• The Broadest Reasonable Claim Interpretation Cannot Exceed the Specification

    TF3’s patent-in-suit is for a “hair styling device” that automated the curling of hair. TF3 appealed the decision of the Board in an IPR requested by Tre Milano. Based upon its broad construction of certain claim terms, the Board held that two prior art references made the challenged patent claims invalid for anticipation. TF3 appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision because it imposed a claim construction that was broader than the description in the patent specification….

    Continue Reading ...
  • Inviting Danger into the Home: Understanding the Market for Counterfeit Baby Products and How Both Parents and Brands Can Better Protect Children

    How should new parents avoid putting their young children in unnecessary harm and avoid counterfeit baby products? Caregivers should purchase directly from the brand, either through its website or its authorized retailers.  Most brands – including UPPABaby and ErgoBaby – provide customers with online tools to identify authorized retailers… Second, if shopping on an online marketplace, pay close attention to the listed price.  It’s tempting to seek out a bargain while faced with the mountain…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

    By Michael Borella — Interval Licensing brought an action against AOL and several other defendants in the Western District of Washington, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652. In a previous ruling, all asserted claims of this patent were invalidated as being indefinite. At issue in this decision are claims 15-18, which were subsequently ruled invalid for failing to recite patent-eligibile subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As an example, claim 18 recites: A computer readable medium, for use by a content display system, encoded with one or more computer programs for enabling acquisition of a set of content…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

    Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

    Recent Headlines in the IP World:

    • Christopher Yasiejko: IBM Seeks $167 Million From Groupon in E-Commerce Patent Suit (Source: Bloomberg)
    • Rob Thubron: Nintendo Hits Popular ROM Sites with Copyright Infringement Lawsuit (Source: TechSpot)
    • Natasha Singer: Facebook’s Push for Facial Recognition Prompts Privacy Alarms (Source: The New York Times)
    • Dana Elfin: Trade Secrets Litigation Increasing in Digital Age (Source: Bloomberg)
    • Kelly Servick: Broad Institute Takes a Hit in European CRISPR Patent Struggle (Source: Science Magazine)
    • Christian de Looper: Apple Patent Hints at Better Gesture Control on the Apple Watch (Source: Digital Trends)

    Commentary and Journal Articles:

    • Natalie Giroux: Companies Need Intellectual Property Strategies Which Always Keep the End-Goal in Mind (Source: The Globe and Mail)
    • Bernie Carlson: Nikola Tesla’s Third Greatest Invention: The First Drone (Source: Forbes)
    • Dr. Ana Maria Santacreu and Heting Zhu: What Does China’s Rise in Patents Mean? A Look at Quality vs. Quantity (Source: SSRN)
    • Prof. Greg Reilly: Our 19th Century Patent System (Source: SSRN)
    • Atty: Mohammad H Alkandari: 3D Printing: Law & Challenges (Source: SSRN)

    Upcoming Events:

    • Corporate IP Strategy Conference
    • CIPSC 2018 Law Student Writing Competition

    New Job Postings on Patently-O:

    • Fiala & Weaver P.L.L.C.

    Continue reading Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • 後続(こうぞく)

                            目次はこちら

    後続(こうぞく)

    (FOLLOWED)
    $$ FIG. 12 is a diagrammatic representation of the path followed by a release mechanism relative to a package; / 【図12】 パッケージに対する解放メカニズムによって後続するパスの概略表示である。(USP6692213)

    $$ A "%" followed by an alphanumeric character indicates a replaceable parameter. / 英数字キャラクタが後続する“%”は置換可能なパラメータを示している。(USP6073174)

    $$ If the answer is No(N) then the flow chart in FIG. 2 is followed. / もし回答がノー(N)なら、図2のフローチャートが後続する。(USP5398248)

    (FOLLOWING)
    $$ The following description refers mainly to features of the second embodiment which differ from those of the first embodiment. / 後続の説明は、第1実施形態の特徴とは異なる第2実施形態の特徴に主に言及する。(USP8932079)

    $$ In this case, the field established by the following core element will cause violent movement of the charged bacterium, which will destroy it. / この場合、後続のコア要素によって形成されるフィールドが荷電されたバクテリアの激しい移動を生じさせ、それがバクテリアを破壊するであろう。(USP8029669)

    $$ Referring to FIG. 2d, following closure of the auction, a list of winners may be displayed in a designated area 234 of a pre-recorded video clip having suitable audio 232 and a key 231. / 図2dを参照すると、オークションの終了に後続して、勝者のリストは適切なオーディオ232とキー231とを有する予め記録されたビデオクリップの指定された区域234で表示される。(USP7577676)

    (SUBSEQUENT)
    $$ Similar operations (steps 206 to 210) are then applied to each subsequent element in the group list until a termination element is reached. / 同じような動作(段階206ないし210)が群リスト内の後続の各要素に適用され、最終要素に到達するまで進む。(USP6208356)

    $$ The subsequent signal processing path, detector support electronics and T.V. monitor ("T") are also shown in the figure. / 後続の信号処理パス、検出器サポート電子回路およびTVモニタ(「T」)も図中に示されている。(USP6177674)

    $$ The delay is the electrical distance around the ring from the first coupler 7.sup.1 to each subsequent coupler. / この遅延は、第1カプラ71 から各々の後続のカプラ迄のこのリングの周囲の電気的距離である。(USP5389890)

    $$ The subsequent steps to complete the manufacture of the insulated gate field effect device will be discussed below after the following description of various modifications to the process described above. / 絶縁ゲート電界効果装置を完成させる後続の製造工程は、上述した製造工程の種々の変更について以下に説明した後に説明する。(USP5387528)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ Drive is taken from the output disc to further parts of the transmission, typically including an epicyclic mixer, as will be explained below. / 駆動力は、出力ディスクから、以下で説明するように遊星歯車ミキサーを通常含む、変速機の後続の部品へ伝達される。(USP8989970): further

    $$ FIG. 7 shows a displaced-field difference to probability conversion system for a succeeding field. / 【図7】後続フィールド用の移動フィールド差分/確率変換システムを示す図である。(USP8358878): succeeding

    $$ All e-mails should conform to the current RFC standard for e-mail (i.e. RFC 822 and its successors). / 全ての電子メールは、電子メール用の最新RFC規格(すなわち、RFC822とその後続版)に一致させるべきである。(USP8185954): successor

    $$ To determine the time reference, the initial pulse must be identified and the follow-on pulses detected and counted again, as with radar principles. / レーダの原理と同様に、時刻基準を決定するために、最初のパルスが特定されなければならないと共に、後続のパルスが更に検出されて計数されなければならない。(USP8145966) follow-on

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • Sears prevails in "bionic wrench" case

    In Loggerhead v. Sears, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121457 (decided 20 July 2018), Sears won on summary judgment in a procedurally unusual case.

    Some text from the case:

    Nothing in the prosecution history casts doubt on the meaning of LoggerHead’s attempts to distinguish its proposed claims from the prior art. The company’s disclaimer was not a mere “isolated assertion,” as it now suggests. Unlike the patentee in Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009), who “never repeated the allegedly disclaiming statements and instead offered alternative reasons to overcome the . . . prior art,” LoggerHead repeated its disclaiming statements to the patent examiner two years later, with only minor changes in wording.11 Nor would a competitor reading the prosecution history doubt the meaning or significance of LoggerHead’s disclaiming statements merely because the company also presented other arguments in response to the patent examiner’s rejections. Under well-established Federal Circuit law, “an applicant’s argument that a prior art reference is distinguishable on a particular ground can serve as a disclaimer of claim scope even if the applicant distinguishes the reference on other grounds as well.” Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 559 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). See also Southwall Techs., 54 F.3d at 1583 (“Clear assertions made during prosecution in support of patentability, whether or not actually required to secure allowance of the claim, may . . . create an estoppel.”). Even if this were not the law, a competitor reading the prosecution history in this case would note that the patent examiner did cite Buchanan’s lack of an arm portion as a reason for allowing LoggerHead’s claims. (See PSAMF ¶ 36.)

    Finally, LoggerHead suggests that Judge Darrah’s conclusion that prosecution history estoppel did not apply at the claim-construction stage necessarily precludes this court from reaching the opposite conclusion now. According to LoggerHead, this court’s disagreement with Judge Darrah would prove that LoggerHead’s statements are susceptible to multiple meanings—and thus are not clear and unmistakable. But Judge Darrah does not appear to have considered the language from the prosecution history that this court finds to be clear and unmistakable. Rather, the only language he discussed was LoggerHead’s statement pointing out that the examiner failed to identify Buchanan’s arm portion. See LoggerHead, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114144, 2015 WL 5118063, at *4. Nor did Judge Darrah consider, as this court does now, whether LoggerHead disclaimed a gripping element without any arm portion at all. Rather, he considered whether LoggerHead disclaimed a “nonprojecting” arm portion. Id. His conclusion—that LoggerHead’s statement about the examiner’s failure to identify Buchanan’s arm portion did not clearly and unmistakably disclaim a gripping element with a “nonprojecting” arm portion (whatever that may be)—is not necessarily inconsistent with this court’s conclusion that LoggerHead did clearly and unmistakably disclaim a gripping element without any arm portion at all.

    A competitor would reasonably conclude from the prosecution history of the ‘470 patent that LoggerHead clearly and unmistakably disclaimed gripping elements without arm portions. LoggerHead is estopped from reclaiming that subject matter under the doctrine of equivalents.

    From the Chicago Tribune:


    Apex had designed the Craftsman wrench to avoid infringing on the LoggerHead patent, said Mark Sernel, an attorney for Apex and Sears.

    A federal judge who took over the case after the prior judge died last year agreed with Sears and Apex and ordered a new trial. Both sides asked the court to reconsider and decide the case without a new trial.

    U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer sided Friday with Sears and Apex “because no reasonable jury could conclude” that the Craftsman wrench infringed on LoggerHead’s patents, she wrote in a court order.

    “Sears is pleased with the court’s decision and looks forward to putting this case behind us,” spokesman Howard Riefs said in an email.

    LoggerHead’s attorney could not be reached immediately Tuesday for comment.

    link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-sears-bionic-wrench-patent-lawsuit-20180724-story.html

    Continue Reading ...