The Trump administration yesterday made some firm statements about reducing health care and drug prices for American consumers and making costs more transparent. The statements again appear to focus on other countries paying more for US-made drugs but …Continue Reading ...
The government of Malaysia continues to face pressure from the United States pharmaceutical industry and potentially the US government to undo an action taken to make a key hepatitis C medicine more affordable in the country. Now Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders) has weighed in to defend the government’s right to use a patent flexibility in global trade law that allows them to take such actions on behalf of their citizens.Continue Reading ...
On the morning of February 14, the New Hampshire Supreme Court will hear what could be one of this year’s most important set of arguments related to patent ownership taking place outside of the federal judiciary. At 10:00 AM that morning, the Court will listen to oral arguments in Automated Transactions, LLC and David Barcelou v. American Bankers Association et. al. to determine whether the New Hampshire Superior Court erred by dismissing a defamation case after finding that the term “patent…
Continue Reading ...
By Donald Zuhn –- Last week, in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision by the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, holding claims 6-9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the District Court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of a complaint filed by Athena Diagnostics, Inc., Oxford University Innovation Ltd., and the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V. against Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC for infringement of the ‘820 patent. Athena Diagnostics is the exclusive licensee of the ‘820 patent,…Continue Reading ...
$$ Suitable organic macromolecules which may be used in the invention are proteins having a suitable cavity or opening for accommodating a nanoscale particle. / 本発明で使用することができる適切な有機高分子は、ナノスケール粒子を収容するための適切な空洞又は開口部を有するタンパク質である。(USP6815063)
$$ Process and apparatus for manufacturing a glass ingot from synthetic silica / 合成シリカからガラスインゴットを製造するための方法および装置(USP6763682)
$$ Configurations for achieving this are shown in FIGS. 11 and 13 to 18. / これを達成するための構成は図１１および図１３～１８に示される。(USP6587246)
$$ The present invention relates to deflection apparatus for enabling a raster scanned CRT display to maintain a constant picture size despite variations in raster line scanning frequency. / 本発明はラスタ走査ＣＲＴ（cathode ray tube）表示装置がラスタライン走査周波数の変化には無関係に一定の画像サイズを維持出来るようにするための偏向装置に関する。(USP5420484)
(STH TO-V)"FOR V-ing"のパターンに比べると使用頻度はかなり低い
$$ For instance, a tag to specify a wink action in the input data will cause the character to appear to wink at that point in the speech to be presented. / 例えば、入力データ中でウィンク動作を特定するためのタグはキャラクタが提示されるスピーチ中のその点でウインクするように見せる。(USP6772122)
$$ For the purposes of this Specification the creation of a plasma to provide a source of such particles is included in the term "plasma processing." / 本明細書の目的のために、この種の粒子の源を提供するためのプラズマの生成は「プラズマ加工」と言う用語の中に包含される。(USP6458239)
$$ A formula to determine suitable values is: / 適切な値を決定するための公式は、次の通りである。(USP6473469)
(FOR —ION OF)
$$ In this case preferably seed values for the generation of the plurality of different keys are distributed to the plurality of terminals. / この場合に複数の異なるキーを生成するためのシード値を複数の端末に分配することが好ましい。(USP6996722)
$$ The biasable junction may be an extracting junction for extraction of minority carriers from the active region. / バイアス可能接合は、活性領域から少数キャリアを抽出するための抽出接合とすることができる。(USP6809514)
$$ Such targets provide useful ranges of X-ray radiation wavelengths for use in the apparatus. / このようなターゲットにより、Ｘ線放射線の上記装置に用いるための有用な波長領域が得られる。(USP6977986)
$$ The present invention relates to a tuneable optical filter, for example, for use in a wavelength division multiplex (WDM) optical communication systems. / 本発明は、例えば、波長分割多重化（ＷＤＭ）光通信システムに使用するための同調可能な光学フィルタに係る。(USP6788479)
目次はこちらContinue Reading ...
Here we go again! Another patent whose claims have been invalidated at the Federal Circuit—predictably, another medical diagnostic patent. Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2019). This is getting old, tired and fundamentally ridiculous. The statute, which is all of one-sentence long, specifically lists discoveries as patent eligible. So why are discoveries being declared patent ineligible? To the extent these decisions are mandated by the Supreme Court, they directly…
Continue Reading ...
The Federal Circuit on February 1 affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in an inter partes review concluding that the claims of a patent directed to a composition for treating epilepsy are not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit first visited the issue of whether three petitioners—Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, all of whom were sued for infringement of the patent more than one year prior to the institution of the…
Continue Reading ...
The following is a reprint of a post I originally published on February 12, 2014.
Because today (February 12, 2014) is the 205th anniversary of the birth of both the sixteenth United States President, Abraham Lincoln, and the great naturalist Charles Darwin, I thought it might be worthwhile to say a few words about Lincoln, Darwin, and their relevance to contemporary issues of patent law. I will return to my normal subject of patent remedies later this week.
Lincoln was the first, and so far only, U.S. president to obtain a patent–specifically, U.S. Patent No. 6,469, dated May 22, 1849, titled “Buoying Vessels over Shoals.” Here is a link to the patent, and another to a write-up about it by Cherise LaPine on the “How Stuff Works” website. Lincoln’s model of his invention is on display in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, see here, but apparently the invention was never built or commercialized.In the late 1850s, Lincoln also delivered a lecture on “Discoveries and Inventions,” which according to the website Abraham Lincoln Online was not a big hit either. (It is also distressing to see, in a few parts, how the Great Emancipator was capable of making disparaging comments about other peoples, but the historical record is what it is.) But the last paragraph has become well-known and is still cited in contemporary debates over patent policy:Next came the Patent laws. These began in England in 1624; and, in this country, with the adoption of our constitution. Before then any man might instantly use what another had invented; so that the inventor had no special advantage from his own invention. The patent system changed this; secured to the inventor, for a limited time, the exclusive use of his invention; and thereby added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things.From a comparative standpoint, it would be interesting to know whether any other heads of state have ever obtained patents. Angela Merkel is a physicist and Margaret Thatcher was a chemist, but I’m not aware if either of them (or any other head of state) ever received a patent. For an interesting discussion titled “Chemists and Engineers Who Were Heads of State,” see this link.To my knowledge Darwin had no patents either, though of course the principle of evolution by natural selection is one of the key scientific insights of all time, and our understanding of it has certainly laid the groundwork for a huge amount of further discovery and invention. In my I.P. courses, however, I often use Darwin’s race with Alfred Russel Wallace to be the first to publish the theory an example of the independent, near-simultaneous discovery of scientific principles or inventions by two or more persons. Here’s something I’ve written about the matter in the past:The principle of evolution by natural selection traces its origin, of course, to the writings of Charles Darwin and (less familiarly to many readers) his contemporaries Alfred Russel Wallace, Patrick Matthew, and William Charles Wells. See Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (1859); Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871); Alfred Russel Wallace, On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type, 3 J. Proceedings of the Linnean Soc’y (Zoology) 53 (1858); see also Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life 49 (1995) (discussing Matthew’s articulation of the principle of natural selection); Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory 137-38 n.* (2002) (discussing Matthew and Wells); Michael Shermer, In Darwin’s Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace147-48 (2002). Darwin’s race to complete publication of The Origin of Species, upon learning that Wallace had independently discovered the principle of natural selection, is recounted in, among other sources, Shermer, supra, at 118-21, 128-50; Robert Wright, The Moral Animal 301-10 (1994).Neither Darwin nor Wallace wrote upon a completely blank slate. On the basis of fossil evidence and observation of existing species, a few naturalists before Darwin and Wallace had grasped the basic idea that species evolve; but no one had previously articulated with much precision the mechanism by which evolution occurs. See Gould,supra, at 64-66, 137-39; Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is 5, 23-25, 80-81 (2001); Mark Ridley, Evolution7-9 (1993). Perhaps the most notable attempt to articulate a pre-Darwinian theory of changes within species was that of the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who proposed, incorrectly, in his 1809 work Philosophie Zoologiquethat species could pass on acquired characteristics to their offspring. See Gould, supra, at 170-97 (providing a sympathetic overview of Lamarck’s life and work, while noting his errors); Mayr, supra, at 81; Ridley, supra, at 8-9 (noting that Lamarck did not invent the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, which can be traced at least as far as back as Plato).The fact that even landmark scientific discoveries (like the principle of evolution by natural selection, or Newton’s and Leibniz’s near-simultaneous invention of calculus), to say nothing of lesser discoveries and inventions, are not only based on earlier contributions (as Newton said, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”) but also often are arrived at roughly the same time by different individuals working independently is also of potential relevance in crafting an optimal patent policy. For an interesting discussion, see, e.g., Mark A. Lemley, The Myth of the Sole Inventor, 110 Mich. L. Rev. 709 (2012) (arguing that the principal public benefit of the patent system may reside less in its role in stimulating invention than in stimulating patent races).