• IP Chat Channel Webinar on Damages After WesternGeco

    On Thursday, July 12, from 2-3 p.m. Eastern Time the IP Chat Channel will be presenting a webinar titled Damages After Western GecoImpact on Patent Litigation Strategy and Client CounselingHere is a link, and here is the description:
    At the U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Western Geco v. Ion, a case about expanding the damages for infringing a U.S. patent to include foreign lost profits, a heated and far-ranging debate ensued.  Earlier, some amici curiae had stressed the huge stakes at issue.  For instance, Fairchild Semiconductor joined forces with The Internet Association, arguing that allowing lost profits damages from outside the U.S. “would have negative fallout for economic policy, U.S. commerce, and foreign relations.”  Even the “threat [of such damages] would encourage important industries to relocate abroad,” they claimed.

    In late June, the Court disposed of the matter with an opinion from Justice Thomas.  This webinar will focus on the impact of this decision on patent litigation strategy, as well as client counseling. The Court’s decision overturned decades of Federal Circuit precedent by holding that Western Geco’s award for lost profits was a permissible domestic application of § 284.  Our panel includes the chief IP counsel for a major multinational; the former head of patents at Microsoft who is now with a law firm where he focuses on strategic IP counseling, IP transactions, and license agreements; and a patent litigator who has been involved in these issues for years on behalf of a patent owner. They will discuss:

    • How Western Geco might impact decisions regarding the location of R&D, manufacturing, and contract signing.
    • The immediate and long term effects on litigation strategy for both plaintiffs and defendants.
    • Whether the impact will be limited to § 271(f)(2) cases or may be broader.
    • What kind of proof plaintiffs will need to bolster their claims for worldwide damages.
    • How the question of proximate cause “could limit or preclude damages in particular cases,” an issue the Court explicitly declined to address.


    • Buckmaster de WolfGeneral Electric Company 
    • Bart Eppenauer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP 
    • Blair Jacobs, Paul Hastings LLP
    Continue Reading ...
  • Oracle America v. Google, Free Java: Fair or Unfair?

    The Federal Circuit recently decided the case of Oracle America v. Google Inc. To “attract Java developers to build apps for Android,” Google copied the declaring code, but wrote its own implementing code for the 37 Java API packages. Id at 1187.  Previously, the Federal Circuit held that “[the] declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization (‘SSO’) of the Java API packages are entitled to copyright protection.” .  On the other hand, the Federal Circuit also recognized that a…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Conference & CLE Calendar

    July 10, 2018 – “Improving Access to Global Patent Data” (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) – 12:00 to 1:00 pm (ET) July 11-12, 2018 – “Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop 2018: Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing” (Practising Law Institute) – New …

    Continue Reading ...
  • IPO Webinar on Damages After Western Geco

    The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled “Damages After Western Geco: Impact on Patent Litigation Strategy and Client Counseling” on July 12, 2018 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Buckmaster de Wolf of General Electric Co.; Bart Eppenauer of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP; and Blair Jacobs of Paul Hastings LLP will focus on the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Western Geco v. Ion on patent litigation strategy, as well as client counseling and discuss the following topics: • How Western Geco might impact decisions regarding the location of R&D, manufacturing, and contract…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on 2018 Bayh Dole Revisions

    Webinar on 2018 Bayh Dole Revisions Technology Transfer Tactics will be offering a webinar entitled “The 2018 Bayh Dole Revisions: Practical Compliance Guidance for Technology Transfer Offices” on July 17, 2018 from 1:00 to 2:00 pm (ET). Charles R. Macedo, Alan Miller and Brian Amos of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP will address the following topics: • The impact of the Bayh-Dole changes on: — compliance measures — staffing needs — case abandonment process — annuity fee procedures — provisional and non-provisional patent filings — invention rights assignments — timelines and changes to internal systems • Understanding the consequences of…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Difficulties with Parthasarathy’s "U.S. patent system out of step"

    An article titled U.S. patent system out of step with today’s citizens appears in Finance & Commerce, but pointing to an earlier post at The Conversation , which in turn states of the article — This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 31, 2015. –, thus, about three years old.

    The Finance-Commerce post includes the text:

    It is worth observing that while the U.S. system was initially conceived as a democratic improvement upon the European systems of the time, today’s pan-European patent system is far ahead of its U.S. counterpart in terms of both its public engagement and its attention to the implications that citizens care about.

    If the U.S. patent system wants to maintain public trust, it has to realize that the 21st-century citizen is quite different from her 18th-century forebears. Today’s citizen cares about the ethical and socioeconomic implications of patents and the technologies they cover and is not content to assume that the system’s benefits eventually trickle down. And she seeks to have an active role in decision-making.

    Taking this citizen seriously will require serious patent system reforms. Possible reforms include increasing opportunities for the public to participate in patent decision-making, allowing more legal and bureaucratic challenges on behalf of the public interest, and incorporating more emphasis on ethical and socioeconomic implications into our patent and innovation policies.

    There is a lot which can be questioned about the analysis by Shobita Parthasarathy, a professor at the University of Michigan.

    **As to opportunities for the “public” to challenge, and to participate, recall the patent wars over stem cells, which took place more than ten years before Parthasarathy’s 2018 article. The journal Science had reported:

    WARF’s patents were first challenged in October 2006 by two citizens’ groups, who claimed that the approach for getting primate ES cells was “obvious” and could have been successfully applied by anyone with the necessary resources. Last April, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) accorded the patents a preliminary rejection and agreed to reexamine them.

    link: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2008/03/warf-goes-3-3-patents

    The consumer group was beaten so badly that it changed its name. See the 2008 post on IPBiz FTCR changes its name after stem cell defeat The group, renamed as Consumer Watchdog, did make later legal history, in defeat, as to a standing issue. Consumer Watchdog / PubPat seek Supreme Court review of standing issue in stem call case concerning WARF’s US 7,029,913

    Disregarding the unfavorable outcome for the consumer group, the point, apparently not recognized by Parthasarathy, is that the “public” has been participating in the patent process for a long time. [And, of course, sometimes the “public” involvement can involve a hedge fund guy; see for example Kyle Bass IPR petition against Lialda granted for review of U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720

    **in a comment to The Conversation post, Parthasarathy wrote:

    Especially in recent decades, there has been a slowdown in health care innovation (e.g., as defined by new drug compounds available to substantially improve health) while patent rates have increased. There’s also an argument that patents actually hurt innovation in some cases, especially in the US, because they are too broad in scope and make it difficult for other innovators to “invent around” them (this is a particular concern in the area of biomedicine).

    Parthasarathy apparently is unfamiliar with drug development in the area of multiple sclerosis. The first drug to modulate the effect of the disease appeared in 1993. Now there are over 15 drugs. Sufferers of MS now face an incredibly more favorable expectation of lifestyle than in 1993.

    In this, one has to appreciate that the bigger cost in bringing a drug to market is testing, rather than simply identifying a drug candidate. The patent system, which can protect rights in the drug and/or method of use, allows a drug innovator to re-coup the significant expense of drug testing.

    **Maybe it is Parthasarathy who is out of step?

    Continue Reading ...
  • 厳密に



    $$ Movement of the areola region and stem relative to the bulbous region does not closely mimic the movement of the human breast during sucking. / 乳輪領域及び乳首部分の膨隆領域に対する運動は、吸うときの人の胸の動きを厳密に模倣することはできない。(USP8181800)

    $$ FIG. 5B illustrates a wedged or V-shaped profile so as to more closely correspond to the profile of the channel 5A. / 図5Bは、前記溝5Aの形状により厳密に対応するくさび形又はV字形状を示している。(USP8099929)

    $$ The structure of the network after re-mapping results in a network address for each node that more closely reflects the topology of the entire network. / 再マッピングの後の、ネットワークの構造は、全体のネットワークのトポロジーを各ノードに対して厳密に考慮したネットワークアドレスとなる。(USP7653010)

    $$ The housing may not be exactly cylindrical. / 筐体は、厳密に筒状ではなくてもよい。(USP8747644)

    $$ It can be demonstrated that exactly the same null points occur for an input at port 2. / 厳密に同じヌル点が、ポート2の入力の場合、発生することを実証し得る。(USP8103225)

    $$ In particular, it may be more important to know that a particular material is present than where exactly the material is located. / 特に、特定の物質が存在することを知る方が、物質が厳密にどこに位置しているかより重要であるかもしれない。(USP7579596)

    $$ Strictly, the equation should be parameterised using a "folding function" explained below, rather than a summation. / 厳密に言えば、方程式は加法よりもむしろ下記にて説明する「折りたたみ関数(folding function)」を用いてパラメータ化する必要がある。(USP8165289)

    $$ Only one of the windowing function, or the high pass filter may strictly be necessary to provide sufficient suppression of transient signals. / 過渡信号を十分圧縮するには、厳密に言えば、窓関数の1つのみまたはハイパスフィルタのどちらかが必要である。(USP8160423)

    $$ Strictly speaking, this impulse response should be convolved (ie filtered) with the impulse response of the individual array transducers. / 厳密に言えば、このインパルス応答は個別のアレイトランスジューサのインパルス応答により畳み込まれなければならない(すなわち、フィルタリングされる)。(USP7577260)

    $$ Strictly, all bistable displays will only exhibit two stable states. / 厳密には、全ての双安定ディスプレイは、2つの安定な状態を示すだけでない。(USP7053975)

    $$ Such models are not strictly necessary to make use of this approach as bounds on delay can be calculated for queuing disciplines such as first-in first-out. / このようなモデルは、遅延に対する制限が、先入れ先出しなどの待ち行列規律に対して計算できるので、このアプローチを利用するのに厳密に必要ではない。(USP7006435)

    $$ Hence any rotational movement of the carriage 104 about its axis PA is severely constrained. / 従って、キャリッジ軸線PAの周りでのキャリッジ104のどのような回転運動も厳密に規制される。(USP7632208)

    $$ The aforesaid rotational movement of the carriage 104 is in any event severely constrained by the interaction of the roller 102 with the variator discs, as will now be explained with particular reference to FIG. 2. / キャリッジ104の上記回転運動は、特に図2を参照しながら次に説明するように、ローラ102とバリエータディスクとの相互作用により、どのような場合でも厳密に規制される。(USP7632208)

    $$ The thickness of the skin between the interface regions is less critical, so there is no need for it to be so tightly controlled. / 境界面領域の間の外板の厚さはそれほど重要ではなく、したがってそれを厳密に制御する必要性はない。(USP8163209)

    $$ The device’s temperature is not at all tightly controlled. / デバイスの温度は全く厳密に制御されない。(USP7573345)

    $$ The filters are complex and require the deposition of several hundred discrete layers of material with tight control of film thickness. / フィルタは複雑であり、膜厚を厳密に制御した数百の別々の材料層の堆積を必要とする。(USP6980362)


    Continue Reading ...