« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »
February 27, 2010
Static
Trading
Technologies sued eSpeed and Ecco for infringing
6,772,132 &
6,766,304, which go to displaying "static price levels" on a computerized
board for commodity trading. One service product infringed, but others literally did not, and applying the
doctrine of equivalents was proscribed. Defenses to
indefiniteness and inequitable conduct went nowhere, as did on-sale bar (§
102(b)) based on a provisional priority date. Affirmation on appeal toted up
dynamic case law quotes, not on sale, but ones that litigators must buy.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:59 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (3)
February 25, 2010
Crock
The
International Trade Clowns (ITC) handed a crock to clog maker Crocs when it
asserted
6,993,858 and
D517,789: '858 was found obvious and '789 not infringed. Crocs squealed and
appealed to the CAFC, which stepped in it and splattered the ITC with both feet:
utility and design patent case law.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:24 PM | ITC | Comments (9)
February 24, 2010
Fragments
Andrew
Chapman and David King had a patent idea "directed to divalent antibody
fragments comprising two antibody heavy chains and at least one polymer molecule
attached to the heavy chains in a site-specific manner on each chain...
Chapman's invention involves joining together two fragments with an interchain
bridge containing a polymer, thus achieving a circulating half-life that is
intermediate between that of an individual fragment and a whole antibody."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 6:34 PM | Prior Art | Comments (1)
February 19, 2010
Floored
"Pergo
and Alloc are direct competitors in the field of laminate flooring. Pergo owns
the
6,421,970 and
6,397,547 patents, which relate to mechanical joints that enable flooring
panels to be joined without the use of glue or other fasteners, such as nails or
metal clips. Alloc brought a declaratory judgment action against Pergo seeking a
declaration that the '970 and '547 patents were invalid, unenforceable, and not
infringed. Pergo counterclaimed for infringement of both patents." Both patents
were found "invalid on multiple grounds and not infringed." Having achieved its
goal, Alloc then overreached to inequitable conduct, which the district court
denied.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:37 AM | Claim Construction | Comments (0)
February 18, 2010
Relatively Stiff
Yousef
Daneshvar filed a patent application claiming : "an apparatus for dressing a
wound. The invention features a 'relatively stiff support' that is secured over
the wound using one or more 'relatively stretchable straps.'" The BPAI rejected
Daneshvar's claims as anticipated and obvious over
5,779,657. Daneshvar had to go to the CAFC to get PTO incompetence
overturned.
Continue reading "Relatively Stiff"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:42 AM | Prosecution | Comments (33)
February 9, 2010
Why the Hawk
A friend and client, India born, was telling me about the different prior art
search firms he had used. "The Indians are cheap, and you get what you pay for.
They find something and they quit. They know nothing about litigation, or U.S.
patent laws. They have no concept of story art. They just throw a piece or two
of art over the wall to you and declare victory. The European Patent Office
searches like examiners. What else would you expect? They do okay for a
superficial search, but for a litigation search, they are incomplete. Like the
Indians, the EPO also just cites references."
Continue reading "Why the Hawk"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:52 PM | Prior Art | Comments (2)
February 8, 2010
Unpublished
ResQNet sued Lansa in 2001 for infringing five patents related to
terminal emulation. Lansa found art, two unpublished user manuals for a software product
called Flashpoint, that it argued anticipated one of the asserted patents,
6,295,075. But the district court wouldn't admit the art as public, and hence
not legally prior art. Lansa tried to argue that NewLook 1.0 anticipated '075 by being sold more than a
year prior to 075's filing date, but NewLook 1.0 "lacked an essential
limitation," so was not found to be invalidating prior art. Alas for Lansa, a
later version of NewLook was found to have the feature, and so infringed. Then
there were the issues of damages, and sanctions....
Continue reading "Unpublished"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:52 PM | Prior Art | Comments (1)
February 7, 2010
Deep Fryer
SEB
sued Montgomery Ward and others for infringing
4,995,312 by selling a cheap deep fryer manufactured by Pentalpha. Speedy
justice meant that getting to trial took a mere seven years, whereupon a jury
found willful infringement, awarding $4.65 million in damages, which the
district court judge hence cut by $2 million. The district court had awarded
enhanced damages and attorneys' fees to SEB, but then snatched them back in
light of the 2007 CAFC
Seagate ruling that willfully gutted willfulness. Herein, a tale of
disingenuity, and an appeal decision greasing understanding of inducing
infringement.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:29 PM | Infringement | Comments (1)
February 2, 2010
Inherent Anticipation
Abbott
sued Beckton, Dickinson and Company and Nova Biomedical for infringing
5,628,890, which claims a glucose sensor. A jury found '890 anticipated.
Abbott appealed the trial judge's jury instruction over the meaning of
anticipation. The CAFC surveyed the boundary of inherency, and found the nugget:
"all elements must be disclosed in an anticipatory reference in the same way as
they are arranged or combined in the claim."
Continue reading "Inherent Anticipation"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:48 AM | Prior Art | Comments (4)
Newsfeed (RSS)
Recommended:
Recommended:
Recommended:
Recommended: