« December 2010 | Main | February 2011 »
January 31, 2011
Barbecued
5,697,775;
5,897,308; and
6,093,017 claim "lighters having extended lighting rods (useful for lighting
barbecue grills, for example)" with "automatic child-safety mechanisms for
preventing accidental ignition." Owner Tokai sued competitor Easton for
infringement. Easton burned the asserted patents to the ground via summary
judgment. Tokai thought it a pity to lose on validity, so it sang its ditty to
a mostly tone-deaf appeals panel. Obzilla has a cook-out.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:12 PM | Prior Art | Comments (62)
January 27, 2011
Mostly Stable
Warsaw
Orthopedic successfully sued Globus Medical for infringing
6,530,929 and
7,008,422, which claim a spine stabilization device. On appeal, the claim
construction was found stable, as was infringement, but the broad construction
shook loose anticipation JMOL.
Continue reading "Mostly Stable"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:33 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (1)
January 26, 2011
At Root
6,000,024
claims a binary tree parallel computing system. A root node distributes problem
portions to tree nodes, each with their own processing elements. Results
are passed back up the tree. '024 owner Fifth General Computer sued IBM for
infringing '024. All hinged on what was at root.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:12 PM | Claim Construction
January 24, 2011
Tipsy
5,220,919
claims a booze detector which sniffs the air near the skin of the lubricated
one. Owner AMS sued four for tippling infringement. The district court, a little
tipsy in its claim construction, nonetheless walked a straight line to
noninfringement. The appeals court sobered things up.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:01 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (1)
January 23, 2011
Use
5,287,270
claims a computerized billing system, ostensibly for phone calls. Who uses it?
Patent owner Centillion thought Qwest did, so it sued for infringement. The
district court summarily found otherwise, because "no single party practices all
of the limitations of the asserted claims." A phone user used the front end,
while Qwest handled the back end. Appeal dialed it in differently.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:42 PM | Infringement | Comments (2)
January 22, 2011
Return of the Leech
Sen.
Patrick "the Leech" Leahy plans to place his sucker on the wallets of the
suckers who dread and drool over patent reform. The 2011 Patent Reform Act will
be introduced Tuesday. "Patent reform is a commonsense, bipartisan effort to
protect jobs and bolster the economy," Leahy effused. The bipartisan bit is the
expectation that senators on both sides of the aisle can bolster themselves, and
protect their jobs, by raking in dough from lobbyists on this year's model of
the patented shtick of much heat and little light about patents. From all sides,
expect the battle cry to be: "move the economy forward." PTO Director Kappos is
already beating that drum. The little stickler is what blood type of patent
reform might bring the batta-boom bolster, making any "reform" contentious
beyond practical passage.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:46 PM | The Patent System | Comments (1)
January 20, 2011
Springy Construction
Two
concomitant litigations between Arlington and Brideport over
5,266,050 &
6,521,831, in the same district court, produced different constructions of
the same claim term. The later case (Arlington II) construed "spring metal
adaptor" ('050) and "spring steel adaptor" ('831) as requiring a "split" that
the earlier construction had not. What sprung from construction was
noninfringement. Until appeal.
Continue reading "Springy Construction"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:50 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (3)
January 14, 2011
Not Open For Business
When my reexamination appellant brief exceeded 30 pages, I received notice of
it being "defective." To correct the defect, under MPEP
§1.943(c),
a certificate is required to state that the brief is less than 14,000 words (the
brief is an illustrated comic book: lots of pictures, because words alone just
don't seem to register). Do I simply need to provide a certificate, or is the
required response more elaborate? However reasonable the question, the answer was not
forthcoming. The supervisory paralegal at 571-272-9797 listened to my question,
then passed me off to another department at 571-272-7705 (central reexam), who
passed me off to 571-272-7726, who passed me off to 571-272-7701, who then said
it should be answered at 571-272-9797, the original number called. Calling
central reexam at 7705 from the outside just gets a busy signal. Perhaps the
patent office should adopt the slogan of mutual funds: "past performance is not
an indicator of future returns."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:16 PM | The Patent Office | Comments (9)
January 12, 2011
Divorced
Divorce
involves paperwork. In this case, Juris Zanis Pupols divorced himself
from reality long before he filed his patent application for "controllable
reciprocating Ac/Dc powered specialty products for life enhancement," which he
abandoned for failure to pay the requisite application fee. He petitioned to
revive "on account of unavoidable delay." Alas, the claimed delay was not to
have lost his mind and just found it. That, at least, would have gotten a laugh,
if not sympathy. Instead, Pupols got taken seriously, and not sympathetically
enough. At least to Pupols' way of thinking.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:47 PM | Litigation | Comments (13)
January 11, 2011
Outhouse
David
Leonhart at the New York Times can't tell a copycat from a thieving rat, calling
software piracy "intellectual property theft." "For the United States, the No. 1
problem with China's economy is probably intellectual property theft. Technology
companies, for example, continue to notice Chinese government agencies
downloading software updates for programs they have never bought, at least not
legally." The U.S. fourth estate has become an outhouse. Not to mention
so-called "technology companies" that are nothing more than whiny witnesses to
shoplifting. Are the companies afraid that alienating the powers-that-be in the
middle kingdom would bring a badass backlash? There's the story that Mr. Leonhart
missed.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:29 PM | Patents In Business
How to Bamboozle A Judge
Claim
construction ought to be formulaic: take the plain meaning of crucial claim
terms, in view of the specification and prosecution history, absent prosecution
disclaimer (which would narrow claim scope). "Courts must not import limitations
into the claims" is a hoary axiom. Yet that is exactly the formula to bamboozle
a district court judge, as part of a two-step to noninfringement. With much
practice as defendant, Microsoft seems to have mastered this dance, to a tune to
which judges are sometimes legally tone deaf. It particularly helps when a
patent holder, in the claim construction dance, has two left feet.
Continue reading "How to Bamboozle A Judge"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:50 PM | Litigation | Comments (7)
January 10, 2011
Photo Negative
St.
Clair sued Fuji Photo Film and seven other digital camera makers for infringing
four digital photo format patents:
5,138,459;
6,094,219;
6,233,010; and
6,323,899. The district court found infringement based upon claim
construction. The negative of that was found on appeal.
Continue reading "Photo Negative"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 2:09 PM | Claim Construction | Comments (1)
January 5, 2011
Saddle Up
Rattlesnakes
still saunter by the side of the road in east Texas, but the biggest of them all doesn't want to be there: Microsoft. Continuing its crusade against
the local cottage industry of patent lawyers and barbequed jurisprudence in EDTX,
Microsoft got another case uprooted, this time to its home turf in western
Washington. This after the limey plaintiff had bothered with the ruse of a shell
company in Tyler Texas. The convenience of witnesses, notably corporate defense
witnesses, places a heavy thumb on the scales to transfer. (CAFC
10-m944; precedential)
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:07 PM | Litigation | Comments (1)
Coated
The
evidence herein is anecdotal, but the pattern is unmistakable: an incompetent
BPAI decision is overturned by the CAFC. Glatt Air Techniques had one of its
particle coater patents,
5,236,503, rejected over obviousness in reexam by a third-party requestor.
The patent office can't tell the difference between prevention and a remedy.
That pretty much sums up the Kappos regime's continuing failure of core
competence for quality examination: rejection as prevention, leaving only appeal
to the Court for remedy. Pathetic that the USPTO cannot recognize an invention,
which thereby damages the sole mission of the patent office: to grant worthy
patents.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:25 PM | Prior Art | Comments (25)
January 4, 2011
Locking Up Damages
Uniloc
sued Microsoft over its product activation software, infringing Uniloc's
5,490,216. Uniloc convinced a jury of willful infringement, to the tune of
$388 million, plus $86 million in interest. Microsoft then swayed the district
court judge to pitch the jury verdict. The inevitable appeal furthered court
reform of the patent laws, particularly damages methodology. Goldscheider and
his dedicated flock of followers are belatedly shoved into oblivion, and the
whole hog market rule is butchered again.
Continue reading "Locking Up Damages"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:08 PM | Damages | Comments (4)
January 3, 2011
Trash
Reader
of minds Sigmund Freud once observed, "most people are trash." So it is with
litigators, sworn officers of the Court, that practice character assassination,
and judges, the Court incarnate, that buy into it. Fortunately, some judges see
through it. TXED Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham granted a new trial in
Commil USA v. Cisco Systems, "based on statements made by defense counsel
during trial regarding the Jewish faith of one of plaintiff's owners and its
client representative, including references to dietary rules and the trial of
Jesus."
Posted by Patent Hawk at 12:35 PM | Litigation | Comments (3)
January 2, 2011
Don't File a Patent
John
D. Smith is a one-man patent sales prevention department: "A patent is
really just an expensive and worthless piece of paper. Attorneys are like a
bottomless cup that you keep pouring money into. The Patent Office wants your
money, not your invention. The Patent Office uses repeated Patent Examiner
Office Action rejections to discourage inventors. Lawsuits are very expensive
and the only one that will make money in a patent infringement lawsuit will be
your attorney. Judgments are worthless, as they are impossible to collect." Bad
attitude, or is it simply that the truth hurts?
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:37 PM | Prosecution | Comments (23)
prior art search + 
Newsfeed (RSS)