Indigenous peoples are losing their genetic resources and traditional knowledge and need to be involved in negotiations on World Trade Organization intellectual property rules and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, representatives told a confer…Continue Reading ...
Legal data analytics provider Lex Machina recently published a post featuring data points regarding the filing of patent infringement cases in the year following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands. In that decision, the Court held that the patent venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)) meant that domestic companies could only file patent infringement suits in the judicial district where they were incorporated. Lex Machina’s one-year data update shows that…
Continue Reading ...
Method of Treatment Claims Patent Eligible Even without Reciting Dosages By Kevin E. Noonan — It appears that Judge William C. Bryson, U.S. Appellate Court Judge on the Federal Circuit bench, is riding the circuit these days, peripatetically ruling on the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe’s motion to join ANDA litigation in the Eastern District of Texas last October and, last week, denying Defendant’s motion to reconsider his grant of summary judgment that the claims at issue in Pernix Ireland Pain DAC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd. were not invalid for being patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The…Continue Reading ...
(REPEAT)Continue Reading ...
$$ A method according to claim 23, wherein the repetition rate of the pulses is substantially the field synchronisation …
The former mayor of Munich, Christian Ude (Social Democratic Party), clashed with the new head of IT of the Bavarian capital over the city’s re-migration from Linux to Microsoft at an event organised by the Green Party yesterday.Continue Reading ...
L’ « accès aux ressources génétiques » et le « partage juste et équitable des avantages découlant de leur utilisation » s’est révelé un véritable casse-tête pour l’ensemble des 13 Conférences des Parties à la Convention des Nations Unies sur la Diversité Biologique (CDB). La formule, entre guillemets, qu’on désigne par l’acronyme « APA », se réfère au troisième objectif de la Convention, lequel est étroitement liée aux deux premiers, à savoir la conservation et l’utilisation durable de ces ressources. Malgré 25 années consécutives d’efforts et dans un contexte où le marché de la biotechnologie représente, annuellement, un trillion de dollars, peu d’accords APA ont été conclus jusqu’ici. Les bénéfices monétaires des quelques contrats existants sont si faibles que les contractants répugnent à les dévoiler. La « législation APA brésilienne » de 2015, qui est entrée en vigueur le 6 novembre 2017, permet par exemple d’offrir des royalties jusqu’à un dixième de pour cent du chiffre d’affaire. Selon les termes d’un éminent juriste: « les usagers paient des cacachuètes pour se servir de la biodiversité ».Continue Reading ...
By Dennis Crouch
Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Med. LLC, 17-2330, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15670 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Typical initial setup of a patent infringement lawsuit: the patentee (Stone’) sued Cook for infringement; Cook then requested an inter partes of the asserted patent. What happened next was odd — after Cook refused a $150k settlement, Stone conceded the IPR (all claims then cancelled) as well as the lawsuit (dismissed with prejudice).
Note here that the invention looks pretty cool – an endoscope with a basket-type device for extracting stones from a human body — such as ureteral, kidney, or gall stones. U.S. Patent No. 6,551,327. The problem apparently is the invention’s lack of novelty.
The Patent Act provides that a “court in exceptional cases may awardContinue Reading ...
reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. In Octane
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), the Supreme Court defined an “exceptional Case” as one that “stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” That particular determination is made by a district court judge on a case-by-case basis after considering the “totality of the circumstances” and then given deference on appeal.
In 2011, as part of the American Invents Act (“AIA”), Congress significantly restructured the way in which previously issued patents could be challenged. In some cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like ex parte reexamination and reissue proceedings, were kept intact as such proceedings existed prior to the AIA. In other cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like inter […]
The post Rethinking Article III Standing in IPR Appeals at the Federal Circuit appeared first on…
Continue Reading ...
Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. (“Mobileye”) appeals
from the final written decision of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (“the Board”) in an inter partes reexamination
affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 of U.S.
Patent 7,113,867 (“the ’867 patent”) as obvious. See
iOnRoad, Ltd. v. Mobileye Techs. Ltd., No. 2015-7925,
2016 WL 949027, at *8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016) (“Decision”).
On appeal, Mobileye only challenges the Board’s
decision with respect to claim 6. Because the Board did
not err in its decision, we affirm.
The scope of the appeal was narrow:
Only claim 6 is before us. Mobileye argues that the
Board’s claim construction of the “substantially uniformly
approaches zero” limitation to “merely mean that the
obstacle is closing in on the vehicle, and that they will
intersect,” see Decision, 2016 WL 949027, at *7 (internal
quotation marks omitted), reads out the “substantially
uniformly” part of the limitation. It further contends that
the “substantially uniformly” language in the claim
describes how the lateral displacement approaches zero,
not just whether it approaches zero. Goodrich, as Mobileye
characterizes it, does not base its collision determination
on how the lateral displacement changes, because
it assumes a constant velocity. Mobileye argues that it
therefore does not teach the “substantially uniformly”
limitation in claim 6. Mobileye does not challenge the
Board’s findings with respect to the other prior art references.
Note the reasoning:
We agree with iOnRoad that the Board’s finding that
Goodrich teaches the “substantially uniformly approaches
zero” limitation is supported by substantial evidence.
Mobileye’s arguments depend on distinguishing claim 6 of
the ’867 patent, which teaches estimating a time to collision
using a lateral displacement, from Goodrich, which
teaches collision avoidance based on a lateral velocity.
Compare ’867 patent col. 8 ll. 12–21, col. 10 ll. 36–39, with
Goodrich col. 5 ll. 4–9. However, that is a distinction
without a difference
At oral argument, Mobileye argued that a key featureContinue Reading ...
of the ’867 patent is that it exclusively relies on the lateral
displacement to estimate the time of contact, which is
not directly related to the velocity of the obstacle. See
Oral Arg. at 11:55–12:33. This feature makes a difference,
Mobileye contended, because an object could be
moving at a constant velocity, but the changes in its
lateral displacement with respect to the vehicle could still
decrease or increase in a non-constant manner. See id.;
see also ’867 patent fig. 2B. But Goodrich’s collision
avoidance system does not depend on a constant velocity;
it depends on a constant “lateral velocity.” Goodrich col. 5
l. 6 (emphasis added). Therefore, the record does not
support Mobileye’s attempt to distinguish the prior art.
Gene Quinn, has been named to the 2018 IAM Strategy 300, which recognizes The World’s Leading IP Strategists. This marks the second consecutive year Gene has been recognized by IAM as one of the top IP strategists in the world.
The post Gene Quinn named one of top IP strategists by IAM Magazine appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Continue Reading ...