• Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case on Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review

    This is not directly related to patent remedies, but it is an important piece of news.   The U.S. Supreme Court this morning grant certiorari in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, Case No. 16-712, to review the following question:  “Whether inter partes review—an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents—violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.”  Inter partes reviews, for those of you outside the U.S. who are not familiar with them, are an administrative procedure (enacted as part of the 2011 America Invents Act) for challenging the validity of issued patents.

    Hat tip to Professor Dmitry Karshtedt for bringing this to my attention.

    Update:  Here is a link to Scotus Blog’s page for this case, from which you can download the cert petition, the briefs filed to date, etc.   Here is a link to the order list, which shows that the Court granted cert. as to the petitioner’s first question (the one quoted above) only.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services (Fed. Cir. 2017)

    Claims Directed to Providing Financing for Allowing a Customer to Purchase a Car found Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By Joseph Herndon — In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in a Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review proceeding in which claims were held to be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Credit Acceptance Corp. (“CAC”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,950,807, which includes both system and method claims directed to providing financing for allowing a customer to purchase a product…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Conference & CLE Calendar

    June 12-14, 2017 – Summit on Biosimilars*** (American Conference Institute) – New York, NY June 13, 2017 – European biotech patent law update (D Young & Co) – 4:00 am, 7:00 am, and 12:00 pm (ET) June 13, 2017 – Patent Quality Chat webinar series (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) – 12:00 to 1:00 pm (ET) June 13, 2017 – “Venue Transfers and Section 1400(b) — After Heartland” (Intellectual Property Owners Association) – 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET) June 14, 2017 – “Laying Your Claim: Best Practices for Patent Claim Construction in a Post-Teva World” (Dilworth IP) – 1:00 to…

    Continue Reading ...
  • BE AS PREP

                            目次はこちら

    BE AS PREP

    あまり用いられない。

    $$ The adjustment mechanism on the right is as in FIG. 10, and the adjustment mechanism on the left is a mi…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Discovery Ethics: 30(b)(6)

    So… Lawyer sends over a 30(b)(6) request trying to get the deposition of the corporation as to why certain prior art had not been submitted during prosecution.  Rather than have an employee investigate and figure out why the art wasn’t disclosed, or object to the notice, the recipient produces an employee who basically says, “I […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • The Future of CleanTech Patents

    The number of U.S. patents granted for clean energy technology has recently dropped following a near 10-year period of growth. In fact, according to the Brookings Institute, the number of CleanTech patents granted in the country fell by a whopping nine…

    Continue Reading ...
  • A justice in New Zealand accused of plagiarism within a judicial opinion; a journalism/law prof in Tennessee is also charged with plagiarism

    RadioNZ notes


    Nauru Chief Judge Khan is alleged to have used large swathes of Stephen Lawrence’s article [ “Abuse of Process – Judicial Enforcement of Fundamental Values and Principles”. ] in a judicial decision he made in 2015, without any attribution as to the source of the material.

    Stephen Lawrence has told Nauru Justice Minister Adeang the alleged plagiarism raises serious ethical issues in any context.

    Further he said when it occurs in the written reasons for a judicial decision it also undermines public confidence and may create appeal grounds for the unsuccessful party.

    link: http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/332023/claim-nauru-chief-justice-plagiarised-judgement

    **In a separate matter, a journalism/law professor at the University of Tennessee [Stuart N. Brotman ] has been accused of plagiarism. From the Knoxville News Sentinel:


    Brotman delivered his report in September 2015 and was paid the $115,000 promised him. A month later, the foundation said Ford had reviewed Brotman’s report and found it rife with plagiarized sections.

    “Brotman had replicated a significant portion of work, word-for-word and without citation, from an individual named Lawrence Spiwak, who is Dr. Ford’s colleague,” foundation attorney Harris wrote. “The Initial Report also copied portions of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Inter-Governmental A1 Relations, Study A-121, and a brief by the U.S. Department of Justice.”

    Brotman admits via Leibowitz he tried to fix the report, adding additional footnotes and attribution, to suit the foundation and even threw in some additional research for free. He said he ran the revised report through Grammarly, plagiarism-detection software.

    “A memorandum provided to SGLF on November 6, 2015 noted the Grammarly scan of the draft report revised at SGLF’s request indicated potentially 132 citation errors, with the largest grouping of these reflecting direct quotations that had been correctly cited,” Leibowitz wrote.

    (…)

    The arguments at this point are more about what laws apply than whether Brotman actually committed plagiarism or breached his contract with the foundation because of plagiarism. Brotman is arguing that even if he is guilty of plagiarism, only the authors of the works from which he stole can pursue legal action for copyright infringement. The foundation disagrees.

    “SGLF has raised no allegations that Brotman infringed its copyright,” attorney Harris wrote. “SGLF is claiming that Brotman breached his contract by failing to prepare a work product in accordance with the parties’ contract. Instead, Brotman — a journalism professor — committed plagiarism that could have harmed SGLF.”

    The case is in its early stages. A scheduling conference is set for June 22 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Guyton.

    link: http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/02/ut/354609001/

    Continue Reading ...