Ji-Yong David Chung is a partner at Snyder Clark Lesch & Chung LLP.Continue Reading ...
In its almanac feature on February 11, Sunday Morning profiled Samuel W. Alderson, who died February 11, 2005 at age 90.
Alderson’s father owned a sheet metal shop, which vocation would play a role in Alderson’s development. Alderson studied for a Ph.D. under Oppenheimer and Lawrence at UC/Berkeley, but did not obtain his degree. After a stint at IBM involving a prosthetic arm, Alderson founded his own company in 1952, to create dummies to test the safety of airplane ejection seats. By 1968, he had created the VIP, a dummy for automobile accidents. Alderson later created medical phantoms, designed to measure radiation exposure.
Of patents, see for example, US 2580987 titled ” Electrically operated artificial arm for above-the-elbow amputees ” and US 3010223 titled “Human equivalent dummy,” filed September 2, 1959. [See also “Timeline of United States inventions (1946–91) ” at ipfs.]
On September 13, 1899: Henry Bliss becomes the first pedestrian known to be killed by an automobile in North America. Less than ten years later, on September 17, 1908, Thomas Selfridge was the first aircraft fatality. [The world’s first road traffic death involving a motor vehicle is alleged to have occurred on August 31, 1869. Irish scientist Mary Ward died when she fell out of her cousins’ steam car and was run over by it. ]
The cover story on February 11 was The growing acceptance of autism in the workplace
Moment of Nature: Culebra (Puerto Rico)
**Separately, over at NBC:
The network responded on Saturday by having anchor Carolyn Manno read a statement:
“During our coverage of the Parade of Nations on Friday we said it was notable that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made the trip to Korea for the Olympics, “representing Japan, a country which occupied Korea from 1910 to 1945 but every Korean will tell you that Japan is a cultural, technological and economic example that has been so important to their own transformation.” We understand the Korean people were insulted by these comments and we apologize.”
**Separately, Major Garrett did a good job on “Face the Nation” on 11 Feb 2018Continue Reading ...
There are no shortage of opinions about what Director Iancu should do now that he is at the helm of America’s innovation agency. To contribute to the advice Director Iancu is no doubt receiving from many corners already, I’ve asked a panel of industry …Continue Reading ...
Chicago, IL-based wireless power solutions provider NuCurrent filed a complaint alleging trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement against Korean tech giant Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930). The case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas,…Continue Reading ...
The New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association (NJIPLA) will be holding a Patent Litigation Seminar from 12:00 to 5:00 pm on March 14, 2018 in Iselin, NJ. The seminar will offer presentations on the following topics: • Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. • Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. • Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC • The Inequitable Conduct Doctrine: A Look Back and Forward (ethics session) • Litigating Written Description Additional information regarding the seminar, including a complete agenda and list of speakers, can be found here. The registration fee for the…Continue Reading ...
Practising Law Institute (PLI) will be offering a one-hour webcast on “Chinese Patent Developments” on February 26, 2018 beginning at 4:00 pm (Eastern). Elizabeth Chien-Hale of the Institute for Intellectual Property in Asia will discuss the latest and future changes planned by China’s State Intellectual Property Office, both structurally (local IP bureaus, satellite offices) and legally (changes to Patent Examination Guidelines and the Patent Law). Attendees will also receive point‑by‑point comparisons between several areas of patent law that were much discussed in the U.S. system in recent years, and their counterparts in the Chinese system. The webcast will use examples…Continue Reading ...
Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “Managing Patent Infringement Risk in Product Development” on February 22, 2018 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Gregory M. Ansems, Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Honeywell International; Thomas Hipkins of Fredrikson & Byron; and Jeffrey C. Totten of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will provide guidance to patent counsel on identifying and addressing patent infringement risk in the product development process. The panel will examine how the courts have applied Halo and offer strategies for minimizing patent infringement risk. The webinar will review the following issues: • What are best practices for…Continue Reading ...
The John Marshall Law School Center for Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy Law will be hosting Russell Cass of Clark Hill PLC, who will be presenting a CLE course entitled “Patent Post-Grant Practice” from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm on February 1…Continue Reading ...
Keystone Symposia on Molecular and Cellular Biology will be offering a virtual symposium entitled “Tech Transfer for Medical Advances: Challenges and Opportunities in Commercializing Academic Biomedical Research” on from 12:00 to 1:30 pm (ET) on February 14, 2018. Juan Carlos López of Haystack Science will moderate a panel consisting of Lita Nelsen, former Director of the MIT Technology Licensing Office; Curtis Keith of Harvard University; Katherine Bowdish of Sunrise Ventures Sanofi; and Avi D. Spier of Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research. The panel will discuss issues such as the key considerations when deciding what project to commercialize, how academic institutions…Continue Reading ...
The CAFC noted:
There is nothing unique to patent law about allegations
of false statements. Indeed, in responding to the
court’s order to show cause, the parties both cited portions
of the complaint that focus on fraud and misrepresentation,
not patent law. See, e.g., Xitronix Supp. Br. (Sept.
26, 2017) at 4–5 (“KLA-Tencor affirmatively (and repeatedly)
misrepresented the patentability of the claims it
sought, including making false representations about
what was taught by the relevant prior art.”); KLA Supp.
Br. (Sept. 26, 2017) at 8–9 (“KLA’s prosecution and procurement
of the [’]260 patent was undertaken in bad faith
in order to monopolize the . . . market.”). We acknowledge
that a determination of the alleged misrepresentations to
the PTO will almost certainly require some application of
The underlying patent issue in this case, while important
to the parties and necessary for resolution of the
claims, does not present a substantial issue of patent law.
See id. at 263–64. There is no dispute over the validity of
the claims—patent law is only relevant to determine if
KLA intentionally made misrepresentations. Patent
claims will not be invalidated or revived based on the
result of this case. Because Federal Circuit law applies to
substantive questions involving our exclusive jurisdiction,
the fact that at least some Walker Process claims may be
appealed to the regional circuits will not undermine our
uniform body of patent law. See Golan v. Pingel Enter.,
Inc., 310 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Federal Circuit
law applies to causes of action within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit.”); Mars Inc. v. Kabushiki-Kaisha
Nippon Conlux, 24 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (Deference to regional circuit law “is inappropriate
when an issue involves substantive questions
coming exclusively within our jurisdiction, the disposition
of which would have a direct bearing on the outcome.”
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
Continue Reading ...
Both Nobelpharma and Cipro were decided before the
Supreme Court decided Gunn. To the extent our prior
precedent could be interpreted contrary to Gunn, the
Supreme Court rendered that interpretation invalid.
While the parties argue Gunn is inapplicable because it
concerns district court jurisdiction over state claims, the
indistinguishable statutory language of §§ 1295 and 1338
requires our careful consideration of Gunn in interpreting
our jurisdictional statute. “[W]e have no more authority
to read § 1295(a)(1) as granting the Federal Circuit jurisdiction
over an appeal where the well-pleaded complaint
does not depend on patent law, than to read § 1338(a) as
granting a district court jurisdiction over such a complaint.”
Christianson, 486 U.S. at 814 (citing Pratt v.
Paris Gas Light & Coke Co., 168 U.S. 255, 259 (1897)); see
also id. at 808–09 (noting “linguistic consistency” with the
statute for a district court’s federal question jurisdiction
demands a similar application for the Federal Circuit’s
“arising under” jurisdiction).
The outcome of Polaris v. Arctic:
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s determination
in the 1427 Decision that claims 1–16, 20–33,
and 35 of the ’405 patent are unpatentable as obvious.
We vacate the Board’s obviousness determination as to
claims 17–19, 34, and 36–38 and remand for further
proceedings. We affirm the Board’s determination in the
1428 Decision that Arctic Cat failed to meet its burden of
demonstrating that the claims of the ’405 patent are
Of an assertion of “conclusory”
Continue Reading ...
Relying on these principles, we considered how the
Board should treat undisputed evidence from a patentee
that its product is the invention disclosed in the challenged
claims in PPC Broadband, writing:
When the patentee has presented undisputed evidence
that its product is the invention disclosed in
the challenged claims, it is error for the Board to
find to the contrary without further explanation.
There was no such explanation here. The Board
in its opinions did not explain why the SignalTight
connectors fail to embody the claimed features,
or what claimed features in particular are
missing from the SignalTight connectors.
Here, the Board “decline[d] to accord . . . substantive
weight” to the patentee’s undisputed evidence that its
product is the invention disclosed in certain claims because
it characterized the patentee’s evidence as “conclusory.”
1427 Decision, 2016 WL 498434, at *16. On these
facts, we conclude that the Board erred in failing to credit
Polaris’s undisputed evidence that its RZR vehicles embody
and are coextensive with claims 34 and 36–38 of the
$$ An advantage of the process of the present invention is that the resolving agent can be easily recovered in a state of high purity, such that it can be re-used in one or more subsequent resolution processes. / 本発明の方法の利点は、分割剤を高い純度で容易に回収することができ、そのためその後の一回以上の分割工程に再使用できる、ということである。(USP7582752)
$$ For example, a TV service company may wish to run a season of James Bond movies over a number of different channels with each movies being shown one or more times. / たとえば、ＴＶサービス会社は幾つかの異なるチャネルでジェームズ・ボンドの映画のシーズンを実行し、各映画を１回以上上映したいとする。(USP02042917)
$$ Each parameter can be referenced zero or more times in the template. / 各パラメータはテンプレートにおいて０回またはそれ以上の回数参照することができる。(USP6073174)
$$ The immersion and heating cycles may be repeated as many as 20 times or more in order to build up the required coherent cathode layer. / 浸漬及び加熱サイクルは、要求される密着したカソード層を作り上げるために、２０回以上もの多くの回数繰り返してもよい。(USP6699767)
$$ In this case each output image will result from the accumulation of all the contributions, and constituent output pixels may be `written to` more than once. / この場合、各出力画像は全ての寄与の蓄積から得られ、それを構成する出力画素は２回以上「書き込まれる」。(USP8358878)
$$ Alternatively, the input acoustic waves may be reflected more than once from an opposing side before being emitted as an output reflected wave. / あるいは、入力音波は出力反射波として放射される前に対向側面から２回以上反射され得る。(USP8077539)
$$ Some programmes, especially movies, are shown more than once. / 幾つかの番組、特に映画は１回以上表示される。(USP02042917): more than once（２回以上）
$$ Idempotency guarantees that a tariff will not be adversely affected if an adjustment is applied more than once. / べき等元は、１回以上行うときに、不利に料金に影響を与えないことを保証する。(USP7319673): more than once（２回以上）
目次はこちらContinue Reading ...
So what is an admission? A statement made during patent prosecution identifying the work of another as prior art is called an admission. Admissions can and will be relied upon by patent examiners for both novelty (35 U.S.C. 102) and obviousness (35 U.S…Continue Reading ...
Somebody commented on the Patently-O blog the other day that a claim that is patent eligible under §101 can become patent ineligible simply by narrowing the claim to recite a function that is a purported abstract idea. Judge Linn made a similar comment back in 2016 in the oral argument of IPLearn-Focus v. Microsoft. You can […]Continue Reading ...