A case at the High Court in India set for 15 December could decide whether a patent on some of the most important drugs to fight hepatitis C should be removed. It is one of many attempts to challenge patents on hepatitis C drugs in various countries ar…Continue Reading ...
Nobody among members of the World Intellectual Property Organization disputes the importance of the public services provided by libraries and archives. However, positions are different when it comes to providing exceptions to copyright to those entitie…Continue Reading ...
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 ...
The first design patent case to go to trial since Apple v. Samsung has given design patent owners hope that a ‘total profit’ award is still achievable… Patent owners are keeping a close eye on how juries respond to the new legal framework, and will b…Continue Reading ...
Means plus function claiming allows the drafter to claim the invention based on functionality rather than the more traditional (and preferred) claiming technique that employs structure within the body of the claim itself… If there is no structure in …Continue Reading ...
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 ...
Trade ministers negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) without the United States have dropped many problematic provisions related to intellectual property and health, Médicins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders) reported today.Continue Reading ...
Select your location on MdundoThe big international music news in Africa is usually about an African artist signing with an American label, but this time, Mdundo.com has flipped the meza. Mdundo has licensed the rights to stream Warner Music’s ca…Continue Reading ...
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.”
**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 caseContinue Reading ...
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
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 sufficientContinue Reading ...
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.
$$ Preferably, at least one node is arranged not to transmit to any other node information in a signal received by said at least one node when that information is addressed to said at least one node. / 好ましくは、少なくとも１つのノードが、前記少なくとも１つのノードにより受信された信号中の情報を、その情報が前記少なくとも１つのノードに宛てられているときに、他のノードに伝送しないように配列される。(USP6553020)
$$ 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)
目次はこちらContinue Reading ...
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 ...
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today issued changes to some patent fees, including increases in certain areas, including the cost of using the inter partes review process. Following feedback from users, the office went with some …Continue Reading ...