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.
December 22, 2011
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.
December 18, 2011
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).
December 12, 2011
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.
December 8, 2011
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.
December 2, 2011
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.