• Daimler trademark lawsuit alleges that Amazon.com doesn’t do enough to prevent infringement and counterfeits

    At issue in the trademark infringement suit is Amazon’s sale of counterfeit wheel center caps bearing distinctive Mercedes-Benz trademarks… Daimler argues that Amazon “facilitates the sale of an exorbitant number of counterfeit and infringing goods” through its platform, counterfeit activity which has increased since 2015 when the company began inducing Chinese manufacturers to list on its U.S. and European e-commerce platforms. Daimler notes that lawsuits over counterfeit products have been…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

    By Michael Borella — Intellectual Ventures I (IV) brought an action against Erie Indemnity Company in the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,298. Erie filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the claims of the ‘298 patent did not meet the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District Court granted the motion and IV appealed. The Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l case set forth a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. One must first decide whether the claim…

    Continue Reading ...
  • New York Times mentions "pop-culture plagiarism"

    From the New York Times:

    “Future Man,” a softhearted, foul-mouthed, highly self-aware science-fiction spoof that glories in pop-culture plagiarism. When the unlikely hero is apprised of the show’s premise, he rolls his eyes and says: “That’s ‘The Last Starfighter.’ It’s the exact same plot as the movie.” Further resonances, in the seven episodes available for review, include “Minority Report,” “Animal House,” “War Games” and a lot of “Terminator.” (Also “Top Chef.”)

    In case your memory doesn’t stretch back to the 1984 “Last Starfighter,” “Future Man” stars Josh Hutcherson (himself a reference to “The Hunger Games”) as a janitor named Josh who lives with his parents and distracts himself from his millennial malaise by obsessively playing a violent, futuristic video game. When he finally unlocks the last level, two of the game’s characters, Tiger and Wolf (Eliza Coupe and Derek Wilson), appear in his bedroom and tell him that the game was a test sent back from the post-apocalyptic future to find humanity’s savior.


    But the central joke — that the initially hapless Josh is not at all what the future was hoping to find — is a good one, and it keeps paying off. “Aren’t people playing video games supposed to embody the skills of their online personas?” an exasperated Tiger asks. “No,” Josh replies. “it’s the complete opposite.”

    link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/arts/television/future-man-hulu-review.html

    **Separately, an interesting spin on copying without attribution from the legal sector

    Case A, discussing standards of review, makes an inaccurate analysis of text in a
    US Supreme Court case

    Case B identically copies the paragraph from Case A, but does not cite case A, making it look
    like the court originated the thought

    The court of Case B later cites case A in case C but makes no mention of the Supreme Court case

    Continue Reading ...
  • Apotex wins at CAFC in case related to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) and filgrastim (Neupogen®).

    The two suits were consolidated. The district court
    held a bench trial in July 2016, and it issued findings of
    fact and conclusions of law on September 6, 2016. The
    court found that Amgen had failed to prove that Apotex’s
    proposed commercial marketing of the two products,
    pursuant to Apotex’s applications, would infringe the ’138
    patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

    Amgen appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1295(a)(1). We affirm.

    Of evidentiary issues:

    We do not question the general legal principle that
    Amgen asserts: we agree that a district court cannot
    ignore letters sent during the BPCIA’s information exchange
    if properly offered into evidence. Indeed, the prelitigation
    information exchange is part of the BPCIA’s
    “carefully calibrated scheme for preparing to adjudicate,
    and then adjudicating, claims of infringement.” Sandoz
    Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1664, 1670 (2017). The
    purpose of the exchange is “to identify relevant patents
    and to flesh out the legal arguments that the[] [parties]
    might raise in future litigation.” Id. at 1671. Through
    the information exchange, the BPCIA seeks to facilitate
    the efficient resolution of patent disputes. The statements
    in the pre-litigation letters are party admissions
    and therefore have some probative weight. The district
    court’s statement that the letters “are not probative on
    the issue of protein concentration,” J.A. 24 ¶ 39, is therefore
    an overstatement to the extent it suggests that the
    letters lack probative value as a matter of law.
    We read the district court’s statement in context,
    however, to mean only that the letters are not sufficiently
    probative to outweigh other evidence presented at trial
    indicating that the information in the letters was inaccurate.
    Indeed, the district court did not ignore the prelitigation
    letters. Rather, it first concluded that the
    letters were not binding on Apotex, a conclusion that
    Amgen does not dispute, and it then found that the letters
    lacked probative value in light of the other evidence
    presented at trial. Thus, the court gave the letters their
    evidentiary due. We do not believe that the court’s phrasing
    reflects an error in the approach it actually took to
    reach its findings or calls the court’s ultimate conclusion
    into question.
    The letters do not render the finding of fact regarding
    the protein concentration clearly erroneous. The district
    court found that the letters were “not probative on the
    issue of protein concentration” because they were “factually
    incorrect,” J.A. 24, and it had a sufficient basis in the
    evidence to make that finding.

    The Sunovion case is discussed:

    Amgen argues that the district court’s noninfringement
    finding rests on too restrictive a view of
    Apotex’s FDA applications. It challenges that view as
    contrary to this court’s decision in a Hatch-Waxman Act
    case, Sunovion Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
    731 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2013), under which, Amgen
    argues, the district court here was required to assess
    infringement based on the full range of processes that
    would be consistent with Apotex’s applications. Apotex
    does not challenge the importation of Sunovion’s analysis
    into the BPCIA context, but it does dispute Sunovion’s
    applicability to the facts of this case. We agree with
    Sunovion involved an abbreviated new drug application
    that, on its face, authorized the applicant to engage
    in actions that would, in fact, infringe the patent in
    question. Sunovion, 731 F.3d at 1274–75. The district
    court had granted summary judgment of noninfringement
    because the defendant had “certified” that it
    did not actually intend to run its process in an infringing
    manner and presented evidence of internal manufacturing
    guidelines showing non-infringement. Id. This court
    reversed, reasoning that internal guidelines and a certification
    were insufficient to avoid a finding of infringement
    when the application itself authorized the activity that
    would infringe. Id. at 1280.

    Here, in contrast, the district court had a sufficient
    basis for reading Apotex’s applications as not authorizing
    processes that infringe, indeed, as constraining the processes
    to non-infringing levels. The district court credited
    the testimony of Dr. Dowd, based on the numbers in the
    applications, that the maximum protein concentration
    possible in the refold mixtures of Apotex’s applications is
    0.708 g/L. J.A. 3618–20. Dr. Dowd arrived at this calculation
    using the high-end of the “key process parameter”
    range for solubilized inclusion bodies, 11.8 mg/mL, and
    the minimum 75 percent purity of the target protein (i.e.,
    filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) specified by the applications.
    Amgen argues that the key process parameters do not
    prevent Apotex from infringing the ’138 patent because
    they are not absolute limits. But the applications indicate
    that close adherence to the key process parameters is
    critical to the function of the process. J.A. 6725 (noting
    that key process parameters must be “carefully controlled
    within a narrow range and are essential for process
    performance”); J.A. 6728 (identifying the 11.8 mg/ml
    figure as a “qualified upper limit”). Consistent with this
    description, Dr. Dowd testified at trial that Apotex needs
    to maintain its process within the key process parameters
    in order “for the batch to be acceptable,” and that, if those
    ranges are exceeded, “the batch would be thrown out.”
    J.A. 3622–23. The district court found this testimony
    credible. J.A. 26. In light of the evidence, we see no basis
    for deeming the district court’s finding as to the constraints
    in Apotex’s applications to be clearly erroneous.

    Continue Reading ...
  • 宛(宛先)



    "addressed to"はアドレスされたの意味に用いることが多いようである

    $$ Preferably, at least one node is arranged not to transmit to any other node information in a signal received by said at least one node when that information is addressed to said at least one node. / 好ましくは、少なくとも1つのノードが、前記少なくとも1つのノードにより受信された信号中の情報を、その情報が前記少なくとも1つのノードに宛てられているときに、他のノードに伝送しないように配列される。(USP6553020)

    $$ This technique segments video data into packets and each such packet is transmitted via the network to a predetermined destination node. / この技術はビデオデータをパケットに分割し、このような各パケットが、ネットワークを介して所定の宛先ノードに伝送される。(USP7619972)

    $$ Eventually a message is returned from the destination. / 最終的に、メッセージは宛先から戻される。(USP7006435)

    $$ There may be at least two possible paths for transfer of data between a source node and a destination node. / ソースノードと宛先ノードの間でのデータ転送のためには少なくとも2つの考えられる経路がある。(USP6553020)

    $$ The number may be that of an answering center or of any other destination which has the capacity to handle a multiplicity of calls simultaneously. / この電話番号は、多数の呼を同時に処理する容量をもつ応答センタまたは他の宛先の番号であってよい。(USP6330313)

    $$ IP Routers are able to route individual data frames to different destinations so that the flexible signalling connection is established simply by providing the IP address of the server to the IP Router. / IPルータは、個々のデータフレームを異なる宛先に配布するので、サーバのIPアドレスをIPルータに与えるだけで柔軟なシグナリングコネクションが確立される。(USP6222843)

    $$ Data destined for a particular output port will enter a switch from many different input ports. / 特定の出力ポート宛のデータは多数の異なる入力ポートからスイッチに入る。(USP5448559)

    $$ Similarly, voice calls destined for a mobile node can take a different route to the base station from those taken by packet based calls. / 同様に、移動ノードに方向付けられた音声呼は、パケットベースの呼によってとられたルートからベースステーションへの異なるルートをとることができる。(USP6584098)

    $$ Since the VPI is zero, the fourth device knows to interpret the data packet as being destined for local processing by the fourth device. (USP6118782)

    $$ At this point the bus controller places a logic 0 on the Din control line 26 and issues any required control signals destined uniquely for the first bus module. (USP6373955)


    Continue Reading ...
  • New USPTO Fees

    The USPTO has finalized a new set of fees: Final Rules.  Some of the changes: Inter Partes Reviews: (request + post-institution) $30,500 (up from $21,000). Application Filing (Filing + Search + Examination) $1,720 (up from $1,600). Provisional Applications: $280 (up from $260). Extra independent claims: $460 (up from $420). Extra dependent claims: $100 (up from $80). […]

    Continue Reading ...