« October 2009 | Main | December 2009 »
November 28, 2009
Retiring
CAFC
Chief Judge Paul R. Michel, now 68, is retiring when the cherry blossoms next
bloom in the nation's capitol. Having written 800 opinions, he is considering
starting his own IP think tank. "Once I'm a retired judge, I can make a public
nuisance out of myself. I think that's needed." Certainly the politicians
threatening to trample this country's patent system could benefit from the wisdom on offer.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:12 AM | The Patent System | Comments (1)
November 23, 2009
#1
Quantity
over quality is expressed in the quintessential American hanker of wanting to
know who's number 1, which is the surmised measure of who is best. If there ever
was a justifiable bifurcation between quantity and quality, it lies with
patents. Year after year, IBM gets the most U.S. patents. What does that really
mean?
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:52 PM | Patents In Business | Comments (17)
November 19, 2009
Fatigued
6,100,287
claims a nutritional supplement for "enhancing muscle performance" and
recovering from fatigue. Iovate sued BSN over '287. The district court found the
asserted claims anticipated by advertisements in Flex magazine. It took no
muscle flex for the CAFC to confirm.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:30 PM | Prior Art | Comments (2)
November 15, 2009
Heritage of the Heretic
In
the ultimate backfire, political hack Jon Dudas has left his mark on the patent
office. Dudas demeaned the PTO by being openly hostile to its bread-and-butter
clientele, patent applicants, with proposed rules that would limit claims and
even applications, in a banal attempt to address pendency. Challenged by Dr. Triantafyllos Tafas, with GlaxoSmithKline riding shotgun, the district court
shot the agency down. The PTO appealed.
Continue reading "Heritage of the Heretic"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 7:15 PM | The Patent Office | Comments (10)
November 14, 2009
All Red Hat and No Cattle
The
open source software crowd have had their knickers in a twist for some time
about patented processes via software, being fervently against them, and having more generally quaint
notions about intellectual property, including copyright. Patrick Anderson
provides an incisive analysis of this week's tempest in a teapot in his blog
entry:
"Free" Sells, But Who's Buying?
Continue reading "All Red Hat and No Cattle"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 7:22 PM | Patents In Business | Comments (5)
November 12, 2009
Rotten at the Core
The
nature of human organizations is for their collective morality to sink to the
lowest common denominator. Which is low, to the level of greed unbridled. After
all, corruption is human nature. Intel is trying to get the antitrust monkey off
its back by paying off rival AMD $1.25 billion. This is the same Intel that has
furiously and ferociously lobbied for patent deform legislation that will get
inventors' patent monkey off its back, by diluting patent protection in this
country.
Continue reading "Rotten at the Core"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:35 PM | Patents In Business | Comments (1)
November 10, 2009
Sharpened
Samsung
has been stung by Sharp at the ITC over flat-panel LCD display patents. One of
the Sharp patents in the case went to LCD brightness and refresh rate, and
another to minimizing flickering. Samsung has brushed aside speculation
about the ruling's impact, stating that it won't affect the
company's ability meet market demand. The
Financial Times opined: "unable to compete on price, rivals are trying to
compete on patents."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:43 PM | Patents In Business | Comments (1)
Incoming
J. Michael Jakes had one helluva day being slammed with well-deserved
shots from Supreme Court Justices in oral arguments Monday. Jakes
represents Bernard Bilski in his quest for a patent on a ridiculously vague
claim for managing risk. On the government's side, Deputy Solicitor General
Malcolm L. Stewart's position was stiff as a board in supporting the CAFC's
rigid machine-or-transformation test for patentable methods. But that was not
entirely a bad thing.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:14 AM | § 101 | Comments (13)
November 7, 2009
Out of Hand
The
New York
Times turns troglodyte on invention, fearing patents can "stifle competition
and infringe on the rights of non-patent holders. Not every bright idea should
be protected as a property right." Only bright ideas that take jobs from
workers. In a nutshell, the New York Times thinks that there should be a law
against the law.
Continue reading "Out of Hand"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:28 PM | § 101 | Comments (4)
November 6, 2009
One Upmanship
Inventors and small companies, flush with money burning a hole in their
pockets, regularly file an excess of crappy patent applications. Belatedly recognizing this inviolable
fact, the patent office now promises to shoot you in the head faster if you'll
shoot yourself in the foot first.
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos has announced the agency intends to launch a pilot program that will give small entity inventors having two or more patent applications currently pending greater control over the priority in which their applications are examined while also reducing the backlog of unexamined patent applications pending before the USPTO. This pilot will allow a patent application from a small entity to receive special, accelerated status if the applicant is willing to abandon an application that has not been examined. [USPTO press release]
Continue reading "One Upmanship"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 3:59 PM | The Patent Office | Comments (1)
November 3, 2009
License Crossed
Philips
and 3M inked a patent cross license in 1995. The next year, 3M spun off Imation.
The agreement, which granted license to subsidiaries, continued. In 2003,
Imation formed a joint venture that created GDM. In 2006, Imation acquired
Memorex. In 2007, Imation filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding
that GDM and Memorex are licensed subsidiaries under the agreement. The district
court ruled against Imation, and so Imation appealed.
Continue reading "License Crossed"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:05 PM | Case Law | Comments (2)
prior art search + 
Newsfeed (RSS)