• Amazon’s Counterfeit Problem is a Big One—for Shareholders, Brand Owners and Consumers Alike

    On February 1, Amazon.com, Inc. filed a Form 10-K annual report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Along with reporting its year-end earnings for the 2018 fiscal year, this particular SEC filing was notable because Amazon officially acknowledged to shareholders that the company’s online sales platforms face the risk of being found liable for fraudulent or unlawful activities of sellers on those platforms. This includes the company’s first-ever concession that Amazon may be unable…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 精度



    –>precision(精密); accuracy(正確)

    $$ This increases the accuracy of the state vector estimate for a given number of pixels. / これは、所与の数のピクセルを推定する状態ベクトルの精度を増大する。(USP7029172)

    $$ For a system with reasonable accuracy and range a baseline of approximately 60 mm would be typical. / 適度な精度と距離のシステムの場合、約60mmのベースラインが標準である。(USP7589825)

    $$ This coarse range information could then be used to remove ambiguities from a scene viewed from a viewpoint with a larger baseline and hence greater accuracy. / この粗い距離情報は、次に、より大きなベースラインであり、従ってより高精度の視点から見た光景から曖昧さを除去するために使用することができる (USP7589825)

    $$ Thus it is possible to dispense with the high precision piezoelectric transducers that are usually required. / したがって、通常要求される高精度の圧電トランスデューサによって散逸させることができる。(USP7596989)

    $$ The present invention seeks to provide an improved device for housing a planar optical component such as a chemical sensor which is-capable of ultra high precision temperature control. / 本発明は、超高精度の温度制御が可能な化学センサのようなプレーナ型光学コンポーネントを備えた改良された装置を提供するものである。(USP6764226)

    $$ As a result, a very fine degree of separation can be achieved between the target surface and the operative end of the device which, particularly in a sealing context, is of benefit in reducing unwanted leakage past the target surface. / その結果、標的面と装置の作動端との間を極めて高い精度で隔離することができ、これは特に封止という状況において、標的面を通過する好ましくない漏れを減少させる点において有利である。(USP8863641)

    $$ The TWINTEX manufacturing process enables the thermoplastic and glass fibre filaments to be mixed "dry" with a high degree of control over the distribution of the two filamentary fibres. / TWINTEX製造プロセスは、2つのフィラメント繊維の分布を高精度で制御しながら、熱可塑性物及びガラス繊維フィラメントが「乾燥」混合するのを可能にする。(USP6228312)


    Continue Reading ...
  • University of Florida Research Foundation loses appeal from ND FL at the CAFC

    The CAFC affirmed a determination by the Northern District Court of Florida:

    The University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc.
    (“UFRF”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 7,062,251, titled
    “Managing Critical Care Physiologic Data Using Data
    Synthesis Technology.” In 2017, UFRF sued General Electric Company,
    GE Medical Systems Information Technologies, Inc., and GE Medical Systems,
    Inc. (collectively, “GE”)
    in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida,
    alleging infringement of the ’251 patent.
    GE moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
    arguing the claims of the ’251 patent are directed to
    ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
    The district court granted GE’s motion. Applying the twostep framework
    set forth in Alice Corp. Party Ltd. v. CLS
    Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014), the district
    court determined the claims of the ’251 patent are directed
    to an abstract idea and do not recite an inventive concept.
    UFRF appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1295(a)(1). We affirm.

    Within the decision:

    Unlike laches, which conflicts with
    the statute of limitations set forth in § 282, treating a § 101
    eligibility challenge as a defense to a claim of patent
    infringement poses no conflict with § 282 and, thus, no risk
    of “jettison[ing] Congress’ judgment.”
    We do not read SCA
    Hygiene to undermine our holding in Dealertrack.
    Even if § 282 did not extend to a § 101 eligibility challenge,
    such a challenge would still be a defense to a claim
    of infringement.1 We and the Supreme Court have long
    treated § 101 eligibility as a “condition[] of patentability”
    alongside §§ 102 and 103. See, e.g., Graham v. John Deere
    Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966) (“The Act sets out the conditions
    of patentability in three sections . . . novelty and utility as
    articulated and defined in § 101 and § 102, and nonobviousness . . .
    as set out in § 103.”); Versata Dev. Gr., Inc. v.
    SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It
    would require a hyper-technical adherence to form rather
    than an understanding of substance to arrive at a conclusion that § 101
    is not a ground available to test patents.”);
    Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 543
    F.3d 657, 661 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“It has long been understood
    that the Patent Act sets out the conditions for patentability
    in three sections: sections 101, 102, and 103.”). And we and

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit Corrects District Court’s Claim Construction

    The United Stated Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that a district court erred in its claim construction and vacated the district court’s judgment of noninfringement, which the parties stipulated to based on the erroneous construction. See Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2018-1076, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3920, 2019 WL 489069 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2019) (Before Lourie, Linn, and Taranto, J.) (Opinion for the court, Lourie, J.). The Court highlighted that the first…

    Continue Reading ...