• The Blades Just Keep Spinning

    Sinovel encouraged him to leave AMSC, promising to pay him a million dollars over five years (along with an apartment, and, reportedly, a prostitute). His advance was only 15,000 euros, but it did the trick. Karabasevic resigned, but his supervisor asked him to stay on for a while, with full access to the company’s systems. This allowed him time to create a bootleg version of the AMSC controller software, and to transfer it to his future employer in China. This was the software that evaded the…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Joint Economic Committee Holds Hearing on Innovation Economy, Barriers to Accessing Capital

    One panel witness, Rachel King, CEO of the Rockville, MD-based biotech firm GlycoMimetics, said that she was greatly concerned by the effects of the IPR process and how it weakens the company’s ability to enforce its own patents. “There are very few areas of the nation’s economy that are as dependent on patents as the biotechnology industry,” King said. “Our investors rely on the strength of patents in order to make investments in companies like ours and we need to make sure that these rights…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Joint Economic Committee Holds Hearing on Innovation Economy, Barriers to Accessing Capital

    One panel witness, Rachel King, CEO of the Rockville, MD-based biotech firm GlycoMimetics, said that she was greatly concerned by the effects of the IPR process and how it weakens the company’s ability to enforce its own patents. “There are very few areas of the nation’s economy that are as dependent on patents as the biotechnology industry,” King said. “Our investors rely on the strength of patents in order to make investments in companies like ours and we need to make sure that these rights…

    Continue Reading ...
  • NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc)

    En Banc Federal Circuit Finds § 145 Appellants Generally Will Not Be Liable for Patent Office’s Attorneys’ Fee By Kevin E. Noonan & Josh Rich — The Federal Circuit handed down its en banc decision on Friday regarding the question of whether under 35 U.S.C. § 145 an applicant must pay attorneys’ fees as part of the “expenses” the statute mandates, in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc). Generally, under the “American Rule,” parties in U.S. litigation are responsible for their own fees regardless of the outcome of the case. In NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, the U.S….

    Continue Reading ...
  • Conference & CLE Calendar

    July 31, 2018 – “Structuring Freedom to Operate Opinions: Reducing Risk of Patent Infringement — Combating Troubling FTO Results, Overcoming Potential Roadblocks, Addressing Impact of Post-Grant Process on FTO Opinions” (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (…

    Continue Reading ...
  • En Banc Federal Circuit: PTO Does Not Automatically Get Attorney Fees in Appeals and Civil Action Claims

    by Dennis Crouch

    In its new en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit has confirmed that the Patent Act does not require patent applicants to pay the USPTO’s attorney fees in Section 145 actions.  The USPTO had requested $100,000+ to compensate for the time of its in-house attorneys.

    NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, 16-1794, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20932 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc).

    35 U.S.C. 145 provides an unsuccessful patent applicant with the option of either (a) appealing the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit or (b) filing a “civil action” in district court.  One kicker though – the statute provides that “All the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.”

    Back in 2010, the Federal Circuit ruled that the statute allows the USPTO to collect expenses “regardless of the outcome.” Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).

    In NantKwest, the original panel split on the meaning of “all the expenses” — with the majority holding that “expenses” include USPTO attorney fees (including in-house salaried attorney fees)..  That panel decision has now been rejected in a 7-4 decision with Judge Stoll penning the majority decision. 

    Continue reading En Banc Federal Circuit: PTO Does Not Automatically Get Attorney Fees in Appeals and Civil Action Claims at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • En Banc Federal Circuit: PTO Does Not Automatically Get Attorney Fees in Appeals and Civil Action Claims

    by Dennis Crouch

    In its new en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit has confirmed that the Patent Act does not require patent applicants to pay the USPTO’s attorney fees in Section 145 actions.  The USPTO had requested $100,000+ to compensate for the time of its in-house attorneys.

    NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, 16-1794, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20932 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc).

    35 U.S.C. 145 provides an unsuccessful patent applicant with the option of either (a) appealing the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit or (b) filing a “civil action” in district court.  One kicker though – the statute provides that “All the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.”

    Back in 2010, the Federal Circuit ruled that the statute allows the USPTO to collect expenses “regardless of the outcome.” Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).

    In NantKwest, the original panel split on the meaning of “all the expenses” — with the majority holding that “expenses” include USPTO attorney fees (including in-house salaried attorney fees)..  That panel decision has now been rejected in a 7-4 decision with Judge Stoll penning the majority decision. 

    Continue reading En Banc Federal Circuit: PTO Does Not Automatically Get Attorney Fees in Appeals and Civil Action Claims at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • 後方

                            目次はこちら

    後方

    (BACKWARD)
    $$ Each B frame uses two reference bit maps which are the bit maps of the forward frame and the backward frame to which the motion vectors of the B frame refer. / 各Bフレームは、2つの参照ビットマップを用い、これらの参照ビットマップは、Bフレームの動きベクトルが参照する前方フレーム及び後方フレームのビットマップである。(USP6567128)

    $$ Thus, a "forward" move is defined by L1-L2=1 and a "backward" move by L1-L2=-1. / したがって、「前方」移動はL1-L2=1により定義され、「後方」移動はL1-L2=-1により定義される。(USP6553020)

    $$ If no vowel is found in the forward search (step 163) then the program causes the processor to search backwards for a vowel (step 166). / 前方探査で母音が見付からなければ(段階163)、そのときはプログラムはプロセッサに母音の後方探査をさせる(段階166)。(USP6208356)

    $$ If neither a forward search nor a backward search finds a vowel an error indication results (step 169). / もし、前方探査も後方探査もともに母音を見付けないと、誤り表示が生ずる(段階169)。(USP6208356)

    (BEHIND)
    $$ Additionally, the efficient cavitating sections have a centre of lift which is usually somewhat behind the mid-chord position. / 更に、効率的なキャビテーション化区域は、通常中間弦位置より幾らか後方に位置する揚力中心を有する。(USP6332818)

    $$ The sleeve has a series of holes 14 at its lower end behind which are mounted a microphone 15 (FIG. 2). / スリーブは、その下端に一連の穴14を有し、その後方には、マイクロホン15が取り付けられている(図2)。(USP6282436)

    (REAR)
    $$ An adjacent side 39 is of a similar rectangular shape and, in the normal orientation of the part 34, extends horizontally rearwardly from the forward panel. / 隣の側部39は類似の長方形であり、イメージ捕捉部34に対して垂直であり、正面パネルから水平方向に後方に延長している。(USP6687389)

    $$ The electrodes 32 and 34 extend rearwardly to and through the window 12 to respective terminals 36, 38 for connection to an electrical supply. / 電極32、34は後方へ延び、覗き窓12を経て電源に接続される端子36、38へそれぞれ連結される。(USP6250913)

    $$ This desirable feature of illumination by a rear `spotlight` may be arranged even more advantageously by ensuring that the observer’s eye is outside the beam or space that is illuminated by the `spotlight`. / 後方「スポットライト」によるこの望ましい特徴的な照明は、観察者の眼が「スポットライト」により照射される光線又は領域の外側に位置することを確実にすることにより、より有利な配置とすることができる。(USP6212805)

    $$ The slots taper from open ends at a forward edge of the strip to closed rear ends. / 溝は条片の前方端の開放端から閉じた後方端にテーパー付けられる。(USP6176014)

    (POSTERIOR)
    $$ Where there is too much scarring for drainage to the sclera the device may be implanted to drain to the supra-choroidal space, in which case the length may be approximately the same as for posterior filtration. / 強膜への排出に対して瘢痕がひどすぎる場合は、器械は、脈絡線上の空間内に挿入され、この場合は、長さは後方濾過に対するものとほぼ同じである。(USP6186974)

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...