« January 2012 | Main | March 2012 »
February 27, 2012
Abstracting Real Property
In Fort Properties v.
American Master Lease (CAFC 2009-1242;
precedential), the CAFC affirmed a district court finding that
6,292,788
was invalid for violating §101.
'788 claimed methods for real estate transactions without incurring tax
liability. Ties to tangible "commodities and money" were
"insufficient." "The physical activities involving the deeds,
contracts, and real property are insufficient to render these claims
patentable." The court generally declares "investment tools" "an
abstract concept," and so unpatentable.
Continue reading "Abstracting Real Property"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 3:42 PM | § 101
February 20, 2012
PTO No
Foley & Lardner attorney
Andrew S. Baluch has his knickers in a twist over a USPTO power grab to
pummel inventors by denying them their legal rights. The new patent act
explicitly allows a patent holder under inter partes reexam to amend
claims however seen fit. But the PTO has "proposed regulations would
deny the patent owner's right to amend - in a first or in any
subsequent motion to amend - whenever the Board determines that the
amendment 'seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or
introduce new subject matter.'" Read
Mr. Baluch's paper.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 5:31 PM | The Patent Office
February 19, 2012
Less Than Lesson
Clearvalue sued Pearl River Polymers for indirectly
infringing
6,120,690,
which claims a process for clarifying water. A jury found
'690 valid and indirectly infringed. Post-trial JMOL motions were
denied by EDT Judge Davis. On appeal, a CAFC panel points out a numerical
obviousness that anchored anticipation.
Continue reading "Less Than Lesson"
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:47 AM | Prior Art
February 16, 2012
Ridiculous
The USPTO is horrifically incompetent, something which the CAFC recognizes, even as it
is itself riven with malfeasance. In oral arguments In re Collins
(CAFC 2011-1293),
panel Judges Moore and Reyna savaged the PTO for its idiocy. Judge
Moore to the PTO: "It makes no sense. I think this is a terrible
rejection. I think you all have done a really sloppy job. I know you've
got a big backlog. I know you're out a few judges. This is ridiculous.
This is a bad rejection. There's a good rejection you could have made.
This isn't it." Like craven lawyers everywhere, the PTO went on to
defend the rationally indefensible. Despite the panel's professed
outrage, in a show of solidarity, the panel went on to affirm the PTO.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 1:27 PM | The Patent Office
February 12, 2012
Inky
The wonders of the Chinese nation
are remarkable. Their respect for the environment is matched by their
scrupulous business practices and freedom-loving governance. So
it
comes as a shock that Ninestar Technology, a Chinese company with
American subsidiaries, had been found committing "unfair trade
practices based on infringement of certain United States patents by the
importation and sale of ink printer cartridges produced in China."
There was something of a communication problem. Fairness does not
translate well into Chinese. Upon being ordered to stop importation by
the ITC, Ninestar "did not simply ignore or disregard the Commission's
orders; they deliberately evaded the orders." Ninestar argued that the
ITC "does not have jurisdiction over Ninestar China;" that "a
non-judicial body cannot be assigned authority to issue a punitive
penalty for violation of an administrative order. Ninestar argues that
the statutory penalty is of such magnitude as to be criminal in nature
and that a procedure whereby an administrative agency levies a criminal
penalty is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers"; that
the ITC's "cease and desist order is 'unconstitutional on its face'
because it is 'unclear' in that it does not identify the specific ink
cartridges and model numbers that are affected." On appeal, the CAFC
was unmoved the Ninestar's inky arguments. These U.S. government
bureaucracies and courts are not so unbiased and free-thinking as the
Chinese. (CAFC 2009-1549)
Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:35 PM | ITC
February 10, 2012
Extreme
6,436,135
typifies the extremities of the broken and corrupt U.S. patent system.
Filed in 1974, '135 took 28 years to be allowed (2002). Owing to
byzantine U.S. law, it was subject to an interference over who
first invented what it claimed. Litigation followed allowance within
months. Four years later, a jury found '135 "valid and willfully
infringed by Gore." Thus, in slow motion, the travesty began.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 5:45 PM | Case Law
February 8, 2012
Contaminated
6,346,983
suffered an ex parte reexam. '983 claims a gas particle counter. The
claimed technology also applies to liquid contamination. Not
surprisingly, some claims were found obvious. But then there was this:
The Board also rejected claims 6-8 for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1. The PTO concedes that these rejections are in error and "seeks remand to the Board for it to withdraw the written description rejection and take appropriate action." Appellee's Br. 26. The Appellant agrees. Reply Br. 37.
Such concession of incompetence is refreshingly rare. In Re
Yufa (CAFC 2011-1417).
Posted by Patent Hawk at 7:21 PM | The Patent Office
February 5, 2012
Flexible
Craig Thorner asserted his
tactile feedback video game controller
patent, 6,422,941,
against Sony. New Jersey Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, one of vast
majority of corrupt judges on the Federal bench, wasn't about to
let Sony get shaken down by some troll inventor. Mitt Romney, this
country's next political CEO, reminds that corporations are people too,
and
they need the state's protection from the rabble that passes for
inventive animal spirits. The plutocracy must be preserved,
but the courts should not be so brazenly unjust that the wage slaves
can smell it for the
stink
that it is. In claim construction, Judge Brown was too blatant, so the
CAFC had to step in to correct the crunch of his judicial jackboot,
though with a nod and wink, that the judge's goosestep was marching in
the right direction.
Posted by Patent Hawk at 9:11 PM | Claim Construction
February 1, 2012
Mobius Claim
6,879,830
goes to "a method for handing over a link between" base stations for a
mobile phone. Actually, a mobile phone is claimed, an apparatus, but
where a claimed networking method must be performed for
the claimed handover to occur. Thus the meat of the claims are of a
method, though the claim is of an
apparatus, which is a transgression of §112 ¶2, indefiniteness, for
mixed claim types, vis-à-vis IPXL
v. Amazon.
So this ruling is easy. But not so fast. Consistency is the hobgoblin
of small minds. As
there are no small minds on the CAFC, there is no need for consistency.
prior art search + 
Newsfeed (RSS)