• Federal Circuit Continues (And Even Expands) is Program of No-Opinion-Judgments

    by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit continues to aggressively issues R.36 No-Opinion Judgments as a mechanism for more efficiently deciding appeals. I was looking forward to the outcome in an interesting Gov’t vs Gov’t takings case — Mississippi County, Missouri vs. USA.  However, rather than issuing an opinion, the court simply affirmed-without-opinion as permitted under […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • US Perspectives: China’s “Theft” Of Foreign Technology Prompts Unlawful US Response

    This time Donald Trump was correct: China has, for years, unfairly obtained and exploited American intellectual property and technology. But Trump’s response – imposing $50 billion in tariffs annually on a wide variety of Chinese imports – is problematic, experts warn. The tariffs appear to violate World Trade Organization rules, undermine the international rules-based economic order that has served the West well for decades, and threaten to ignite a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Spotify, SoundCloud and Deezer Music Apps Sued for Infringing Music Organizer and Entertainment Center Patent

    Patent owner MOAEC Technologies filed suits alleging claims of patent infringement in the District of Delaware against a series of music entertainment app providers including Spotify, SoundCloud and Deezer. The suits claim that music services offered by all three defendants infringe upon a patent covering a music library collection technology invented by the founder of MOAEC… MOAEC’s suits also include language in an apparent attempt to preempt any patent validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. §…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Publication etiquette for SSRN?

    In a discussion of the “Bitcoin” plagiarism flap, there is a reference to papers published on SSRN:

    His claim that his paper was simply a “draft” doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The paper was published, under his name, nearly nine months before the alleged plagiarism was discovered. The SSRN website is often used for preprints of academic journals. However, that does not mean you can publish someone else’s work there.

    Preprints are generally for finished or nearly finished articles so that they can be peer-reviewed and then edited before sending them to an academic journal. They are not a place to dump notes or copies of another person’s work that need to be later turned into an original piece.

    link: https://coinjournal.net/craig-wright-accused-of-plagiarism/

    **Separately, of things vanishing from the internet, how about papers vanishing from SSRN?
    Think also of the Noji saga.

    **Separately, from blawgsearch on 12 April 2018:

    Continue Reading ...
  • 関係代名詞+主語+動詞


    関係代名詞+主語+動詞 (前置詞+関係代名詞のパターンは除く)

    $$ This has the disadvantage that the sample may be out-gassed. / これは、サンプルが脱ガスされ得るという不利な点がある。(USP8092394)

    $$ The comparison determines whether the two groups match in the sense that they meet a criterion of similarity. / 前記比較は、前記2つのグループが、それらが類似する基準を満たすという意味で一致するかどうかを判断する。(USP7653238)

    $$ Therefore, the fact that the word "for"dominates "book" does not assist in translation. / したがって、ワード「for」が「book」を支配するという事実は翻訳では役立たない。(USP7565281)

    $$ Reciprocating compressors have the advantage that they are able to operate at high pressures. / 往復圧縮機には、高圧で作動が可能であるという利点がある。(USP7650871)

    $$ Correlation: as previously mentioned, the service broker may collate (correlate) the data which the platform or platforms needed. / コリレーション(相関):前述のように、サービスブローカーは、プラットフォームが必要としたデータを照合する(相関させる)ことができる。(USP7653389)

    $$ This resulting signal is then replicated and each replica is advanced by the amounts which the input signals were delayed by to achieve the signals shown in FIG. 26B. / 次に、得られた信号は複写され各レプリカは図26Bに示す信号を達成するために入力信号が遅延された量だけ進められる。(USP7577260)

    $$ These termination statements are special line conditions which the equipment is arranged to detect. / これらの終端文は、装置が検出するように構成されている特殊な回線状態である。(USP7573824)

    $$ The modulation unit 32 generates the modulation signal Sm which it outputs to the multiplier unit 134. (USP6452988)

    $$ If the proxy server 24 does not receive a response from an access request message which it sends to authentication server A, then it proceeds to the secondary choice specified in column 63 of FIG. 6. (USP7647403)

    $$ For example, it is capable of detecting that data is missing which it needs to receive in order to respond. (USP7184760)

    $$ As such, the cost of running and maintaining a folder/inserter will also comprise the cost of renting the office space which it occupies. (USP7306220)

    $$ The carry save adder adds this to the current sum/carry representation of the partial remainder which it receives as inputs. (USP7167887)

    $$ The second pass beam travels through the system to prism (110) which it enters offset relative to the axis of prism (110). (USP6700698)

    $$ As with the prior art pump assembly, an air compressor, which draws in air through an inlet duct, forces the air which it compresses through a pipe. (USP6250889)


    Continue Reading ...
  • Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA)

    by Dennis Crouch President Trump has signed into law a significant roll-back of protections for internet platforms for the purpose of shutting-down prostitution in America.  The title “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017.” It is now a Federal Crime  to “use[] … own[], manage[], or operate[]” an interactive computer […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • French Court of Appeals Awards Triple the Contractual Royalty Rate as Damages

    The case is Vorwerk & Co. Interholding GmbH v. Electrodomesticos Taurus SL, Cour d’appel de Paris, June 27, 2017, PIBD 1080, 679 (so yes, I am a little late to be blogging about it, but so go it goes).  In 2015 I blogged about the decision of the court of first instance here, and as I explained at the time:
    The patent in suit is EP 0757530, titled Robot ménager comportant un bac á agitation et un mécanisme d’entrainement de l’agitateur du bac (a food processor comprising an agitator vessel and a mechanism for operating the agitator).  If I am understanding this correctly, the inventive feature in suit appears to be something called a chapeau de cuisson á la vapeur, which I would translate as “steaming cap.”  Plaintiff Vorwerk sued defendant Taurus for selling allegedly infringing food processors.  In earlier proceedings the court held that the patent was infringed, and this judgment was affirmed. . . .
    Vorwerk itself did not practice the patent but rather licensed some affiliated firms to do so.  Vorwerk asserted as its damages its lost profit (manque á gagner), based on the royalties it would have earned from Taurus and Taurus’s distributors if they had concluded a license.  Again if I am understanding correctly, Taurus argued that Vorwerk’s failure to work the patent meant that Vorwerk was not entitled to recover any damages, but the court disagreed and concluded that the injury suffered by the patent owner would be, at a minimum, equal to the royalties it would have received but for the infringement.
    As for the amount, the court appointed an expert who first determined the infringing turnover (la masse contrefaisante).  The expert determined that this should include (1) sales of a model called Mycook that included the steaming cap, and (2) sales of a model called Mycook Pro that did not include the cap, but for which the cap was separately purchased as an accessory.  Altogether this equaled €4,245,557.  The court accepted the expert’s analysis.

    Next, to calculate the royalty rate the expert first calculated the infringer’s profit margin as 9.6%. Vorwerk argued that the expert deducted some fixed costs that were not tied to the manufacture of the infringing goods, and that the profit margin was actually 22%, but again the court affirmed the expert’s calculation.  Next, the expert multiplied 9.6% by 25%, a step the court refers to in the opinion as “une clé de repartition couramment admise en matière de license de brevet” (a sharing method commonly used in patent licenses)–basically, what sounds like a “rule of thumb” to me.  Next, the expert cut this figure in half based on his conclusion that the patented invention did not play a key role in the sale of the defendant’s products, and then rounded this up to 1.5%.  Finally, the expert suggested that the court could multiply the 1.5% rate by 1, 2, or 3.  Taurus for its part argued that the royalty base should be reduced to the average price of the steaming cap times the number of infringing devices, and that any enhancement would be punitive in nature.  The court disagreed, specifically stating as to the latter issue the following (in my translation):
    It is appropriate to apply the principle of enhancing the contractual royalty rate, because doing so takes into account the damaging situation in which the rightholder finds itself, who suffers the exploitation of the invention without any decision on its part.  It would be, in such a case, unjust to apply purely and simply a royalty rate equal to that which the parties would have consented to had they negotiated a license.
    (For further discussion of royalty multipliers in France, see my book p.270 & n.187). Multiplying the masse contrefaisante as calculated by the expert (€4,245,557) by 3%, the court therefore awarded €127,367 in lost royalties.
    On appeal, the Cour d’appel multiplies the “contractual rate” (1.5%) by 3 rather than 2, resulting in a royalty rate of 4.5% and an award of €191,051, reasoning that the lower court did not adequately evaluate the prejudice suffered by the plaintiff:
    Considering that the act of awarding a higher compensatory royalty rate does not constitute a punitive award, contrary to the principal according to which compensation should only restore the harm suffered by the injured party,
    and that in effect the principle of increasing the contractual  rate  takes into account the disadvantageous circumstance in which the patent holder, who suffered the exploitation of its invention, the subject matter of its patent, without any decision on its part, indeed unwillingly, finds itself, which has allowed, among other consequences, the possibility of a competitor penetrating what was at the time a rather narrow market for multifunction food processors;
    Considering however that the first judges made an insufficient evaluation of the harm suffered by VORWERK in choosing only to double the rate, among the three proposals put forward by the expert;
    That in effect having regard for the economic importance of this market and, in view of the consequences, to the harm suffered by VORWERK as a result of the infringing acts, it is fitting to impose a multiple of 3, such as proposed by the expert . . . .

    I wonder how common it is for French appellate courts simply to substitute their own view of the appropriate royalty rate for that of the court of first instance?

    Continue Reading ...