• 58 Patents Upheld in District Court Invalidated by PTAB on Same Grounds

    When going through the list of patents that have been deemed valid in district court and then invalidated through PTAB proceedings, there are 58 cases where the patent is invalidated at the PTAB on the same statutory grounds asserted at district court and which did not lead to invalidity. So, contrary to any notion that any data we’ve published fails to pass muster, there is plenty of evidence that the activities of the PTAB present an unfair playing ground for patent owners who are dragged…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Not So Blurred Lines

    Some IP commentators love to hate the Blurred Lines music copyright decision. A primary critique has stoked unnecessary fear in musicians that the decision blurs the line between protectable expression and unprotectable style or genre. Much of the anim…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Top Stories of 2017: #5 to #9

    By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 11th annual list of top patent stories. For 2017, we identified nineteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and applicants. In two prior posts, we counted down stories #19 to #15 and stories #14 to #10, and today we count down stories #9 to #5 as we work our way towards the top four stories of 2017. As with our other lists (2016, 2015,…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Conference & CLE Calendar

    January 9, 2018 – “After-Final Practice: Navigating PTO Options to Compact Patent Prosecution — Utilizing After-Final Consideration Pilot 2.0, Pre-Appeal Conference and More” (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST) January 9, 2018 – “Sequence Listings and…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Flap at Princeton University over amendments to Honor System. It’s not students’ responsibility to protect the University from legal liability?

    A letter to the Daily Princetonian titled Concerning amendments to the constitution of the Honor System discusses some procedural issues related to voted-upon amendments to Princeton’s Constitution of the Honor System.

    As to Amendments 2-4, from a 10 Dec 2017 letter by Ling Ritter Princeton ’19 :

    The second referendum sponsored by the USG Subcommittee on the Honor Constitution establishes a minimum standard of “at least two separate pieces of evidence, each of which indicates that a violation occurred” necessary for the Honor Committee to put a student through a hearing. The opposition claims that this standard would force the Chair and investigators to make pre-hearing judgments on the strength of the evidence. Firstly, the Chair’s role of overseeing investigations means that he or she sees all the evidence collected in an investigation, even if some of that evidence doesn’t make it into the hearing room. Because of this role, it is impossible for a Chair to enter a hearing unbiased.
    The third referendum necessitates that the Honor Committee find a student not responsible if the professor states that the student’s actions were not in violation of their course policy.
    The fourth referendum requires Honor Committee investigators to inform students whether they are under investigation or are being asked to serve as a witness when they first contact students. Presently, Honor Committee investigators call students from a restricted number and ask them to come to an office on Nassau Street without any information other than that they’d like to speak to them.

    link: Why we need to reform the Honor Constitution: a former Honor Committee member explains

    Micah Herskind wrote on the first amendment:

    The first reform is the most controversial: Won’t reducing the standard penalty to probation and failure of exam mean that Princeton doesn’t value academic integrity?

    Also within Micah’s text was the interesting statement:

    The opposition has also made vague arguments about the legality of inconsistent penalties between the Honor Committee and the Committee on Discipline. These legal arguments are never explicated – we’re expected to trust the opposition that it’s impossible to change the standard penalty. However, it’s not students’ responsibility to protect the University from legal liability; rather, we must create the most equitable system possible with the referenda power endowed to us.

    link to Herskind text: Proportionate penalty: Comments from former Honor Committee members

    **More than ten years ago, IPBiz discussed a certain case involving a Princeton student that went to state court, 186 N.J. Super. 548; 453 A.2d 263. See Plagiarism in academic contexts: a look at the past

    UPDATE on 9 Jan 18:

    On the Honor Code Referenda: Why aren’t we mobilizing?

    Continue Reading ...
  • “Copyright Claims Board" ??

    The likelihoodofconfusion blog has some text about a possibly forthcoming “small claims” copyright board:

    Because of this problem, there has been a movement afoot for years to establish a small-claims process for,
    well, small copyright claims, which is now being described as the “Copyright Claims Board.” And
    because of this tweet, I learned today that the effort seems to be getting somewhere.
    It’s called the Copyright Alternative in Small Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act (H.R.3945)

    See Reforming Little Copyright

    Maybe there could be a “screening” board, for cases like the “Taylor Swift” matter.

    Continue Reading ...
  • When Post-Filing Evidence to Determine Written Description Support Is Admissible: Amgen v. Sanofi

    May a court rely on post-priority-date evidence offered to show that a patent lacks written description support even though written description is judged based on the state of the art as of the priority date?  Yes, at least when the evidence relates to whether or not a claimed genus discloses a representative number of species.  Amgen v. Sanofi No. 2017-1480 slip op. Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2017 (“Amgen”).   Such evidence, the Federal Circuit observed, is likely to postdate the priority date, because…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Patent Eligibility in 2018

    MBHB Partner Dr. Michael Borella has an upcoming free webinar: Patent Eligibility in 2018: Current Status and Best Practices: Topics include: Overview of the most recent Federal Circuit case law regarding Section 101; Where this law is relatively clear, and where it is not; The impact of the USPTO not making any significant updates to […]

    Continue Reading ...