« November 2011 | Main | January 2012 »
December 25, 2011
The Art of the Patent
A
patent disclosure often describes the drawings, which are required
"where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to
be patented." 35
U.S.C. 113. Kevin Price celebrates the art form in The
Art of the Patent. The book is a nicely done picture book,
and well thought out, though slight. The text is juvenille, written for
junior high school level, both in content and gee-whiz attitude. The
opportunity to explain the craft of patent illustration is foregone.
This would have been a much better book with more maturity, and truer
appreciation of skill by exposition, rather than mere illustration.
That might have made the book a reference worth returning to, rather
than something consumed in a sitting or two, and then left on the
shelf. That said, it is the perfect book for the lobby coffee table of
a patent prosecution firm. Perhaps that was the target audience all
along.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 11:43 AM | Prosecution
December 22, 2011
Assembly
Consider
an apparatus claim to an "assembly," with structures "bonded" to each
other at surfaces (4,884,631).
One would construe the claim to be of a single thing. But the courts
are disingenuous, exercising bias by nuanced misconstruction. In this case,
that the claimed assembly "must be separate parts," when the claim
clearly states otherwise. The asserting plaintiff: a mere patent
holder. The defendants: household name corporations Sony &
Lenovo, neither American, but both large corporations facing a
court-despised species: "patent troll." Now there's an excuse for
injustice.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:33 PM | Claim Construction
December 18, 2011
Terminal Disclaimer
The
patent office's failure to deliver renders the post office an amateur
shambles, leaving the PTO pros at incompetence. Then there are the
courts, which use case law as a subterfuge, rather than the creation
of a body of consistent case law, as the legal profession naturally
expects. In understated outrage, Hal Wegner considers a recent case of
chemical obviousness before the patent board (BPAI).
Continue reading "Terminal Disclaimer"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:06 PM | Prosecution
December 12, 2011
Stabilising Coat
The
corrupt plutocratic governance in this country saves its
skin from mass revolt by long-con shading: maintaining the
appearance of playing it jake, while keeping the dice loaded for the
money players when it matters. The courts in patent cases
do this through nuanced rulings, with the assistance of double-speak
case law. When a dumb judge steps over the line of indiscretion, it is
checked by slicker fixers from above. Case in point: New
Jersey Judge William ("Little Willie") Martini, who likes his martini
dry, but made a ruling that was all wet.
Continue reading "Stabilising Coat"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:28 PM | Case Law
December 8, 2011
Patent Debris
Construction Equipment Company (CEC) sued Powerscreen for infringing 5,234,564,
which claims a construction site debris sifter. "The district court
ruled that the '564
patent was valid, enforceable, and willfully infringed by Powerscreen,
and entered final judgment... The Federal Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment. Constr.
Equip. Co. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distrib. Ltd., 243 F.3d
559 (Fed. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1148 (2001)." That should
have been the end of it, but it was only
the beginning. The USPTO and CAFC demonstrate an abject disregard for
the law and the constitution, as the anti-patent juggernaught rolls on,
leaving only debris from intellectual property.
Continue reading "Patent Debris"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:13 PM | Prior Art
December 2, 2011
Beforehand
Teva
sued AstraZeneca for infringing RE39,502,
claiming drug treatment
for lazy meat eaters (dyslipidemia).
But AstraZenaca had manufactured the patented drug first. Summany
judgment of anticipation was the defendant's remedy. Teva complained
that it deserved the patent because AstraZenaca hadn't appreciated what
it had done. No need for that, the CAFC reminds.