• Inside Views: A Brief Sketch Of Privilegio In The Venetian Renaissance

    Gavin Keeney writes: As a type of historical morality tale, especially given arguments currently before the European Commission regarding copyright reform and “neighboring rights,” this short treatise addresses the origins of copyright in the Venetian Renaissance in the late 1400s under the aegis of privilegio, notably first granted to authors (author-publishers) versus printers (printer-publishers). Subsequently, printers as publishers would command the lion’s share of such rights to works. Arguably, Venetian privilege transferred the immemorial aspect of written works (here considered “moral rights” for works) to authors in a casual, yet emphatic manner leading to modern copyright. With contemporary copyright nominally belonging to authors, but in fact belonging by expropriation to presses and platforms, it is likely that one of the few solutions, short of benevolent presses fully sharing rights with authors, is for moral rights to return to works by way of the author renouncing copyright but refusing the arrogation of such renounced rights to presses and platforms.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Are Women Under-Represented in IP Litigation?

    Mayer agrees that female patent litigators are under-represented in IP litigation. In fact, women now make up about half of all law students at ABA-accredited schools, but only about 34 percent of attorneys at law firms generally. In addition, the percentage of women partners at law firms is only around 22 percent with only about 18 percent being equity partners. And, studies that have focused on IP practices have found even fewer women attorneys. For example, Law360’s 2016 Glass Ceiling Report…

    Continue Reading ...
  • China’s Patent System Entering Middle Age

    by Dennis Crouch Following up on Renjun Bian’s recent Patently-O post, I wanted to highlight Texas A&M Professor Peter Yu’s new article on Chinese Intellectual Property Scholarship titled “A Half-Century of Scholarship on the Chinese Intellectual Property System.”  The Chinese patent system is now over 30 years old — with explosive growth and transformation each year.  […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Letter to President Trump on China IP Probe is Latest Sign of Conservative Support for Private IP Rights

    A group of 16 leaders from politically conservative institutions sent a letter addressed to President Donald Trump lauding the Trump Administration’s decision last summer to initiate an investigation into Chinese trade practices regarding intellectual property. The investigation, authorized under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, was aimed at identifying instances where U.S. technologies have been forcibly transferred to Chinese entities as a cost of entering the Chinese domestic market as…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Loeb & Loeb Adds Josh Brackin to Music and Intellectual Property Practice

    Loeb & Loeb LLP announced this week that Josh Brackin has joined the law firm’s Nashville office as Senior Counsel, bringing more than 15 years of experience in various segments of the music and new media industries. Brackin handles a variety of transactional entertainment matters with a focus on music, copyright, digital and new media rights, administration and licensing of intellectual property rights and corporate organization.

    The post Loeb & Loeb Adds Josh Brackin to Music and…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 温度に関する表現



    $$ The temperature of the cylindrical column was increased to 218℃ and gas blown through the cylinder for…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Elbit loses appeal at CAFC

    The outcome

    Appellant Elbit Systems of America, LLC (“Elbit”)
    sought inter partes review of various claims of Appellee
    Thales Visionix, Inc.’s (“Thales”) U.S. Patent No.
    6,474,159 (“the ’159 patent”). The U.S. Patent and
    Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    (“PTAB”) issued a final written decision, see Elbit Sys. of
    Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., No. IPR2015-01095
    (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016) (J.A. 1–25), finding that, inter
    alia, Elbit failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the
    evidence that claims 3–5, 13, 24–28, 31, and 34 (“the
    Asserted Claims”) of the ’159 patent would have been
    obvious over U.S. Patent No. 4,722,601 (“McFarlane”) in
    combination with two other prior art references, see
    J.A. 2, 4−5.

    Elbit appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We affirm.

    The CAFC noted:

    Substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s conclusion
    of nonobviousness. It is undisputed that the method of
    calculating the “relative angular rate signal” taught in the
    ’159 patent “is not explicitly disclosed” in the prior art
    because the prior art and the Asserted Claims employ
    different steps to calculate the orientation or position of a
    moving object relative to a moving reference frame.

    Of experts:

    Elbit’s expert attempts to undermine this testimony
    by arguing that the two- and three-step methods are
    “mathematically equivalent” and that “there is no practical
    difference” between them. J.A. 2034. However, the
    PTAB determined that Elbit’s expert’s testimony was
    “unsupported” and entitled to “little weight” because he
    did not address or account for the recited relative angular
    rate signal limitation “anywhere in his opinion.” J.A. 17–
    18. “The PTAB [i]s entitled to weigh the credibility of the
    witnesses,” Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620
    F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see Inwood Labs., Inc.
    v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 (1982) (“Determining
    the weight and credibility of the evidence is the special
    province of the trier of fact.”), and, thus, we decline to
    disturb these credibility determinations here

    Of waiver:

    Elbit conceded that it failed to argue that substantial
    evidence does not support the PTAB’s decision to credit
    Thales’s explanation of the nonobviousness of the twostep
    method, see Oral Arg. at 27:30–32 (acknowledging
    that they “did not make . . . a legal argument” that the
    PTAB’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence),
    which constitutes waiver, see Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v.
    United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding
    that failure to present arguments under the operative
    legal framework “typically warrants a finding of waiver”)

    Calculus appears in footnote 5:

    Pursuant to this principle, “as a matter of calculus,
    the sum of integrals is equal to the integral of sums.”
    J.A. 2144. According to Elbit, this principle dictates that
    the same result will be reached whether data is “first
    integrated, then subtracted” or “first subtracted, then
    integrated,” such that “the order in which these steps are
    performed does not matter.” Appellant’s Br. 3. As applied
    to the ’159 patent, Elbit contends that the sum of
    integrals principle renders the ’159 patent “no more than
    a predictable variation of the prior art” and, thus, unpatentable.
    Id. at 5 (citation omitted).


    “[w]e will not find
    legal error based upon an isolated statement stripped
    from its context.” Waymo LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc., 870
    F.3d 1350, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
    marks and citation omitted). As for whether a PHOSITA
    “would understand that the sum of integrals principle
    applies to all equations, including navigation equations,”
    Appellant’s Br. 37 (capitalization omitted); see id. at 37–
    41, Elbit fails to present any evidence supporting this
    contention beyond attorney argument, see id. at 37–41,
    and “[a]ttorney argument is not evidence” and cannot
    rebut other admitted evidence, Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
    v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In
    contrast, Thales’s expert testified that a PHOSITA could
    have determined that it would be “mathematically inappropriate
    or invalid” to apply the principle to the navigation
    equations disclosed in the ’159 patent. J.A. 2143. In
    sum, substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s determination
    that the Asserted Claims would not have been
    obvious to a PHOSITA.

    Continue Reading ...