The World Health Organization is consulting member states and stakeholders on the future of its mechanism to help prepare the world for the next influenza pandemic. It is particularly asking whether countries should submit not only the biological samples of their influenza viruses, but also their genetic information through the mechanism. Also in question is whether the mechanism should be extended to cover seasonal influenza. Stakeholders had different views but all questioned the absence of recognition by the WHO of a widely used database currently hosting most of the world’s influenza genetic information.Continue Reading ...
The World Intellectual Property Organization this week held an event that delved into research, markets and access for vaccines with panels that showed unusual breadth of representation for the UN IP agency. But health advocates have taken issue with t…Continue Reading ...
In Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Communs., LLC, (Opinion for the court, Reyna, J.), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision finding four patents owned by Two-Way Media were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 1 of the ‘187 patent was representative of the ‘187 and ‘005 patents, and described a method for transmitting message packets over a communications network, like the Internet… For claims directed to judicial exceptions under § 101, a…
Continue Reading ...
Recognicorp v. Nintendo (Supreme Court 2017) [RecogPetition] The new Supreme Court petition for writ of certiorari asks the following questions: In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Court set forth a two-step test for determining whether computer-implemented inventions claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. […]Continue Reading ...
In an obviousness inquiry, material prior art references disclosing combinations of claimed limitations cannot be disregarded based on a drug product’s commercial viability or FDA approval. Teaching away from a claimed feature requires a reference to disclose that the feature is unworkable rather than less favorable.
The post Federal Circuit: Less Preferred Alternative is not Teaching Away appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Continue Reading ...
Afro-IP is delighted to announce that this is the final guest post from Prof Wim Alberts. Wim has formally joined the Afro-IP blogging team and will be contributing as and when his schedule allows. Here is his comparative analysis of the recent Taxi appeal case in the UK. Perhaps you know where South African law is going or rather, who or what is driving it?IntroductionIn an earlier discussion the different aspects of IP protection for vehicle shapes were highlighted (Alberts and Van Dyk ‘Taxi! Taxi!’ — the protection of car shapes in intellectual property law 2017 SALJ 219). One of the issues dealt with was the approach of the English courts to the shape of taxis, which did not score high on the distinctiveness graph in the a quo (earlier) judgment of the well-known jurist Judge Arnold in The London Taxi Corporation Limited trading as the London Taxi Company v Frazer-Nash Research Limitedand (2) Ecotive Limited  EWHC 52 (Ch). This aspect was dealt with again on appeal by the English and Wales Court of Appeal in The London Taxi Corporation Limited trading as The London Taxi Company v (1) Frazer-Nash Research Limitedand (2) Ecotive Limited  EWCA Civ 1729).JudgmentThe focus of this discussion is the question of the trade marks being invalid because they are each devoid of distinctive character (as envisaged by article 3(1)(b) of the European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (codified version replacing Directive 89/104/EEC). This leads to the specific defence that the following marks of The London Taxi Company (LTC) have acquired distinctive character.
The 3D Community Trade Mark The 3D UK Trade MarksIn dealing with this aspect, the court referred to its earlier decision in Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd  EWCA Civ 358. More in particular, the following two important quotations (emphasis added):“77. Before assessing these rival submissions, I think it may be helpful to say a little more about a concept which is woven into the decisions of the CJEU, including the decision of the CJEU in this case, concerning the acquisition of distinctive character by an inherently non-distinctive three-dimensional shape mark such as the Trade Mark. As we have seen, the CJEU has held that it is not sufficient for the applicant to show that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise and associate the mark with the applicant’s goods. However, to a non-trade mark lawyer, the distinction between, on the one hand, such recognition and association and, on the other hand, a perception that the goods designated by the mark originate from a particular undertaking may be a rather elusive one. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the two and, as I shall explain in a moment, it is an important one.78. The distinction is this. We are concerned here with a mark, the three-dimensional shape of a chocolate product, that has no inherent distinctiveness. A shape of this kind is not inherently such that members of the public are likely to take it as a badge of origin in the way they would a newly coined word or a fancy name. Now assume that products in that shape have been sold on a very large scale under and by reference to a brand name which is inherently highly distinctive. Assume too that the shape has in that way become very well-known. That does not necessarily mean that the public have come to perceive the shape as a badge of origin such that they would rely upon it alone to identify the product as coming from a particular source. They might simply regard the shape as a characteristic of products of that kind or they might find it brings to mind the product and brand name with which they have become familiar. These kinds of recognition and association do not amount to distinctiveness for trade mark purposes, as the CJEU has now confirmed in its decision in this case.”Returning then to the Taxi ruling, LTC relied on certain practical considerations (paragraph 57). It was said to be common ground that the LTC marks had, by the relevant date, acquired a secondary meaning. In other words, to relevant consumers, the shape did signify a licensed London taxi. LTC argued that there was good evidence that the shape had acquired distinctiveness when regard is had to “evidence” that consumers shunned the Mercedes Vito in favour of the traditional design of a taxi. The court remarked though that if this, and a statement regarding preference for the taxi design, is all that the shape signifies, it is not, applying the test in Nestlé in the Court of Appeal, “sufficient to get him home.” (paragraph 57)Lastly, LTC relied on what it termed the education of consumers. These included, amongst others, notices on flip-up seats. The left-hand advertisement asked “Who’s behind this cab?”, whilst the right-hand advertisement, said “Manganese Bronze Holdings plc [a predecessor of LTC] is the fast-growing engineering group behind one of the world’s most famous symbols – the black cab. Following a tradition that spanned some 110 years, the taxi you are riding in right now sets a new standard in black cab design and comfort”. Later versions included a depiction of the taxi (paragraph 60).The court dealt (paragraph 66) with this approach in the following terms:“Firstly, one must remember, as always in the case of a shape mark, that the public are not used to the shape of a product being used as an indication of origin. Secondly, even though I would not, as I have said, necessarily exclude hirers as a class of average consumer, they constitute a class of consumer whose focus will be on the provider of the services being supplied more than on the manufacturer of the vehicle in which they are travelling. It will be hard to interest them, far less educate them, in the topic of whether the shape of the taxi is an indication of a unique trade source. Thirdly, the hirer is aware of the regulation of London taxis and that taxis of the shapes shown in the registrations can be relied on to be licensed London taxis. One must be careful therefore to distinguish this message admittedly conveyed to them by the shape, from that which is necessary to show that the mark has acquired trade mark significance.”CommentsThis case might not resonate with supporters of the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Société des Produits Nestlé SA v International Foodstuffs  ZASCA 187. The Taxi views can be reconciled though with, for instance, the views of Harms JA in Bergkelder Bpk. v Vredendal Koöp Wynmakery  ZASCA 5 (emphasis added). There the revered justice stated the following:“ In due course it was generally recognised that not only containers but also shapes of goods may perform a trade mark function. For example, English law, implementing a European Community Directive, now provides that a trade mark may consist of ‘the shape of goods or their packaging’ and our 1993 Act, similarly, states that shapes and containers for goods may be trade marks. Importantly, from a legal perspective these trade marks do not differ from any other kind of trade mark:‘the criteria for assessing the distinctive character of three-dimensional shape-of-products marks are no different from those applicable to other categories of trade mark.However, from a practical point of view they stand on a different footing. The problem they pose for their promoters is that according to the public perception containers and shapes generally do not, in American parlance, serve as source identifiers. Containers are usually perceived to be functional and, if not run of the mill, to be decorative and not badges of origin.”It would accordingly appear that whilst the mantra might be that all marks are said to be equal in terms of the distinctiveness criterion, it is just harder for shape marks to comply. One is reminded here of the comment of the Court of Appeal in the Nestlé case, being that the distinction between, on the one hand, such recognition and association and, on the other hand, a perception that the goods designated by the mark originate from a particular undertaking, may be a rather elusive one. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the two. And that is unlikely to change whilst it is the origin theory that is driving Miss Daisy. South African trade mark law quo wadis (where are going)?University of Johannesburg … and member of the Afro-IP teamContinue Reading ...
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit reversed a finding of non-obviousness on Friday based on clear error by the District Court on factual underpinnings of its obviousness determination, in Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. Such decisio…Continue Reading ...
$$ The change of amplitude between successive, once-per-revolution readings is indicative of the torque applied to the shaft 34. / 連続する一回転当たりの測定値の間の大きさの変化は、シャフト３４に付与されるトルクの指標である。(USP8516904)
$$ One advantage of this embodiment is that the number of transistors required per pixel is reduced. / この実施形態の１つの優位点は、ピクセル当たりの必要なトランジスタ数が低減されることにある。(USP8106982)
$$ If compensation is carried out before replication, this has the additional advantage that only one compensator per input signal is required. / 複写の前に補償が実施される場合には、入力信号当たり一つの補償器しかいらないという付加利点がある。(USP7577260)
$$ Consequently a reduced, or zero, quantum of liquid is actually pumped per cycle of operation and pumping capability is reduced or lost. / 結果として、サイクル動作当たり減少された又は零の量の液体しか実際にはポンプ送りされず、ポンプ能力が減少され又は喪失される。(USP7284962)
$$ FIG. 6 depicts a surface alignment grating (40) with a single +1/2 defect site (42) per grating period, L. / 図６は、格子周期Ｌ当たり単一の＋１／２欠陥位置（４２）を持つ表面アライメント格子（４０）を示す。(USP7053975)
$$ Copy numbers were expressed per total RNA (for wound tissue) or expressed per cell (for in vitro studies). / コピー数は、全ＲＮＡ当たりの量（創傷組織）で現すかまたは細胞当たりの量（インビボ実験）で現した。(USP6696433)
$$ The number of blades per propeller would normally be between two and five, preferably three or four blades, per propeller. / プロペラ当たりの翼の数は、通常は、２と５の間であり、好ましくは、プロペラ当たり３つ又は４つの翼とする。(USP6332818)
$$ The amount of cellulose was about 1.9 parts per 100 parts of the mixture of the calcined material and cement. / セルロースの量は、か焼材料とセメントの混合物１００部当たり約１．９部であった。(USP6261465)
$$ A method according to claim 1, in which the frame comprises one fragment per time slot. / 前記フレームはタイムスロット当たり１つの断片を備える、請求の範囲第１項記載の方法。(USP6044086)
$$ Typically, the dispensing pump 88 is rated so that it can supply output solution to three washing machine vessels of 25 litre capacity in 180 seconds (1500 litres per hour, 3 bar line pressure). (USP6632347)
$$ A prototype unit was able to measure up to 15 kGy per hour in a gamma radiation field with mean energy of up to 1.25 MeV. (USP5847391)
$$ The device may also be provided with a means such that it will not operate below a certain pre-determined air flow rate, e.g. 10 to 30 liters per minute. (USP7637260)
$$ A power output of the heater of approximately 30 kilowatts is adequate to provide 15 liters of water per minute at a temperature of 65℃. (USP8038081)
$$ Macrophages were grown in 12 well plates, 1 plate per day for day 0, 4, 7, 9, & 11. (USP7687060)
$$ Whilst this known billing system is reliable and accurate, information is only collected once per day. (USP6539082)
$$ There are also significant charges associated with polling itself–merchants are typically charged between ￡10 and ￡15 per month for each of their EFTPOS terminals. (USP6848613)
目次はこちらContinue Reading ...
Earlier today Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who has been Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and a strong proponent for patent reform, announced that he would be leaving Congress at the end of his current term and not standing for reelection in …Continue Reading ...
Eric Sutton is a senior patent counsel at Oracle and an adjunct professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. Any views or opinions expressed by him in this article are solely his own and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation, its subsidiaries or affiliates. As known to most patent practitioners,[i] a parent provisional does […]Continue Reading ...
The Federal Circuit evidences a great deal of myopia to declare that these patents are not directed to a technological advance, even if they can string together citations that seem to support their sterilized findings. Shouldn’t it seem self evident in…Continue Reading ...
A well-represented set of experts this week held discussions on the current situation of access to vaccines, the market, the role of pharmaceutical companies, and partnerships. Vaccines were not a field much affected by patents in the past, but the sit…Continue Reading ...