July 30, 2005
Wily Foreign Company Traps
Under the title "China-made chips infringe on no foreign intellectual property", China View reports the highly tuned sensitivities of the Chinese to intellectual property rights.
July 28, 2005
On-Sale Bar Fine-Tuned
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (CAFC) has tuned the on-sale bar standard for 35 U.S.C. §102(b) in its ruling of Electromotive Division of GM v. Transportation Systems of GE (CAFC 04-1412).
The relevant portion of §102(b), commonly called the on-sale bar, provides for invalidating a patent if "the invention was ... in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States".
July 27, 2005
It's still salad days where patent product prior art posted on the Internet might be useful anticipatory art. The problem is that companies continually update their sites with the latest offerings, shucking antecedents.
July 25, 2005
Overcoming §112 ¶ 2 Rejection
35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 2: "The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."
Process/method claim rejections may be off-base if the rejection complaint is that the claimed method is not enabling, or even that the claimed method is not self-sufficiently comprehensible.
July 22, 2005
Unloading the Dice
How issues are framed determines the measures that Congress considers in legislation. Step one for political lobbyists is framing the issue, so as to ease the real task - swallowing the biased proposal for change. Biasing framing the issue leads to a connect-the-dots to the desired change (desired by the lobbyist's client). What a crooked game with loaded dice.
July 20, 2005
Staking a Claim
CNET News published a quite interesting article today: Staking a claim in the patent gold mine. The comedy segment is provided by commenters to the article.
Oh Say Can You See
A Library of Congress report, titled Patent Reform: Innovation Issues, well researched and written by Wendy Schacht and John Thomas, is crucial reading for anyone interested in the U.S. patent system and reform thereof.
July 18, 2005
Just a Patent Examiner (JAPE) is a self-deprecatingly titled weblog that is blowing my mind with candor.
July 17, 2005
Savvy Bill Thompson
July 16, 2005
Claim Construction Priority Stack
Phillips v. AWH hopefully marks a watershed ruling on claim construction. Let's begin by reviewing the highlights of Phillips v. AWH, then mix in NAC v. Plastipak. To finish the meal with some fruit, some comments on Judges Mayar's and Newman's raspberry in Phillips v. AWH.
July 15, 2005
Not Dissing Dictionaries
If you saw the adjective "generally" in a patent claim, how would you define it? What method would you use for claim construction?
July 14, 2005
Microsoft Grovels For Longhorn
The way to get Microsoft to bend over and pay out in a patent case is to flash some strong cards on a technology that Microsoft really cares about. The two gazillion-dollar money-spinners that Microsoft really cares about: its OS, and Office. Alacritech had a decent patent poker hand to play against Microsoft, holding patents for faster networking that were being sewn into Longhorn, Microsoft's upcoming OS.
July 13, 2005
Make no mistake - Microsoft regularly exhibits psychopathic behavior, with little regard for the comity of corporate social responsibility. Here we have another little chip on the pile of evidence for that characterization.
July 12, 2005
In a long-awaited en banc appeals court ruling, which drew numerous amicus briefs, the CAFC inks an overwrought claim construction classic over the meaning of the term "baffles," declaring a priority stack, from intrinsic to extrinsic evidence, for construing disputed claim terms. Dissent finds the surface shiny, and the core rotten.
July 10, 2005
Do you want kimchi with that?
The South Korean government was planning on testing a new system to identify fake resident registration cards. Not so fast.
July 8, 2005
U.S. News & Jackass Report
U.S. News & World Report is an exemplary case study in American news periodicals, particularly its descent from being one of America's few respected "hard" news journals in the 1960's into something else entirely: "People" for business people, by the end of the 1970's. Of course, circulation and popular taste dictate success; hence the change in "tone". Decades later, the slide continues; at least some things are predictable.
Honeywell sued Hamilton Sunstrand Corp. (“HSC”) for patent infringement. Never mind the technicalities; the juicy fruit relates to infringement damage calculation, specifically "...the question presented to the court is whether sales projections that were unavailable at the time infringement began may be used as a royalty base to calculate damages." (District of Delaware July 5, 2005 decision in case 03-1153)
July 7, 2005
DataTreasury has a license to print money, in the form of two patents: 5,910,988 and 6,032,137. "Check 21" is a federal law, effective October 2004, which requires that paper checks become replaceable by digital versions. Essentially, DataTreasury patented the law.
July 6, 2005
EU Software Patent Goose Cooked
The European Parliament rejected harmonization of software patents throughout the EU by a vote of 648 to 14. Oliver Drewes, a spokesman for EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, told a news conference: "Patents will continue to be issued by national patent offices and (the) European patent office under existing law... It means fragmentation. It means 25 different systems competing ... and less clarity for operators and for member states."
Strasbourg Foie Gras
Strasbourg, in eastern France, is famous for pâté de foie gras. On Wednesday, July 6, it's going to be famous, or infamous, depending on point of view, for a different sort of pâté - software patents for Europe. Just like pâté de foie gras, someone's goose is going to be cooked, or so the opposing sides on this issue think.
July 5, 2005
Prosecution Estoppel - A Sea Change
Seachange sued C-COR for patent infringement (5,862,312) for a video server system. The district court found for Seachange, and the Appeals Court (CAFC) (04-1375), in a sea change finding of non-infringement, tilted for C-COR, based upon prosecution estoppel that significantly limited the scope of the asserted claim.
July 3, 2005
The issue pondered is to what degree patent examiners understand case law with regard to 35 U.S.C. 103(a), particularly combining prior art references as a basis to reject claims. Anecdotal personal experience is stacking up that examiners are willy-nilly silly when it comes to combinations - that is, impermissible hindsight comes easy.