• Supreme Court Decision Deals Blow to ‘Patent Trolls’ and the ‘Best Little’ East Texas Towns That Thrive on Patent Litigation

    After TC Heartland, patent infringement filings by patent trolls should be greatly reduced because they can no longer simply file and maintain cases against domestic corporations in plaintiff-friendly districts such as the Eastern District of Texas. Unfortunately for Marshall, Tyler and other East Texas towns, the torrent of lucrative patent litigation-related business traffic may slow to a trickle.

    The post Supreme Court Decision Deals Blow to ‘Patent Trolls’ and the ‘Best Little’ East Texas…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Lefstin, Mossoff critique SCOTUS’ sense of history and negative impacts on today’s patent system

    “The Supreme Court has told us, and told itself, a particular story — a story based in history to justify its current regime,” Lefstin said near the top of his presentation, which was titled Invention and Discovery: A Fable of History. “But when one starts to inquire into that history, you find the story is quite different than the court has led us to believe.” According to Lefstin, this story and its diversion from a factual basis in history began with the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in…

    Continue Reading ...
  • IPO Webinar on Venue Transfers

    The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled “Venue Transfers and Section 1400(b) — After Heartland” on June 13, 2017 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Kenneth Adamo of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Brett Johnson of Winston & Strawn LLP, and Bill Sigler of Fisch Sigler LLP will consider the implications of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heartland. Taking the latest developments into account, the panelists will consider: • Pending cases: the options, as defined by timing, waivers, judges’ discretion, the declaratory judgment option for defendants in new venues, whether plaintiffs should file in…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Conflicts in Patent Prosecution

    Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled “Conflicts in Patent Prosecution: Avoiding the Ethical Pitfalls — Minimizing Risks of Malpractice Liability and Ethics Sanctions” on June 22, 2017 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT). Philip Furgang of Furgang & Adwar and Dr. Sandra P. Thompson of Slater Hersey & Lieberman will provide guidance to IP counsel on the conflicts issues that often arise in patent prosecutions, and outline best practices to identify and address the risks — and to minimize conflicts that can lead to malpractice liability and ethical violations. The webinar will review the following topics: • What policies…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Report States Copyright Fair Use Contributes $2.8 Trillion to U.S. Economy

    The Communications and Computer Industry Association has released a report that attempts to ascertain the value of fair use to the U.S. economy.  The 2017 report places the value added to the economy at $2.8 trillion dollars in 2014 with 18 million workers “benefiting from fair use.”  The 2017 report also states that $5.6 trillion dollars of revenue was generated by fair use industries.  Some examples of fair use industries include: “manufacturers of consumer devices that allow individual copying and recording; educational institutions; software developers; and Internet search and web hosting providers.”  In discussing fair use, the report states:


    One of the benefits of the flexible fair use doctrine is its adaptability, which can cover unanticipated new uses and technologies. Whereas narrow exceptions drafted around specific technologies become outdated rapidly, the flexibility of the fair use doctrine has, at different times, enabled both consumer electronics and online services. The breathing space provided by fair use has facilitated  a thriving technology industry in the United States. New online products and services almost inevitably involve some transitory copying, if only for technological purposes. This makes the fair use doctrine a necessity, as licensing every time an image is copied into a computer’s memory, for example, would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

    Fair use has proven to be critical to other industries as well. For example, the varied industries that encompass the entertainment industry all rely on fair use. Fair use is also crucial in the context of education and reporting the news, which depend upon reproducing and disseminating primary sources. This reliance often becomes most apparent in litigation, as all of these industries have defended ordinary business conduct before courts by relying on the fair use doctrine.

    In addition to being critical to a vast number of U.S. constituencies, fair use has also gained recognition abroad as a crucial information technology policy. While fair use is a principle of uniquely American origin, nearly 50 other countries have adopted some version of American fair use or its British counterpart, fair dealing, into their domestic copyright law.1 Perceiving the success that has resulted from the balances in the U.S. copyright system, many countries aspire to emulate the U.S. fair use model. This is the case even in countries with well-developed copyright systems. For example, in 2010, then-Prime Minister David Cameron announced an inquiry into adopting a fair use-type provision in UK law, in order to “encourage the sort of creative innovation that exists in America.”

    It would be interesting to see if a similar analysis could be done for experimental use type exceptions to patent infringement in Europe.  

    Continue Reading ...
  • Cushman and Wakefield’s Tech Cities Report

    Cushman and Wakefield, the global commercial real estate firm, has released its first tech cities report.  The report attempts to ascertain which are the most successful “technology cities” in the United States.  The report notes that so-called tech cities outperform other cities in terms of commercial real estate value and other factors, but no one has attempted to determine exactly what is a “tech city.”  That is what Cushman and Wakefield attempts by looking at factors leading to a “tech stew”.  “Tech stew” is the term encompassing the characteristics leading to development of a tech city.  Some of those factors include: institutions of higher learning; venture capital; tech workers; knowledge workers; educated workers and growth entrepreneurship.  For example, universities of higher learning noted for San Francisco and San Jose include: UC Berkeley, Stanford, UC Davis, University of the Pacific, Santa Clara University and University of San Francisco [a notable omission is UC San Francisco].  For venture capital, the report notes San Francisco/San Mateo at the higher end for 2016 with $28.5 billion and New York City at $9.1 billion.  Growth entrepreneurship uses the Kauffman Foundation’s metrics to measure firms with a high likelihood of growth.  Notably, Washington DC, Austin, Silicon Valley, Nashville, and Boston are the top five U.S. cities for growth entrepreneurship. 


    The top ten tech cities are: 1) Silicon Valley; 2) San Francisco; 3) Washington DC; 4) Boston; 5) Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 6) Seattle; 7) Austin; 8) Denver; 9) San Diego; and 10) Madison, Wisconsin.  This list is not too surprising; although a few notable missing cities from the top ten include: New York City (15) and Los Angeles (18).  Oakland/East Bay is also considered separate from San Francisco and Orange County is separated from Los Angeles.  From the commercial real estate perspective, the report notes that rents have increased almost 20% more since 2010 in the top 25 tech cities than in the rest of the United States.  

    Continue Reading ...
  • BE AS+PP ~のとおり;~と同様;~ような

                            目次はこちら

    BE AS+PP ~のとおり;~と同様;~ような

    –>be+PP;as+PP

    $$ The changes made to these positions may be as described above. / それらの位置に対する変化は上記のごときものであってもよい。(USP01010935)

    $$ The material may be as disclosed in EP-A-0540818 or US 20020115813. / 材料は、欧州特許出願公開第0540818号明細書または米国特許出願公開第20020115813号明細書に開示されているものであってもよい。(USP7584738)

    $$ The second glass cell wall (10) is coated with a bistable surface alignment grating (1), the profile of which is as described with respect to FIG. 1. / 第2のガラスセル壁(10)は、双安定表面アライメント格子(1)(そのプロファイル(profile)は図1との関係で説明されたようなものである)で被覆される。(USP7053975)

    $$ The glass was as described in Example 5. / ガラスは例5に説明したものと同様であった。(USP6313192)

    $$ The tunnel setting for the illustrated arrangement is as indicated in the drawing (Tunnel 1).(USP01054158)

    $$ The way in which the image is created on the display is as described above.(USP6006140)

    $$ After subtraction of a uniform phase ramp, the unwrapped phase map is as shown in FIG. 2. / 一定の位相ランプ(phase ramp)を減算すれば、第2図に示すようなアンラップされた位相マップとなる。(USP6208416)

    $$ For the arrangement of the described embodiment the set up is as illustrated in FIG. 1; for a change of `hand` the arrangement is as illustrated in FIG. 4.(USP4834839)

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • No, David Clarke did not plagiarize.

    In a post How the media got it wrong on Sheriff Clarke plagiarism accusation, John Lott concludes
    there was no plagiarism in the David Clarke matter:


    By contrast, Clarke’s thesis footnoted on the same page each questionable sentence. It was sloppy of Clarke to copy five separate sentences in their entirety, but he did not commit plagiarism.

    Elsewhere, there is mention of some Harvard plagiarism:

    A number of Harvard law professors have faced plagiarism accusations. But in each and every case, then Dean Elena Kagan, now Supreme Court Justice, found that no rules had been broken.

    Professor Alan Dershowitz was accused of copying verbatim 22 of the 52 endnotes in his book. At the end of the book, Dershowitz merely mentioned the book that he copied from.
    Professor Laurence Tribe copied many passages almost word-for-word from another scholar’s work. He escaped blame because he had hired a first-year law student to ghostwrite the book for him. The student took the blame.
    Professor Charles Ogletree used six consecutive paragraphs from another book. But it was decided that the mistake did not result from “deliberate wrongdoing.”

    Previously, USAToday had a piece [ Report: Sheriff David Clarke plagiarized parts of homeland security thesis ] based on CNN which had noted:


    “In all instances reviewed by CNN’s KFILE, Clarke lifts language from sources and credits them with a footnote, but does not indicate with quotation marks that he is taking the words verbatim,” the story said.

    With IPBiz defining plagiarism as “copying with attribution,” this was not plagiarism. There was attribution at the point of the copying.

    See also the May 31 post on IPBiz
    Did Sheriff David Clarke copy without attribution?

    See also Lawyers copying other lawyers: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

    Continue Reading ...