上下左右

                        目次はこちら

上下左右

$$ Thus, the force output from the two motors can be transmitted to the pairs of cables 1,2 and 3,4 to provide force feedback for the up/down …

Continue Reading ...
  • 2018 HoF Inductee Jacqueline Quinn Invents EZVI Environmental Remediation Technology to Cleanup Groundwater Contaminants

    Clean sources of groundwater are incredibly important to the general population of the United States. More than 50 percent of the U.S. population relies on groundwater sources for their drinking water according to The Groundwater Foundation. These groundwater sources are susceptible to contamination from various sources including chemical storage tanks, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, residential […]

    The post 2018 HoF Inductee Jacqueline Quinn Invents EZVI Environmental Remediation…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Maximizing Patent Prosecution Opportunities in Europe

    Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “Maximizing Patent Prosecution Opportunities in Europe: Tactics for Counsel When Drafting U.S.-Origin Applications — Navigating Differing USPTO and EPO Legal Standards While Maintaining U.S. Patent Strategy” on January 10, 2019 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Rebecca M. McNeill of McNeill Baur and Jens Viktor Nørgaard of HØIBERG will guide patent counsel in drafting U.S.-origin patent applications to maximize prosecution opportunities in both the U.S. and Europe, and offer best practices for U.S. patent application drafters to protect inventions in Europe without sacrificing U.S. strategy. The webinar will review the following issues: •…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Patent Pending: The Road to Obtaining a U.S. Patent

    The term patent pending is a well recognized term of art that many inventors rightfully covet. It subtly, and very directly, conveys great meaning. It means that an inventor has taken steps to protect their invention in hopes of ultimately obtaining a patent. It also conveys to consumers the aura of innovativeness. Of course, patent pending status is just a stop on the road to obtaining a U.S. patent.

    The post Patent Pending: The Road to Obtaining a U.S. Patent appeared first on IPWatchdog.com…

    Continue Reading ...
  • CAFC declines to "get into the weeds" of SPINEOLOGY, INC. v. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY

    The outcome in 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35162:

    Wright Medical Technology, Inc., appeals the United
    States District Court for the District of Minnesota’s denial
    of its motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
    Because we hold that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in denying Wright’s motion, we affirm.

    The main issue in the case was what the word “body” meant:

    The district court issued a claim construction order in
    2016. In the order, it acknowledged that the parties
    disputed construction of the term “body,” but it declined to
    adopt either party’s construction. Wright and Spineology
    then filed cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement.
    Recognizing the alleged infringement depended
    on how “body” was construed, the district court
    construed “body” consistent with Wright’s noninfringement
    position and granted Wright’s motion.

    Of note was “when” the term was given a meaning:

    Prior to the claim construction order, Spineology and
    Wright each proposed a construction of “body.” J.A. 18,
    21. In the order, the district court “decline[d] to adopt
    either party’s proposed construction of ‘body,’” determining
    “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance
    as to the meaning of the claim.” J.A. 22. It was not until
    summary judgment
    that the district court construed
    “body” consistent with Wright’s, rather than Spineology’s,
    proposed construction.

    We agree with the district court that, while Spineology’s
    proposed construction of “body” was ultimately rejected
    at summary judgment, “[t]he attempt was not so
    meritless as to render the case exceptional.” J.A. 64. As
    we have stressed, “[a] party’s position . . . ultimately need
    not be correct for them not to ‘stand[] out’.” SFA Sys.,
    LLC v. Newegg Inc., 793 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    And Wright cannot fairly criticize Spineology for continuing
    to pursue a construction not adopted by the district
    court in the claim construction order, since the district
    court declined to adopt Wright’s proposed construction as
    well. We see no abuse of discretion here.

    Also of interest was an attorneys fees request on an issue that was mooted
    by the summary judgment:


    Wright asks this court to basically decide the damages
    issues mooted by summary judgment in order to determine
    whether it ought to obtain attorney fees for the
    entire litigation. This we will not do. We will not force
    the district court, on a motion for attorney fees, to conduct
    the trial it never had by requiring it to evaluate Mr.
    Nantell’s “but for” calculations or royalty rates, and we—
    an appellate court—will certainly not conduct that trial in
    the first instance.

    A district court need not, as Wright seems to urge, litigate
    to resolution every issue mooted by summary judgment
    to rule on a motion for attorney fees. And we need
    not, as Wright requests, get into the weeds on issues the
    district court never reached. We see no abuse of discretion
    in the district court’s determination that “the arguments
    made by Spineology to support its damages theory
    . . . are not so meritless as to render the case exceptional.”
    J.A. 65. We see no error in the district court’s determination
    that, on this record, the case was not exceptional, and
    we caution future litigants to tread carefully in their
    complaints about district courts not doing enough.

    As to writing opinions:


    After reviewing Wright’s arguments regarding Spineology’s
    claim construction position, damages theories, and
    litigation conduct, the district court concluded “[n]othing
    about this case stands out from others with respect to the
    substantive strength of Spineology’s litigating position or
    the manner in which the case was litigated.” J.A. 65–66.
    The district court “had no obligation to write an opinion
    that reveals [its] assessment of every consideration,” and
    remand is unnecessary to obtain one. Univ. of Utah v.
    Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 851 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
    2017).

    See also
    Sarif v. Brainlab, 725 Fed. Appx. 996 (2018)
    Raniere v. Microsoft, 887 F.3d 1298 [abuse of discretion; clearly erroneous]
    AdjustaCam v. Newegg, 861 F.3d 1353 (Deference, however, is not absolute…clearly erroneous view of the evidence)

    Continue Reading ...
  • Should there be a pro-inventor canon of construction?

    The Federal Circuit sat en banc last Friday in Procopio v. Wilkie.  Like others before it, this en banc oral argument was interesting — even though it was not a patent case. The case dealt with statutory interpretation — particularly whether the statute in dispute conferred benefits on “blue water” navy veterans who possibly suffered […]

    Continue Reading ...