• 同様である

                            目次はこちら

    同様である

    (BE SIMILAR)
    $$ The interface is similar to one of a 3D orthogonal display. / インターフェースは、3D直交表示のうちの1つに関して同様である。(USP7643670)

    $$ The other electromagnets are similar. / その他の電磁石も同様である (USP5355040)

    $$ Generally, fabrication of the device including a "well", is similar to that described with reference to FIGS. 2A-2I. / 一般的に、”井戸”を含むデバイスの作製は図2-図10に関連して述べたものと同様である。(USP5429953)

    $$ In order to cast an image on to the screen, the input array lenses are, of course, positive, or convex lenses, and the output lenses are, naturally, similar. / 像をスクリーン上に投影するためには、入力配列のレンズはもちろん正のレンズすなわち凸レンズであり、出力レンズも本来的に同様である。(USP6097541)

    $$ In a further embodiment of the invention, shown in FIG. 4, the analysing means 8 is similar to that described above except that a profile adder 20 is incorporated between the profile generators 10a…n and the spectrum characteristics generator 11. / 図4に示す本発明の更に別の実施形態では、分析手段8は、上記したものと同様であるが、プロファイル発生器10a・・・nとスペクトル特性発生器11との間にプロファイル加算器20が組み込まれている。(USP6122344)

    (BE ANALOGOUS)
    $$ The effect is analogous to the action of a synthetic concave lens. / この効果は、合成凹レンズの作用と同様である。(USP6339664)

    $$ Of course in such a passive bearing there are no electromagnetic coils to benefit from a cooling flow of the back-up bearing fluid or be a cause of bearing failure, but in other respects operation and effect are analogous. / 勿論そのような受働型軸受においては、バックアップ軸受流体の冷却流れが役立つ電磁石コイルが無く、あるいは軸受の故障の原因となりうるが、その他の点においては作動と効果とは同様である。(USP5355040)

    (BE THE SAME AS)
    $$ With reference to FIG. 13, each magnet 450 of the rotor arrangement 400 of this embodiment is geometrically the same as the other. / 図13を参照して、本実施形態のロータ構成400の各磁石450は、幾何学的に他のものと同様である。(USP8624456)

    $$ From that point onwards, the manufacturing processes would be the same as described above. / その後の製造工程は、上述した工程と同様である。(USP8360074)

    $$ Many features of this embodiment are the same as the second embodiment of FIG. 6, and the same reference numerals will be used to indicate corresponding parts. / この実施例の多くの特徴は、図6の第2の実施例と同様であり、対応する部分を示すために同じ参照番号が使用される。(USP7653389)

    (BE AS DESCRIBED)
    $$ The steering angle warning system is primarily as described with reference to the first embodiment except for the changes described below. / この操向角警報システムの主要な部分は、以下に記載された相違点を除いて、第1実施形態を参照して説明したものと同様である。(USP8094042)

    $$ Glass and polyacid are as described in previous examples. / ガラスおよびポリ酸は上述の例に説明されるものと同様である。(USP6313192)

    (VICE VERSA):逆も同様である
    $$ Symbols are as for Table 1. / 記号は、表1と同様である。(USP8875685): as for

    $$ In particular, method aspects may be applied to apparatus aspects, and vice versa. / 特に、方法の態様は装置の態様にも適用可能で、その逆も同様である。(USP8684516)

    $$ Features described above relating to the apparatus aspects of the invention are equally applicable to the method aspect, and vice versa. / 本発明の装置の態様に関して上述した特徴は、同時に方法の態様にも適用することができ、逆もまた同様である。(USP8657942)

    $$ Features described above in relation to the first aspect of the invention are equally applicable to the second aspect, and vice versa. / 本発明の第1の側面に関連して上述した特徴は、第2の側面にも等しく当てはまり、その逆もまた同様である。(USP8579596)

    $$ When phase e is in integrate, phase o is in precharge/equalise and visa-versa. / フェーズeが統合状態にあるとき、フェーズoはプレチャージ/均一化の状態にあり、逆も同様である。(USP8390319)

    (AND SO ON):以下同様である –>and so forth
    $$ One bit period later the data on each channel will have changed to the next bit in the input data, i.e. the output will be bits 2-33 and so on. / 1ビット周期の後に、各チャネルのデータは、入力データ中の次のビットへと変化し、すなわち出力がビット2~33となり、以下同様である。(USP8145011)

    $$ The first 10 meters of the code can be split across different sized ring scales (e.g. 157 mm of the code can be used to cover a 50 mm diameter ring scale, the next 314 mm can be used to cover a 100 mm diameter ring scale, and so on) with the last 10 meters being used for linear scale. / コードの最初の10メートルは、異なるサイズのリングスケールにわたって分割することができ(たとえば、コードの157mmを直径50mmのリングスケールをカバーするために使用することができ、次の314mmを直径100mmのリングスケールをカバーするために使用することができる、以下同様である)、後の10メートルがリニアスケール用に使用される。(USP8742956)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ The first cylindrical body sections 123 are axially aligned, as are the second cylindrical body sections 126. / 第1円筒体区域123は軸線方向に整列され、第2円筒体区域126も同様である。(USP8662873): as be

    $$ This is of course the case for any pattern recognition system. / もちろん、これはあらゆるパターン認識システムついても同様である。(USP8165289): be the case

    $$ Short while lines are drawn evenly spaced over the map with the origin of the lines indicated by small yellow crosses (exactly as for the VECTOR POINT facility). / 小さな黄色い十字で示される部分を基点として(まさにベクトルポイント機能と同様である)短い白線をマップ全体にわたって等間隔で描く。(USP6611142): as for

    $$ The rear end closure 125 of the cylinder defines a slot to guide the ribbon through a 180° bend, again as in the previous embodiment. / シリンダの後端閉鎖体125は、リボンを180°湾曲部に亘って案内するためのスロットを構成する。これもまた上述の実施形態と同様である。(USP6270276): as in

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • Iancu Calls for Section 101 Fix in Address to AIPPI Congress

    USPTO Director Andrei Iancu said “something has to be done about” Section 101, as it has been thrown into flux following various U.S. Supreme Court cases, in comments made at the AIPPI Congress in London, United Kingdom last week. Iancu took part in an hour-long discussion with AIPPI Reporter General John Osha, and also took questions from the audience last Monday. He addressed topics including AI, anti-IP sentiment, litigation costs, bad faith trademark filings and gender parity. But it was…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Judge Newman’s dissent in Mayo Foundation: ‘no deference is due to agency interpretations at odds with the plain language of the statute itself.’

    The dissent of Judge Newman:


    This appeal concerns calculation of the patent term adjustment (“PTA”) that is established
    by statute to compensate for the patent life consumed by prolonged (over three
    years) examination of the patent application. The aspect
    on appeal relates to the period of ex parte examination conducted after termination of an interference and ending
    with mailing of the notice of allowance. The district court,
    affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office
    (“PTO”), held that this additional period of examination is
    not subject to any term adjustment,1 and my colleagues
    agree. This holding does not comport with the statutory
    provisions and precedent, and is contrary to the purpose of
    term adjustment. Mayo is correct that the calculation of
    PTA includes the period of examination after termination
    of the interference.
    The panel majority holds that this post-interference examination period is
    not included in the patent term adjustment, although it plainly is examination delay due to PTO
    procedures. I respectfully dissent.

    Of interest:


    The PTO argues that this court should defer to the
    PTO’s calculation of term adjustment. However, “it is elementary
    that ‘no deference is due to agency interpretations
    at odds with the plain language of the statute itself.’” Wyeth v. Kappos, 591 F.3d 1364,
    1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting
    Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 267 (2005)). 37
    C.F.R. § 1.703(b)(1) requires that the delay in examination
    be requested by the applicant. “Where a statute’s language
    carries a plain meaning, the duty of an administrative
    agency is to follow its commands as written, not to supplant
    those commands with others it may prefer.” SAS Inst., Inc.
    v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal case in Inspired Development vs. KidsEmbrace dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction

    The outcome:


    Appellant Inspired Development Group, LLC (“Inspired Development”) sued Appellee Inspired Products
    Group, LLC, d/b/a KidsEmbrace, LLC (“KidsEmbrace”) for
    breach of contract and other related state law claims in federal district court
    on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The district court granted
    summary judgment in KidsEmbrace’s favor on certain
    claims and Inspired Development appealed to the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. After the Eleventh Circuit discovered
    that diversity jurisdiction did not
    exist, the district court concluded on remand that it retained jurisdiction over
    the suit based on federal question
    jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit transferred the case to
    this court to determine whether the parties’ claims “aris[e]
    under” the patent laws pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
    For the reasons below, we vacate and remand for dismissal
    of the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.

    Background law

    “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and
    statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
    375, 377 (1994)). “Federal courts may hear only those cases
    over which they have subject matter jurisdiction.” Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Nagata, 706 F.3d 1365, 1368
    (Fed. Cir. 2013). Subject matter jurisdiction “may be based
    upon either diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction.” Id. at 1369.
    “Where, as here, [the parties] do not claim diversity of
    citizenship, there must be federal question jurisdiction.”
    ExcelStor Tech., Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,
    541 F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008). By statute, federal
    district courts are authorized to exercise original jurisdiction in civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws,
    or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases ‘arising
    under any Act of Congress relating to patents.’” Gunn, 568
    U.S. at 253 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)).

    A masquerade theory?


    Nonetheless, KidsEmbrace contends that Count III
    was intended to be a “thinly disguised patent infringement
    claim” simply “masquerading” as a claim for unjust enrichment.
    Appellee’s Br. 27. KidsEmbrace’s arguments mischaracterize the pleadings. Count III pled a fallback
    theory of relief sounding in quasi-contract in the event the
    written contract was deemed unenforceable or not controlling. J.A. 99 ¶ 43;
    see also Diamond “S” Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
    (“Florida courts have held that a plaintiff cannot pursue a
    quasi-contract claim for unjust enrichment if an express
    contract exists concerning the same subject matter.”).
    Count III cannot therefore reasonably be viewed as a freestanding claim for patent infringement. Rather, it was a
    conditional claim for equitable relief under Florida law.
    Accordingly, KidsEmbrace’s attempt to imply that Inspired
    Development engineered a claim for patent infringement
    under an alternative theory for unjust enrichment—which
    would only be available if the written agreements were unenforceable—rings hollow. There is simply no support for
    KidsEmbrace’s position.

    More of the opinion is directed to an analysis
    under Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013).

    Continue Reading ...
  • Beyond the Slice and Dice: Turning Your Idea into an Invention

    The patent process actually starts well before you file a patent application or seek assistance from a patent attorney. Every patent application starts with an invention, and every invention starts with an idea. While ideas are not patentable, there will be a point in time when the idea you are working on comes so into focus  with enough detail that it will cross the idea / invention boundary.  It is when an idea matures to the point of being concrete and tangible enough to be described to…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 同等

                            目次はこちら

    同等

    (EQUIVALENT)
    $$ The cost of this component may not exceed the plastics equivalent, and the effects of creep are significantly reduced. / この部品のコストは樹脂製の同等品を上回ることはなく、かつクリープの影響は大幅に減少する。(USP8282609)

    $$ The diaphragm 48 is biased towards the jet 54 by means of a spring 55, or equivalent. / ダイアフラム48は、ばね55またはその同等物によってジェット54の方向へ偏倚される。(USP8276584)

    $$ Data can be collected for an equivalent plurality of transmission paths as an object passes through a scanning zone. / データは、物体がスキャニング領域を通じて移動するとき、同等の複数の透過経路に対して採取される。(USP8233588)

    $$ Equivalently one can say that the actuator exerts a torque about the disc axis upon the roller. / 同等に、アクチュエータが、ディスク軸回りのトルクをローラーに働かせると言うことができる。(USP8108108)

    $$ One of the circuits 502 will now be described, others being equivalent. / 回路502の内の一つを以下に説明するが、他の回路はこれと同等である。(USP6441783)

    (EQUAL/EQUATE)
    $$ The Visio.TM. terms "masters" and "shapes" can be loosely equated with types and instances, respectively. / ビジオ(商標)の用語である「マスタ」及び「シェイプ」は、それぞれ、タイプ及びインスタンスとほぼ同等に見なすことができる。(USP8347146)

    $$ The two blade spars 31 and 32 within the blade root cavity 40 are each divided into four approximately equal packs of fibre layers 51 to 54. / 羽根の付け根キャビティ40内の2つの羽根スパー31および32は、それぞれ繊維層51から54の4個のほぼ同等のパックに分割される。(USP8272841)

    $$ In this embodiment, the second gearbox has a high gearing ratio (equal to that of the first gearbox) and is not back-driveable. / 本実施形態では、第2ギアボックスは、(第1ギアボックスのギア比と同等の)高いギア比を有しており、逆向きの動作はできない。(USP8267350)

    $$ Layered video compression is achieved with the 1998 version of H.263 but equally may be any other codec, such as MPEG4. / 層化ビデオ圧縮は、H.263の1998で達成されるが、同等にMPEG4などの他のコーデック(codec)であってよい。(USP8209429)

    $$ Equally importantly, FIG. 6 shows that for these parameters the output voltage is generated within less than 20 ms for photocurrents as small as 1 pA. / 同等に重要な点として、図6は、これらの変数の場合、出力電圧は、1pAという小さい光電流に対して20ms未満で生成されることを示す。(USP8106982)

    (COMPARE)
    $$ Begin with a DRA aperture of 2.4 m (comparable to the size of an AFR reflector), element spacing 2.12 wavelengths. / 2.4mのDRA開口(AFR反射器の大きさと同等)、2.12波長の素子間隔から開始する。(USP8344945)

    $$ This compares to a ratio of 1.5:1 for conventional self-piercing rivets. / これは、従来の自己挿通リベット1.5:1の比率と同等である。(USP8070406)

    (LIKE)
    $$ One particular application, however, is in telecommunication systems and the like. / しかし、1つの重要な用途は電気通信および同等分野への利用である。(USP5429953)

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • Other Barks & Bites, Friday, September 20: CAFC Issues Precedential Decisions on Patent Term Adjustment, DOJ Announces Trade Secret Charges, USPTO Urges CAFC Deference to POP

    This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit issued a pair of precedential opinions affirming the USPTO’s determinations on patent term adjustment; Chuck Yeager filed a trademark lawsuit against Airbus; Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with Capitol Hill lawmakers and President Trump; the Office of Technology Assessment Improvement and Enhancement Act was introduced into both houses of Congress; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a copyright case lodged against musician…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Declaratory Judgments in China

    My book Comparative Patent Remedies has a very brief discussion of declaratory judgments in China (p.361 n.132).  When I get around to publishing a second edition, I will need to take into account a recent decision of the Supreme People’s Court, V…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Bipartisan Effort to Resurrect Office of Technology Assessment Introduced

    Yesterday, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Representatives Mark Takano (D-CA) and Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced the Office of Technology Assessment Improvement and Enhancement Act, which if enacted would introduce enhancements to the existing Office of Technology Assessment statute codified at 2 U.S.C. §472. According to the sponsors, this bipartisan legislation would improve and enhance the existing Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) by making it more accessible and…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Bipartisan Effort to Resurrect Office of Technology Assessment Introduced

    Yesterday, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Representatives Mark Takano (D-CA) and Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced the Office of Technology Assessment Improvement and Enhancement Act, which if enacted would introduce enhancements to the existing Office of Technology Assessment statute codified at 2 U.S.C. §472. According to the sponsors, this bipartisan legislation would improve and enhance the existing Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) by making it more accessible and…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 同日

                            目次はこちら

    同日

    $$ The NMF output from system 310 is provided to an optional but preferable post-processor 312 for modifying the display periods of individual sub-frames in order to optimise the benefits of TMA driving (preferably as described in the Applicant’s co-pending UK patent application no. 0605755.8 filed on the same day as this application). / システム310からのNMF出力は、TMA駆動のメリットを最適化するために、任意選択であるが、個々のサブフレームの表示期間を変更するために、後処理装置312に提供されることが好ましい(好ましくは、本出願と同日に出願された本出願者の同時係属の英国特許出願第0605755.8号に記載されているように)。(USP8405581): same date

    $$ The tray 3 may be of the type disclosed in our copending International patent application (agent’s ref. AF2/P9716WO) of even date herewith, the entire content of which is hereby incorporated by reference. / トレー3は、本願と同日に出願された本出願人の係属中の国際特許出願(代理人整理番号:AF2/P9716WO)に開示されているタイプのものであってもよい。斯かるトレーのすべての内容は、この出願によって参照される。(USP7612996): even date

    $$ This application is related to the application entitled "Method of Manufacturing Optical Devices and Related Improvements", submitted on the same date of Feb. 20, 2001 (Ser. No. 09/789,240). (USP6632684): same date

    $$ …there will be more than one date where not all the desired number of components can be manufactured by the same date… (USPA02072988): same date

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • ITC Investigates University of California Complaint Against Amazon and Other Major Retailers

    In late August, the U.S. International Trade Commission published a notice of institution of a Section 337 investigation on behalf of the Regents of the University of California, which is now underway. The University filed a complaint in July alleging that a series of major retailers including Amazon.com, Bed Bath & Beyond, IKEA, Target and Walmart have infringed patents through the importation of certain filament light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and products containing the same. The ITC…

    Continue Reading ...
  • ITC Investigates University of California Complaint Against Amazon and Other Major Retailers

    In late August, the U.S. International Trade Commission published a notice of institution of a Section 337 investigation on behalf of the Regents of the University of California, which is now underway. The University filed a complaint in July alleging that a series of major retailers including Amazon.com, Bed Bath & Beyond, IKEA, Target and Walmart have infringed patents through the importation of certain filament light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and products containing the same. The ITC…

    Continue Reading ...
  • As Lighthizer Negotiates on USMCA, Former HHS Secretary Warns Against Buying Into ‘Myths’

    On September 13, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer reportedly expressed a willingness to negotiate on several points of contention regarding the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), including potentially reducing the 10-year period of intellectual property protection for biologic medicines. In response to this, the Pass USMCA Coalition is touting a memo penned by Former Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson aimed at “debunking the widespread myth that…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Trading Technologies Asks Supreme Court to Restore Congress’ Purpose in Creating the Patent Act

    Trading Technologies International, Inc. (TT) has filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to clarify U.S. patent eligibility law, including whether the Court should overrule its “abstract idea” precedents. The petition relates to the Federal Circuit’s April 2019 decision siding with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims of TT’s patents for graphical user interfaces (GUI) for electronic trading were eligible for covered business method (CBM)…

    Continue Reading ...
  • New Papers, Posts on SEP, FRAND Issues

    1.  Beatriz Conde Gallego and Josef Drexl have published an article titled IoT Connectivity Standards:  How Adaptive is the Current SEP Regulatory Framework?, 50 IIC 135 (2019).  Hereis a link to the paper, and here is the abstract:
    The Internet of Things is advancing as a new technological paradigm with enormous economic and societal implications. Network connectivity provides the basis. With this in mind, past and current conflicts surrounding the licensing and enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector cast a shadow over IoT development. Focusing on the European approach based on competition law, this article explores the extent to which the existing legal framework, which has been mainly developed against the backdrop of problems in the mobile industry, will be capable of responding adequately to the challenges raised by the IoT. 
    2.  Peter Picht has posted a paper on ssrn titled Confidentiality in SEP/FRAND Cases-A Criticial Overview of the Recent Legal DevelopmentsHereis a link, and here is the abstract:
    The protection of confidential information looms large in the SEP/FRAND area. A paramount issue is the disclosure of existing license contracts to show, in negotiations or in court, the FRAND compliance of a license offer. Disclosing third-party licenses does, however, come at a cost: On a content level, such contracts oftentimes contain business secrets which neither the licensor nor the licensee wish to share. On a legal level, third-party licenses will usually contain confidentiality clauses prohibiting both parties from disclosing the contract. These aspects create an intricate tension between public and party interests. Against this background, the paper analyzes the existing case law and literature in as well as outside the SEP/FRAND context, points out recent legislative developments, and suggests some improvements to the legal framework.
    3.  Jonas Block and Benjamin Rätz have published an article titled Das FRAND-Angebot – Versuch einer internationalen Definition (“The FRAND offer – an attempt at an international definition”), GRUR 08/2019, 797. Here is the abstract (authors’ own English translation from the original German):
    According to the CJEU’s decision in Huawei Technologies v. ZTE Corp et al, the holder of standard essential patents must submit a license offer to a potential infringer under “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) conditions in order to meet its obligations under competition law. German courts and foreign courts judge differently the requirements that such an offer has to meet. The authors therefore attempt to define the term “FRAND offer” according to the CJEU’s criteria within an international context. Firstly, they show that FRAND is to be understood as a corridor, comprising a number of different contractual arrangements. The authors then come to the conclusion that the term FRAND offer is to be understood primarily in economic terms, in that it does not constitute a new offer as understood by contract law when individual contractual modalities are in the course of contract negotiations adapted to the economic circumstances. The authors suggest that this aspect has not been sufficiently considered in recent German case law.
    4.  I previously mentioned posts on IPKat and Kluwer regarding the Sisvel v. Xiaomi litigation, in which a Dutch court denied Sisvel a preliminary injunction.  Amy Sandys recently published a post as well on JUVE Patent, which places this litigation in the context of some other FRAND disputes in the Netherlands and other FRAND disputes involving these parties elsewhere.  And on IPWatchdog, James Nurton published a post titled Searching for Answers to the Standard Essential Patents Problem, which discusses, among other matters,the upcoming (in October) Unwired Planet appeal in the U.K.

    Continue Reading ...