« Distinction | Main | Dead Man's Hand »

December 4, 2008

Rutabaga

Samy Gharb fell off the turnip truck and wandered into the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. After having his patent assertion against Unitronics squashed flatter than hammered shit, including "a permanent injunction to preclude Gharb from threatening Unitronics and its customers with infringement litigation," Gharb, unable to read the legal dictum on the wall, appealed.

Unitronics v. Samy Gharb (CAFC 2008-1442)

Gharb's 6,552,654, "Security system with a mobile telephone," was the blunt instrument. The snicker from the CAFC panel: "Gharb's belief... is premised on an incorrect understanding of the law," namely, that infringement requires something less than meeting all limitations of an asserted claim.

None of the evidence put forward by Gharb shows that any Unitronics product contains the "digital recording device having at least one emergency message" or its equivalent, or the "data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information" or its equivalent, of the claimed security system. We find no evidence in the record suggesting that Unitronics made or sold any type of security system at all.

Denial is the longest river....

Posted by Patent Hawk at December 4, 2008 1:40 AM | Litigation

Comments

Always happy to hear from readers. Today, Mr. Samy Gharb sent me numerous emails, much in ALL CAPS. Thanks for reading, Samy! Here is part of what Mr. Gharb had to say:

Subject: AUTOMTED PARKING WITH PLC & GSM - US GHARB PATENT 1999

Dear sir
I have to inform you that the big party will done by international court and i will put your name to in this process becuuse your worte this
have a good day
US INVENTOR
SAMY GHARB

In another email, I was reminded: "FOR YOUR INFORMATION UNITRONICS MUST PAY FOR THIS BISNESS"

While aspects of Mr. Gharb's psyche remain mysterious, his enthusiasm is undeniable.

Samy, Patent Hawk wishes you best of luck in all your endeavors. A wee bit of advice: lay off the Caps Lock key.

Posted by: Patent Hawk at December 4, 2008 11:33 PM

PAIR indicates that the patent is expired for failure to pay maintenance fees. Not sure what is going on with this case.

Posted by: JD at December 5, 2008 6:24 AM

Another piece of advice for Mr. Gharb is to buy a copy of the "Patent It Yorself" book by David Pressman next time he decides to patent something pro se (doesn't help you much in enforcing your patent in the current anti-patent environment though, but at least you won't be laughed at...)

Posted by: angry dude at December 5, 2008 7:57 AM

Posted by: Patrick at January 28, 2011 8:04 AM