Posts Tagged: "Acer Inc."

Sections 101 and 112: Eligibility, Patentability, or Somewhere in Between?

Sections 101 and 112 provide their own separate limitations to the scope of patent protection in ways that are sometimes complimentary and sometimes contradictory… Inventors are motivated to maximize the breadth of their claims. But they may seek to do so by employing imprecise claim language. Both §§ 101 and 112 corral this behavior, although in slightly different ways. Section 101 safeguards against claims that are too abstract or overbroad to be patentable, being concerned with claims that would “wholly pre-empt” any other use of an inventive concept, thereby foreclosing independent innovations or application. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610 (quotation omitted). Section 112 protects against claims that are not completely and functionally disclosed within the patent specification ensuring that patentees cannot claim more than what they have invented – and shared with the public.

Microsoft files IPR against Philips patent asserted against Taiwanese consumer electronics firms

Dutch tech conglomerate Koninklijke Philips NV is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,522,695. The Philips patent is challenged by Microsoft on behalf of several other tech giants… At the center of the proceedings is a challenge to the validity of a patent covering a technology that enables more information to be stored on an optical or magnetic recording medium… The official petition filed by Microsoft is the result of a series of seven lawsuits filed by Philips in December 2015 in which it attempted to assert the ‘695 against a series of tech developers. According to Microsoft’s IPR, the American tech firm has intervened in five of these cases, including suits against Acer and ASUSTEK, by filing as a counterclaim-defendant.