« September 2011 | Main | November 2011 »
October 23, 2011
Sponsored
Federal
judges travel around the world on all-expense paid trips by sponsors.
CAFC Chief
Judge Randall Rader: "This is not pleasure-tripping. I work
very hard on these trips." Sponsors are often law firms, law schools,
legal service providers, and universities.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:55 AM | The Patent System
October 20, 2011
Massive Interference
In 2006,
Streck sued Research & Diagnostic Systems for
infringing 6,200,500,
6,221,668,
and 6,399,388. R&D
retorted with invalidity - that under
35
U.S.C §146, which is a civil action to resolve inventorship
under the now-obsolete first-to-invent system, R&D earlier
invented the claimed invention. The jury wasn't clearly convinced by
R&D's interference defense. But the USPTO was, awarding
inventorship to R&D in 2009. Streck then filed a §146 action in
the same district court where it had won before. Assigned to the same
judge, Streck won again. Affirmed on appeal (CAFC 2011-1045).
Posted by Patent Hawk at 6:37 PM | Interference
October 18, 2011
Brittle Stone
Stone Strong sued Del Zotto for infringing its patents for
pre-cast concrete blocks used in retaining walls - 7,073,304
& 6,796,098. The district court found the patents infringed
and not invalid, though "with little elaboration of its reasoning." On appeal,
it took
but a little realignment for Obzilla to break on through to putting the
patents in the public domain.
Continue reading "Brittle Stone"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:12 PM | Prior Art
October 14, 2011
Fair Game
Competitors Absolute Software and Stealth Signal couldn't come to a cross-licensing agreement over their patents, so they battled each other to summary judgment stalemate in court. At least the lawyers got a payday. A well-reasoned appeal tossed some bits back for factual determination. (CAFC 2010-1503, -1504). This precedential ruling, traipsing through claim construction and infringement analysis, has nothing new, but is a rarity for its adjudicative quality. If courts were consistently as even-handed as this, the illusion of justice in this country would be hard to dispel. Here's an exception that helps prove the rule of judicial corruption.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:54 PM | Case Law
October 13, 2011
Wiped
Bosch
is a large company selling patented car windshield wiper blades. Pylon is a
small company selling patented car windshield wiper blades. Unfortunately for
Pylon, Bosch owns the patents. Bosch successfully sued Pylon for infringement,
but the district court refused to issue a permanent injunction based on
equitability considerations. The plutocratic CAFC put paid to that.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 6:45 PM | Injunction
October 12, 2011
Affront Abroad
"Amsted
Industries Inc. is a domestic manufacturer of cast steel railway wheels. It owns
two secret processes for manufacturing such wheels... Amsted has licensed [one
of the secret processes,] the ABC process, to several firms with foundries in
China... TianRui sought to license Amsted's wheel manufacturing technologyy, but
the parties could not agree on the terms of a license. After the failed
negotiations, TianRui hired nine employees away from one of Amsted's Chinese
licensees." TianRui got rolling on new wheels. Whereupon, "Amsted filed a
complaint with the Commission alleging a violation of section 337 based on
TianRui's misappropriation of trade secrets. Section 337(a)(1)(A) prohibits '[u]nfair
methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles... into
the United States, ... the threat or effect of which is... to destroy or
substantially injure an industry in the United States.'"
Continue reading "Affront Abroad"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:53 AM | ITC
October 10, 2011
Striving But Jiving
The
book "Great
Patents" by David Orange is far from great, and it was not written by
Orange, who only penned the introduction, and otherwise claims editorship. The
subtitle to this slender volume is "advanced strategies for innovative growth
companies," but there's nothing in the book that is advanced, or particularly
strategic, other than the implicit message of "get a lawyer," as the book
breezes through topics that are either mind-numbing or an academic point of view that
has only passing semblance to reality. The book wanders between blurb dross and
boring detail, in disconnected chapters on diverse subject matter. The highest
compliment that may be paid to this hodgepodge is that the Times Roman font used is
at a point size that makes the text easy to read. At $75 in paperback, $90
hardcover, this book is nothing less than a shameless attempt at theft.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 7:26 PM | Patents In Business
Duplicitous
In
a recent speech,
CAFC Chief Judge Randall R. Rader shows himself as rather brainless in his
duplicity. He speaks of equal justice while assailing parties that he would
readily show bias to. He claims to be inspired by juries, but would like to cut
them out of the process. He worries about the cost of patent litigation, but his
reform proposals would do little about it. He values "the individuality and
independence of the judges" while making no mention of the travesty that his
court has produced by rending rule of law into abject corruption by
self-contradiction. The undercurrent to Rader's remarks are
that he is all in favor of illicit bias.
Continue reading "Duplicitous"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 6:27 PM | The Patent System
October 6, 2011
One
About
the only time the CAFC is on the square is when two competitors duke it out. So
it was with IGT v. Bally (CAFC
2010-1364, -1365). Then again, with Judges Newman and Moore on a panel, one
might expect a bit of justice. The claimed invention were slot machines with a
patented bonus payout. Lord knows that sort of thing deserves 20 years'
protection for genius invention. Ironic comedy in that the major event was
figuring out how to construe "one" for a one-armed bandit. The conclusion: "one"
can be more than one, but not if the claim reads "only one." Judges tend to be
mathematically as well as logically challenged. At least they figured out that
"predetermined" and "predefined" were pretty much the same thing. The payout
from the courts: some claims were infringed, some not. CAFC affirmed.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:29 PM | Claim Construction
Old Mule on Old Ground
Rule
of law and adherence to procedure are a shell game at the USPTO, just as
competent examination on the merits is a chimera. Less than three weeks ago
the CAFC
kicked the BPAI for making up a new rejection when the examiner's wasn't up
to snuff, then not allowing the applicant to address it. Another of the same ilk
came to the CAFC: In re Steppan (CAFC
2010-1261), and the CAFC kicked it back for a makeover. The patent office,
led by former IBMer David Kappos, plays dirty with pipsqueak inventors. This
sort of problem never crops up with an application assigned to a major
corporation.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:08 PM | Prosecution
October 5, 2011
Rife
That the USA is rife with corruption at every level is finally catching public attention. The so-called "Wall Street" protests are a widespread movement against the plutocracy. With an irony of namesake, the Wall Street Journal reports the realized knowledge of Emily Graham: "I'm basically sick of corporate greed. I'm frustrated that companies can pollute on a catastrophic level. They get all the tax breaks." They also get all the patent protection they need, at the expense of inventors. The Federal courts, from district court judges to the CAFC and Supreme Court, are thoroughly packed with incredibly corrupt judges who pervert the law, and decency, to serve corporate interests. The continuing conflicted contortions of CAFC case law bear stark witness to the depravity. New patent legislation just became law over the unanimous objections of universities, small businesses and individual inventors, at the behest of the largest corporations. As the rich get richer and the rest fall by the wayside, this country's prospects for the future also fall.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:35 PM | The Patent System
October 4, 2011
Attitude
The codgers on the bench are far too comfortable indulging their biases and ignoring the blind lady of justice. In Mondis Technology. v. Chimei InnoLux, TXED Judge Ward found that a foreign company defendant's "corporate attitude... shows lack of respect," and thereby "warrants a strong enhancement" of royalty rate - doubling what it was. Judge Ward is simply typical, if less than circumspect in not feigning a disguise for his illicit disregard of basic legal principles.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 10:24 AM | The Patent System
October 3, 2011
Sorry Slab
Bettcher
sued Bunzl for infringing its electric meat-cutting knife patent -
7,000,325. The patent was invalid by Bettcher's own products. The district
court judge was biased against Bunzl - inadequate claim construction and bum
jury instructions were the result. That bias carried over to the CAFC. The
result - more inconstancy in case law - another slab of double-talk that allows
let courts justify their whims. The joke of patent jurisprudence continues.
prior art search + 
Newsfeed (RSS)