• Making your Markle: Royal emblems and souvenirs

    Souvenir manufacturers need to ensure that consumers are not misled into believing that the Royal Family has commissioned or otherwise endorsed their souvenirs. A breach of the rules, contained within section 99 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, can result in a fine of up to £500, as well as the products being removed from sale. Section 12 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 goes further, prohibiting sellers from giving any false indication that they have Royal approval, with a fine of up to £400 and…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Making your Markle: Royal emblems and souvenirs

    Souvenir manufacturers need to ensure that consumers are not misled into believing that the Royal Family has commissioned or otherwise endorsed their souvenirs. A breach of the rules, contained within section 99 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, can result in a fine of up to £500, as well as the products being removed from sale. Section 12 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 goes further, prohibiting sellers from giving any false indication that they have Royal approval, with a fine of up to £400 and…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 吸引

                            目次はこちら

    吸引

    (ATTRACT)
    $$ An electrostatic gun (not shown) may be associated with the coating unit 18 to charge the microspheres and hence improve their attract…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Magistrate Disclosure of Daughter’s Summer Associate Employment

    I thought this was interesting.  Magistrate’s daughter will be a summer associate at the patentee’s firm, and so she disclosed it to the parties and invited their views on whether they thought the case should be reassigned. It is Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc. v. Certainteed Gypsum, available here.

    When I was clerking for the CAFC a few years ago, as clerks we avoided cases where we had any entanglement as an internal procedure, but I thought this was interesting because obviously the patentee’s firm knew it was going to hire the daughter, and the magistrate thought it wasn’t a conflict, but wanted the facts out there.

    This is one of those instances, though, where if I were the patentee I’d be afraid the magistrate would try to be “too fair” to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, but it depends on the facts and relationships.  Interesting rare disclosure issue, though.

    Continue reading Magistrate Disclosure of Daughter’s Summer Associate Employment at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Magistrate Disclosure of Daughter’s Summer Associate Employment

    I thought this was interesting.  Magistrate’s daughter will be a summer associate at the patentee’s firm, and so she disclosed it to the parties and invited their views on whether they thought the case should be reassigned. It is Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc. v. Certainteed Gypsum, available here.

    When I was clerking for the CAFC a few years ago, as clerks we avoided cases where we had any entanglement as an internal procedure, but I thought this was interesting because obviously the patentee’s firm knew it was going to hire the daughter, and the magistrate thought it wasn’t a conflict, but wanted the facts out there.

    This is one of those instances, though, where if I were the patentee I’d be afraid the magistrate would try to be “too fair” to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, but it depends on the facts and relationships.  Interesting rare disclosure issue, though.

    Continue reading Magistrate Disclosure of Daughter’s Summer Associate Employment at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My!

    Guest post by Professor Kevin Emerson Collins, Washington University School of Law.

    Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP LTD., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12707 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

    In a divided opinion, the Federal Circuit held that all of the claims challenged in an IPR were obvious, upholding the PTAB’s obviousness determination with respect to most of the claims but reversing its nonobviousness determination with respect to a few. Praxair Distribution raises of a number of distinct, yet interrelated, issues concerning the cryptic, yet essential, printed matter doctrine: the opinion addresses the doctrine’s extension to mental steps, its implications for the relationship between sections 101 and 102/103, and the breadth of its functional-relation exception.

    U.S. Patent 8,846,112 covers methods of distributing nitric oxide gas cylinders for pharmaceutical applications. Inhaling nitric oxide dilates blood vessels in the lungs and improves blood oxygenation, and it is approved for treating neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure. The prior art taught that inhaled nitric oxide may lead to pulmonary edema, a serious adverse event, in neonates with left ventricular dysfunction. The claims of the ‘112 patent address methods that build on this prior art.

    Continue reading Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My! at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...