jurisprudence regarding the legal remedy of damages and the equitable remedy of an accounting for the infringer’s profits, makes clear that while an award of damages for patent infringement may be enhanced under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for willful infringement, and award of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, may not be enhanced under Section 284. While this distinction may appear important to one who wishes to obtain an enhancement of the damages award for willful infringement, the jury verdict form in Apple v. Samsung leaves one clueless as to whether the monetary award...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/20/flashback-seagate-indifference-to-patent-rights-of-innovators/id=27097/feed/ 4 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/16/obviousness-when-all-elements-not-present-in-prior-art/id=26462/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/16/obviousness-when-all-elements-not-present-in-prior-art/id=26462/#comments Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:12:25 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=26462 Related posts:

1. Petition for Rehearing en banc filed in Plasmart v. KapposThis case intrigued me from the start because it seemed rather odd that there should be a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal to the Federal Circuit necessitated by a completely adjudicated inter partes reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Moreover, the original panel concluded that the combination of known elements resulted in a predictable result. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that not all of the elements were found within the prior art. In fact, the Board found that there are no fewer than three (3) meaningful structural differences between the invention as claimed and the...
2. How Much Deference Should the CAFC Give the USPTO?A factual determination of the Board is to be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support it, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000), and a finding is supported by substantial evidence if reasonable minds might accept the evidence as supporting the factual finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). This has been translated by the Federal Circuit to mean “is the determination unreasonable?” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....
3. KSR Fears Realized: CAFC Off the Obviousness Deep EndYesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a split decision with Judge Lourie writing and Judge Bryson joining, took a step forward in the evolution of the law of obviousness that confirms my worst fears about obviousness in this post-KSR era. It has been argued by many that even after KSR it is not an appropriate rejection, or reason to invalidate an issued claim, that it would be "common sense" to modify elements within the prior art in a wholly new way and then combine the "common sense" modifications. I did agree that was true,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/16/obviousness-when-all-elements-not-present-in-prior-art/id=26462/feed/ 3 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/09/ge-wins-at-federal-circuit-in-mitsubishi-wind-turbine-case/id=26243/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/09/ge-wins-at-federal-circuit-in-mitsubishi-wind-turbine-case/id=26243/#comments Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:52:07 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=26243 Related posts:

1. CAFC Favors Non-Practicing Entities on “Domestic Injury”Recently the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, denied Nokia’s petition for rehearing. The Federal Circuit decision is nevertheless interesting for its treatment of Section 337’s “domestic industry” requirement as it is applied to NPEs. Under 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(2), relief at the Commission is predicated on the existence or establishment of an industry in the United States “relating to the articles protected by the patent.” This is commonly known as the “domestic industry” requirement. In turn, section 1337(a)(3) provides that an industry is considered to exist if there is in the United States, “with respect to the articles protected by the...
2. General Electric Sues Mitsubishi Over Wind Energy PatentsGE asserts that the Mitsubishi 2.4MW wind turbine is an example of an infringing product. The 2.4 MW wind turbine is a large-size wind turbine with a 2.4 megawatt rated output. According to the Mitsubishi website, the MWT92/2.4 and MWT95/2.4 (versions of the 2.4MW wind turbine) "are strategically targeted at the global market for large-scale wind turbine generators. MHI developed the MWT92/2.4 proprietarily and, since January 2006, has verified its performance and reliability through testing..."...
3. AIPLA Honors Judge Newman with Excellence AwardJudge Richard Linn: "It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to honor my colleague and my dear friend, Judge Pauline Newman. To say that Judge Newman is a woman of accomplishment is a serious understatement. There is no glass ceiling she hasn't broken. When I asked her what she thought about Justice Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, she said with a twinkle in her eye, "That's a nice start." She has accomplished more than most men could ever hope to accomplish, and she did so for the most part at a time when our country and...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/09/ge-wins-at-federal-circuit-in-mitsubishi-wind-turbine-case/id=26243/feed/ 1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/05/cafc-kills-means-plus-function-in-software-patent/id=23805/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/05/cafc-kills-means-plus-function-in-software-patent/id=23805/#comments Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:06:08 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=23805 Related posts:

1. Federal Circuit on Software Patents: Show Me the AlgorithmsEarlier today the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc. According to the Federal Circuit the specification of the ’435 patent must contain an algorithm that performs the function associated with the “access means” limitation, otherwise the limitation is indefinite and the claim invalid. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit would determine that the algorithm disclosed was incomplete. This lead the Court to explain that when the specification discloses an algorithm that only accomplishes one of multiple identifiable functions performed by a means-plus-function limitation, the specification is treated as if...
2. A Primer on Indefiniteness and Means-Plus-FunctionThe basic law relative to § 112, ¶6 explains that a decision on whether a claim is indefinite under § 112, ¶ 6 requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Traditionally, claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. The question with means-plus-function claiming, however, is whether evidence from that mythical individual skilled in the art is even admissible. No structure in the specification means the person of skill...
3. Building Better Software Patent Applications: Embracing Means-Plus-Function Disclosure Requirements in the Algorithm CasesThe disclosure requirements for these types of patent applications has been a moving target for years, which means that whatever the most stringent disclosure requirements are should become the target regardless of the types of claims you file. To ensure your software patent application has appropriate disclosure of the invention you should accept — even embrace — the requirements for having an appropriate means-plus-function disclosure. By meeting the strict standards set forth in the mean-plus-function algorithm cases you will file more detailed applications that have better disclosure and which will undoubtedly support more claims, thus making the resulting patent or...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/05/cafc-kills-means-plus-function-in-software-patent/id=23805/feed/ 13