• この時(時点)
    in:  | 

    この時(時点)

                            目次はこちら

    この時(時点)

    –>今のところ

    法律用語として、「時」は時刻または実際の(物理的)な時間をあらわし、「とき」は、仮定や条件をあらわす「場合」の意味に用いられる。訳文では、これらが混在しているようにもみえる。

    (NOW)
    $$ The problem may then be mathematically soluble although the solution will now depend on the values chosen for the now fixed variables. / 問題は、こうして数学的に解法可能になると考えられるが、解は、ここで、この時点で固定である変数に対して選択された値に依存することになる。(USP8346521)

    $$ With the venting now stopped, as a result of closure of sensing delay valve 35, the main control volume 14 begins to re-pressurise via the line 15. / 検出遅延バルブ35の閉止の結果として、この時点で通気が停止されると、管路15を介する主制御ボリューム14の加圧が再開される。(USP8276584)

    $$ The cantilever arms 9 are now loaded radially, and exerting a resultant force urging the slidable sleeve 5 off the needle hub 7. / この時点では、カンチレバーアーム9は、半径(放射)方向に荷重がかけられ、そして摺動可能スリーブ5を針ハブ7から外れる方向に推進する合力を発揮する。(USP8235950)

    $$ The housing 82 containing the lancet piston 81 may now be detached from the forward end of the driving apparatus 88 and discarded. / ランセットピストン81を含むハウジング82は、この時、駆動装置の前端88から取り外され、捨てられ得る。(USP8092394)

    $$ The vapour now produced was condensed and collected, as follows. / この時、以下のようにして、生成された蒸気を凝縮して収集した。(USP7622140)

    (POINT)
    $$ Ignition failed at an air temperature of about 86℃, at which point emissions were extremely high. / 空気温度が約86℃で、点火に失敗した。この時点で排出物が非常に多くなった。(USP8875685)

    $$ The communications link is defined at this point. / 通信リンクはこの時点で定義される。(USP8699300)

    $$ At this point the contents of the condenser are removed. / この時点で、凝縮器の内容物が除去される。(USP7622140)

    $$ The reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 20 h, at which point TLC showed no starting material remained. / 反応混合物を室温で20時間撹拌し、この時点で、TLCにより、出発物質が全く残っていないことが示された。(USP7592448)

    $$ At this point, the IC register 154 is decremented to reach 0.(USPA01047466)

    (TIME)
    $$ The third switching element 12 should be open at this time. / 第3スイッチング要素12は、この時、開状態になっているべきである。(USP8860388)

    $$ At this time further ions are preferably prevented from entering the ion trap 2. / この時点で、更なるイオンがイオントラップ2に入射できないようにするのが好ましい。(USP8344316)

    $$ At this time, presentation to the user will stop. / この時点でユーザへの提示は停止する。(USP8135852)

    $$ In this time the change in voltage must be approximately 1V. / この時点において、電圧変化はほぼ1Vでなければならない。(USP8106982)

    $$ By using high boiling point solvents, the amount of evaporation occurring in this time can be reduced. / 高沸点溶媒を用いることにより、この時間中に起こる蒸発量を低減することができる。(USP8084767)

    $$ The compiled version is not available for execution at this time.(USPA02029357)

    $$ At this time the loop terminates and the instruction fetching unit 46 continues issuing instructions from the processor packet after the last loop-body instruction, i.e. the processor packet containing…(USPA01047466)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ Hence, the pattern number 626 is recovered by the query manager 105 at step 420 and at this stage any sub-patterns are also identified by query manager 105. / よって、パターン番号626が、工程420で、クエリ・マネージャ105によって回復され、この時点で、何れかのサブパターンがクエリ・マネージャ105によって識別される。(USP8386436): stage

    $$ The mat 10 lies atop the support surface 12 which in this instance is a table of an infant’s highchair and has a slight concavity 31 in its relaxed configuration acting as a base sucker holding it to the surface. / マット10は、この時点では幼児用の背の高い椅子のテーブルにある支持表面の上に横たわっており、該表面に底部を吸引して保持するように働く弛緩した状態のわずかな凹面31を有する。(USP8251340): instance

    $$ The clutch clamp load is then further reduced as is the throttle in order to maintain the new ratio speed. / クラッチ締め付け負荷はこの時、新たな比の速度を維持するために、スロットルに合わせさらに減少される。(USP8171814): then

    $$ When this happens the tail portion 14c engages the slots 38 in the flanges 34 and this locks the side wall 14 in the erect position and prevents the rod 20 from rotating about its axis. / この時、尾部14cがフランジ34内のスロット38に係合され、これによって、組立て位置にある側壁14がロックされ、側壁14がロッド20の軸の周りを回転することが防止される。(USP8166581): happen

    $$ At this instant the annular release collar will accelerate and move to the release position. / この時、環状解放襟部は、加速して解放位置へ移動する。(USP8083274): instant

                            目次はこちら

  • Property Rights, but only To the Extent Needed
    in: Patently-O  | 

    Property Rights, but only To the Extent Needed

     By Dennis Crouch

    In addition to its patent law jurisprudence, the Federal Circuit also handles appeals from the US Court of Federal Claims (CFC).   The CFC hears monetary claims against the U.S. Government – including breach of contract, takings, and unlicensed patent use under 28 U.S.C. Section 1498. The CFC also meets in the same Madison Place building as the Federal Circuit.

    The Federal Circuit’s new decision in Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. United States, App. No. 2017-2340 (Fed. Cir. August 17, 2018), revolves around a water-rights takings claim against the U.S. Government.  The particular claim stems from two dams across the upper Missouri River that limit the Tribe’s ability to use and enjoy river water. The tribe sued in 2016. However, the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.  The Federal Circuit has now affirmed that decision – holding that the tribal water rights are only a weak form of property.  In particular, the appellate held that the tribal property right in the water flow only extends to the amount of “to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation.”  Quoting Winters v.

    Continue reading Property Rights, but only To the Extent Needed at Patently-O.

  • The CRISPR Tug of War
    in: biologics, Biotechnology, CAFC, Caribou Biosciences, courts, CRISPR, CRISPR-Cas9 system, Editas Medicine, Federal Circuit, Gene Patents, Guest Contributor, Guest Contributors, Harvard, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, IPWatchdog.com Articles, mit, patent applications, Patent Litigation, patent trial and appeal board, Patently-O, patents, PTAB, roche, Technology & Innovation, The Broad Institute, University of California, USPTO  | 

    The CRISPR Tug of War

    The University of California (“UC”) and The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) are among the leaders in the development of CRISPR technology.  Both UC and Broad filed patent applications for claims broadly drawn to CRISPR-Cas9 systems and methods of DNA editing.  These parties are currently engaged in litigation over patents concerning the potentially most lucrative application of CRISPR technology – the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in plant and animal (eukaryotic) cells.  The outcome of this litigation…

この時(時点)

                        目次はこちら

この時(時点)

–>今のところ

法律用語として、「時」は時刻または実際の(物理的)な時間をあらわし、「とき」は、仮定や条件をあらわす「場合」の意味に用いられる。訳文では、これらが混在しているようにもみえる。

(NOW)
$$ The problem may then be mathematically soluble although the solution will now depend on the values chosen for the now fixed variables. / 問題は、こうして数学的に解法可能になると考えられるが、解は、ここで、この時点で固定である変数に対して選択された値に依存することになる。(USP8346521)

$$ With the venting now stopped, as a result of closure of sensing delay valve 35, the main control volume 14 begins to re-pressurise via the line 15. / 検出遅延バルブ35の閉止の結果として、この時点で通気が停止されると、管路15を介する主制御ボリューム14の加圧が再開される。(USP8276584)

$$ The cantilever arms 9 are now loaded radially, and exerting a resultant force urging the slidable sleeve 5 off the needle hub 7. / この時点では、カンチレバーアーム9は、半径(放射)方向に荷重がかけられ、そして摺動可能スリーブ5を針ハブ7から外れる方向に推進する合力を発揮する。(USP8235950)

$$ The housing 82 containing the lancet piston 81 may now be detached from the forward end of the driving apparatus 88 and discarded. / ランセットピストン81を含むハウジング82は、この時、駆動装置の前端88から取り外され、捨てられ得る。(USP8092394)

$$ The vapour now produced was condensed and collected, as follows. / この時、以下のようにして、生成された蒸気を凝縮して収集した。(USP7622140)

(POINT)
$$ Ignition failed at an air temperature of about 86℃, at which point emissions were extremely high. / 空気温度が約86℃で、点火に失敗した。この時点で排出物が非常に多くなった。(USP8875685)

$$ The communications link is defined at this point. / 通信リンクはこの時点で定義される。(USP8699300)

$$ At this point the contents of the condenser are removed. / この時点で、凝縮器の内容物が除去される。(USP7622140)

$$ The reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 20 h, at which point TLC showed no starting material remained. / 反応混合物を室温で20時間撹拌し、この時点で、TLCにより、出発物質が全く残っていないことが示された。(USP7592448)

$$ At this point, the IC register 154 is decremented to reach 0.(USPA01047466)

(TIME)
$$ The third switching element 12 should be open at this time. / 第3スイッチング要素12は、この時、開状態になっているべきである。(USP8860388)

$$ At this time further ions are preferably prevented from entering the ion trap 2. / この時点で、更なるイオンがイオントラップ2に入射できないようにするのが好ましい。(USP8344316)

$$ At this time, presentation to the user will stop. / この時点でユーザへの提示は停止する。(USP8135852)

$$ In this time the change in voltage must be approximately 1V. / この時点において、電圧変化はほぼ1Vでなければならない。(USP8106982)

$$ By using high boiling point solvents, the amount of evaporation occurring in this time can be reduced. / 高沸点溶媒を用いることにより、この時間中に起こる蒸発量を低減することができる。(USP8084767)

$$ The compiled version is not available for execution at this time.(USPA02029357)

$$ At this time the loop terminates and the instruction fetching unit 46 continues issuing instructions from the processor packet after the last loop-body instruction, i.e. the processor packet containing…(USPA01047466)

(OTHERS)
$$ Hence, the pattern number 626 is recovered by the query manager 105 at step 420 and at this stage any sub-patterns are also identified by query manager 105. / よって、パターン番号626が、工程420で、クエリ・マネージャ105によって回復され、この時点で、何れかのサブパターンがクエリ・マネージャ105によって識別される。(USP8386436): stage

$$ The mat 10 lies atop the support surface 12 which in this instance is a table of an infant’s highchair and has a slight concavity 31 in its relaxed configuration acting as a base sucker holding it to the surface. / マット10は、この時点では幼児用の背の高い椅子のテーブルにある支持表面の上に横たわっており、該表面に底部を吸引して保持するように働く弛緩した状態のわずかな凹面31を有する。(USP8251340): instance

$$ The clutch clamp load is then further reduced as is the throttle in order to maintain the new ratio speed. / クラッチ締め付け負荷はこの時、新たな比の速度を維持するために、スロットルに合わせさらに減少される。(USP8171814): then

$$ When this happens the tail portion 14c engages the slots 38 in the flanges 34 and this locks the side wall 14 in the erect position and prevents the rod 20 from rotating about its axis. / この時、尾部14cがフランジ34内のスロット38に係合され、これによって、組立て位置にある側壁14がロックされ、側壁14がロッド20の軸の周りを回転することが防止される。(USP8166581): happen

$$ At this instant the annular release collar will accelerate and move to the release position. / この時、環状解放襟部は、加速して解放位置へ移動する。(USP8083274): instant

                        目次はこちら

Continue Reading ...
  • Property Rights, but only To the Extent Needed

     By Dennis Crouch

    In addition to its patent law jurisprudence, the Federal Circuit also handles appeals from the US Court of Federal Claims (CFC).   The CFC hears monetary claims against the U.S. Government – including breach of contract, takings, and unlicensed patent use under 28 U.S.C. Section 1498. The CFC also meets in the same Madison Place building as the Federal Circuit.

    The Federal Circuit’s new decision in Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. United States, App. No. 2017-2340 (Fed. Cir. August 17, 2018), revolves around a water-rights takings claim against the U.S. Government.  The particular claim stems from two dams across the upper Missouri River that limit the Tribe’s ability to use and enjoy river water. The tribe sued in 2016. However, the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.  The Federal Circuit has now affirmed that decision – holding that the tribal water rights are only a weak form of property.  In particular, the appellate held that the tribal property right in the water flow only extends to the amount of “to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation.”  Quoting Winters v.

    Continue reading Property Rights, but only To the Extent Needed at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • The CRISPR Tug of War

    The University of California (“UC”) and The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) are among the leaders in the development of CRISPR technology.  Both UC and Broad filed patent applications for claims broadly drawn to CRISPR-Cas9 systems and methods of DNA editing.  These parties are currently engaged in litigation over patents concerning the potentially most lucrative application of CRISPR technology – the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in plant and animal (eukaryotic) cells.  The outcome of this litigation…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Day Three of PTO E-Filing Outages

    We are now in Day Three of USPTO Computer System Failures:

    A number of USPTO online business systems remain offline. We understand the impact to our users and the frustrations that come from having such systems down unexpectedly. The USPTO is working hard to resolve the issue and we will continue to provide updates to you. The latest information on alternative methods of filing and payment and our systems status can always be found on our website. More updates will be forthcoming.

    Note that the system failures do not automatically serve as any excuse for filing delays. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is currently led by Acting Chief David Chiles and has a budget of $600 million.

     

    Continue reading Day Three of PTO E-Filing Outages at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • CAFC expounds on "implied waiver" in Core Wireless

    The outcome in Core Wireless v. Apple:


    Following trial, the jury found that the defendant,
    Apple Inc., infringed both asserted claims, and that
    neither claim was invalid. Following a concurrent bench
    trial, the district court rejected Apple’s argument that the
    ’151 patent was unenforceable due to implied waiver. We
    affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

    Of the magistrate judge:


    The magistrate judge stated that “[n]either party’s
    proposal is of much help.” Claim Construction Order,
    2016 WL 3124614, at *11. According to the magistrate
    judge, Core Wireless’s proposal was “circular” and only
    defined the phrase in “terms of what ‘the receiver can
    conclude.’” Id. In addition, the magistrate judge found,
    Core Wireless’s proposal “makes no reference to the
    inventor’s stated intent of relying on the preexisting
    concept of a ‘bad frame.’” Id. As for Apple’s construction,
    the magistrate judge found that it was “confusing and
    unnecessarily limiting.” Id.

    The magistrate judge chose a different approach.
    Noting that the “specification uses the terms ‘good’ and
    ‘bad’ to refer to those concepts in the context of the underlying
    wireless protocol,” the magistrate judge reasoned
    that a “bad” frame “is one that does not contain error-free
    user information” and that “it is something about the
    frame itself” that indicates the frame’s status as “good” or
    “bad.” Id. As a result, the magistrate judge construed
    “good state” as a “state flagging that the frame contains
    error-free user information,” and “bad state” as a “state
    flagging that the frame does not contain error-free user
    information.” Id.

    The CAFC did not accept the district court’s reasoning on
    non-enforceability:


    None of those stated reasons supports the district
    court’s conclusion. The district court’s finding that Nokia
    did not have a duty to disclose its patent application
    because its proposal was rejected is unsupported by the
    evidence. ETSI’s intellectual property rights policy states
    that the disclosure requirement attaches to a member
    “submitting a technical proposal” if that party has intellectual
    property that “might” be essential “if that proposal
    is adopted.” The district court’s interpretation of the
    policy would undermine the very purpose of disclosure,
    which Dr. Walker testified was to permit the standardssetting
    decisionmakers to make an informed choice about
    whether to adopt a particular proposal. Dr. Walker’s
    unrebutted testimony made it clear that an ETSI member’s
    duty to disclose a patent application on particular
    technology attaches at the time of the proposal and is not
    contingent on ETSI ultimately deciding to include that
    technology in an ETSI standard.

    As for the district court’s second ground for decision,
    there was no testimony at trial that ETSI’s intellectual
    property rights policy exempted patent applications that
    had not yet matured into issued patents. Rather, Dr.
    Walker’s unrebutted trial testimony made clear that the
    ETSI policy included patent applications, which are, by
    their nature, not yet final.
    As for the court’s determination that there was no evidence
    that the ETSI members understood Nokia to have
    intended to waive its patent rights, there is no requirement
    under the implied waiver doctrine that a third party
    must interpret the patentee’s conduct as constituting a
    waiver of its rights to enforce the patent; such analysis is
    more relevant to equitable estoppel. See Hynix, 645 F.3d
    at 1348 (equitable estoppel requires a duty of disclosure, a
    breach of that duty, and misleading conduct that “led the
    alleged infringer to reasonably infer that the patentee
    does not intend to enforce its patent against the alleged
    infringer” (quoting A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides
    Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en
    banc), abrogated on other grounds by SCA Hygiene Prods.
    Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct.
    954 (2017)).

    HOWEVER


    Nonetheless, we remand rather than reverse. It is
    possible to interpret the district court’s ruling as being
    based on the conclusion that, because Nokia’s proposal
    was not adopted, no inequitable consequence flowed from
    Nokia’s failure to disclose its patent application. Equitable
    defenses seek to prevent a party from unfairly benefiting
    from its wrongful actions, and in some circumstances
    courts have held that an equitable defense will not be
    recognized if the offending party did not gain a benefit
    from its wrongdoing. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton,
    Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en
    banc). Implied waiver is an equitable doctrine, and an
    equitable doctrine “hinges on basic fairness.” Id.; see also
    Gasser Chair Co. v. Infanti Chair Mfg. Corp., 60 F.3d 770,
    776 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (discussing prejudice and egregious
    conduct as factors in showing the equitable defenses of
    laches and equitable estoppel). As the Supreme Court
    has acknowledged, “the remedy imposed by a court of
    equity should be commensurate with the violation.”
    Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 465
    (1979).
    Because implied waiver, like the doctrine of inequitable
    conduct discussed in Therasense, may render an entire
    patent unenforceable, the doctrine “should only be applied
    in instances where the patentee’s misconduct resulted in
    [an] unfair benefit.” 649 F.3d at 1292; see also id.
    (“[E]nforcement of an otherwise valid patent does not
    injure the public merely because of misconduct, lurking
    somewhere in [the past], that was immaterial to the
    patent’s [enforcement].”). Therasense, however, recognized
    an exception to the materiality requirement for
    “cases of affirmative egregious misconduct.” Id. In the
    analogous case of implied waiver, which like inequitable
    conduct involves the breach of a disclosure duty, the same
    equitable considerations require either a showing of
    prejudice or egregious misconduct sufficient to justify the
    sanction of unenforceability of the patent at issue.

    Here, it may be that, despite breaching its duty to disclose
    its application, Nokia (and Core Wireless, its successor-in-interest)
    did not obtain any unjust advantage,
    because Nokia’s proposal was not adopted. On the other
    hand, given the similarities between Nokia’s and Ericsson’s
    proposals, and given that Nokia participated in at
    least some of the discussions in the ETSI working groups,
    it is also possible that the standard that was adopted,
    which made Nokia’s proposal “optional,” has still provided
    Nokia (and Core Wireless) with an undeserved competitive
    advantage.
    The district court did not make findings regarding
    whether Nokia or Core Wireless inequitably benefited
    from Nokia’s failure to disclose, or whether Nokia’s con-
    duct was sufficiently egregious to justify finding implied
    waiver without regard to any benefit that Nokia or Core
    Wireless may have obtained as a result of that misconduct.
    Those issues must be addressed in the first instance
    by the district court on remand, as the task of applying an
    equitable defense is committed to the district court’s
    discretion. See Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228,
    235 (1943) (“An appeal to the equity jurisdiction conferred
    on federal district courts is an appeal to the sound discretion
    which guides the determinations of courts of equity.”);
    Qualcomm, 548 F.3d at 1019; A.C. Aukerman, 960
    F.2d at 1028. We therefore vacate the district court’s
    finding of no unenforceability and remand for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    **A footnote from “My Back Pages” (Dylan):


    Good and bad, I define these terms
    Quite clear, no doubt, somehow

    Continue Reading ...
  • CAFC creates an "en banc footnote" in Click-to-Call; 315(b) time bar applies even if infringement action dismissed without prejudice

    The need for en banc consideration appears in the dissent (Dyk, Lourie):


    En banc consideration was
    occasioned by the fact that two different panels reached
    opposite conclusions on this issue in this case and in
    Luminara Worldwide, LLC, v. Matal, No. 17-1629 (Fed.
    Cir. filed Feb. 13, 2018). The en banc court now agrees
    with the Click-to-Call panel and holds that section 315(b)
    applies, even when the earlier complaint was dismissed
    without prejudice.

    Footnote 3, but not the rest of the opinion, is en banc. Footnote 3 recites:


    The en banc court formed of PROST, Chief Judge,
    NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA,
    WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit
    Judges, considered whether 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s time bar
    applies to bar institution when an IPR petitioner was
    served with a complaint for patent infringement more
    than one year before filing its petition, but the district
    court action in which the petitioner was so served was
    voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The en banc
    court holds that § 315(b)’s time bar applies in such a
    scenario

    The beginning of the case notes:


    This long-marooned case returns to us after a voyage
    alongside two others interpreting the scope of 35 U.S.C.
    § 314(d)’s “No Appeal” provision and its applicability to
    time-bar determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b): Cuozzo
    Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016),
    and Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364
    (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc). Because we have held en banc
    “that the time-bar determinations under § 315(b) are
    appealable,” Wi-Fi One, 878 F.3d at 1367, we address for
    the first time the merits of Appellant Click-to-Call Technologies,
    LP’s (“CTC”) contention that the Patent Trial
    and Appeal Board (“Board”) erred in determining that an
    inter partes review (“IPR”) petition challenging claims of
    CTC’s patent was not time-barred under § 315(b).

    We conclude that the Board committed legal error in
    rendering its § 315(b) determination, and reject the
    proposed, alternative grounds for affirmance. Because
    the subject petition was time-barred, the Board lacked
    jurisdiction to institute the IPR proceedings.
    Accordingly,
    we vacate the Board’s Final Written Decision in Oracle
    Corp. v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP, No. IPR2013-
    00312 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014), Paper No. 52 (Final Written
    Decision), and remand with instructions to dismiss
    IPR2013-00312.

    The dissent noted:


    Other circuits have likewise treated dismissals without
    prejudice as restoring the parties to the exact situation
    as if the original complaint had never been filed. See,
    e.g., Norman v. Ark. Dep’t of Educ., 79 F.3d 748, 751 (8th
    Cir. 1996) (“[T]he ‘effect of a voluntary dismissal without
    prejudice is to render the proceedings a nullity and leave
    the parties as if the action had never been brought.’”
    (quoting In re Piper Aircraft Distrib. Sys. Antitrust Litig.,
    551 F.2d 213, 219 (8th Cir. 1997))).

    (…)

    We ruled in Abbott Laboratories v. TorPharm, Inc.,
    503 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007), that “[w]e assume
    Congress’s familiarity with general principles of law when
    enacting a statute.” In other words, “Congress is presumed
    to legislate against the backdrop of existing law.”
    Morgan v. Principi, 327 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
    accord Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 698–99
    (1979). This widespread treatment of voluntary dismissals
    without prejudice provided the background for the
    enactment of section 315(b), and section 315(b) must be
    read in light of that background legal principle, so that
    the one year time-bar is not triggered if the underlying
    infringement action is voluntarily dismissed without
    prejudice.

    **Note also the Luminara decision of 16 Aug 18:

    Luminara Worldwide, LLC, (“Luminara”) appeals
    from three inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions, in which
    the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) held
    unpatentable a total of 31 claims across Luminara’s three
    patents. On appeal, Luminara challenges the Board’s
    decisions as to one claim from each patent and asserts
    that the Board’s application of the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
    time-bar was improper as to the ’319 patent. We vacate
    the decision as to the ’319 patent and remand for dismissal
    of that IPR, holding that the section 315(b) time-bar
    applies, and affirm the other IPRs.

    Continue Reading ...
  • 101条の問題の現状 (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc事件の判決 を踏まえたUSPTOのMemorandum)

     ここ数年、ソフトウェア関連発明については、Bilski v. Kappos事件(2010)、Mayo v. Prometheus事件 (2011)、Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank事件 (2014)といった一連の最高裁判決の影響を受け、発明の適格性要件(米国特許法101条)の要件を満たす為のハードルが実質的に相当高くなっていることは周知の通りである。 USPTOによる現行の審査実務としては、特にMayo v. Prometheus事件 やAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank事件における最高裁の見解

    Continue Reading ...
  • En Banc: Court Rejects PTOs Narrow Reading of 1-Year Deadline for IPR Filing

    by Dennis Crouch

    In an unusual en banc footnote, the Federal Circuit has ruled that the litigation time-bar found in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) applies even in cases where the plaintiff-patentee voluntarily dismisses the lawsuit without prejudice.  Click-to-Call Tech., LP v. Ingenio, Inc. and Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2018).

    The statute provides:

    An inter partes review (IPR) may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.

    In this case, the Board acknowledged that a qualifying prior infringement lawsuit had been filed and served upon the prior-interest holder of the petitioner.  However, the Board allowed the IPR to move forward because of the voluntary dismissal — noting that “[t]he Federal Circuit consistently has interpreted the effect of such dismissals as leaving the parties as though the action had never been brought.”  Here, the en banc court has reversed that judgment — holding that the IPR must be dismissed.

    The short en banc footnote was signed by ten members of the court. 

    Continue reading En Banc: Court Rejects PTOs Narrow Reading of 1-Year Deadline for IPR Filing at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • The Chinese “Super Trademark”: A Creative Strategy for Overseas IP Protection

    Enforcement of trademark rights in China is an ongoing issue faced by numerous corporations.  Invalidating or canceling a trademark registration in the Chinese market is time-consuming and costly.  The best way to defend your company’s valuable intellectual property assets is to put in place as many protections as possible.  If your company owns a creative design mark, consider going beyond the standard trademark registration and getting the “super trademark” by obtaining copyright registration…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Seeks Patent Agent or Associate Patent Attorney

    The Intellectual Property group in the Seattle office of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP is seeking a Patent Agent (preferably) or Patent Associate Attorney with more than two years’ experience in patent preparation and prosecution. The position will require development of a broad IP practice and, while the position will focus on preparation and prosecution of patent applications in the software and electrical arts, it will also include supporting clients on a wide variety of IP issues.

    The post…

    Continue Reading ...
  • A little bit married

    A little bit married a little bit pregnant limited nuclear war clean coal quite unique complete preemption     partially preempted?   partially anticipated? partially obvious? partially invalid? partially infringed?

    Continue Reading ...
  • The CRISPR Tug of War

    The University of California (“UC”) and The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) are among the leaders in the development of CRISPR technology.  Both UC and Broad filed patent applications for claims broadly drawn to CRISPR-Cas9 systems and methods of DNA editing.  These parties are currently engaged in litigation over patents concerning the potentially most lucrative application of CRISPR technology – the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in plant and animal (eukaryotic) cells.  The outcome of this litigation…

    Continue Reading ...
  • From Around the Blogs

    1.  Divish Joshi, whose Spicy IP post on the Delhi High Court decision in Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. vs. Rajesh Bansal And Ors. I mentioned on this blog a couple of weeks ago, has posted a follow-up titled Philips SEP Judgement: India’s First Post-Trial SEP Judgement has Serious Flaws.  Mr. Joshi expands upon his initial critique of the judgment, and makes some persuasive points about the court’s infringement, exhaustion, and damages analysis.
    2.  Florian Mueller published a post on FOSS Patents titled Huawei, Qualcomm, and patent holders’ three preferred ways to gain anticompetitive leverage.  The post discusses, among other things, “the three ways in which some aggressive patent holders are seeking undue, anticompetitive leverage in our times,”namely Chinese patent injunctions, ITC proceedings in the U.S., and German patent injunctions.  Interesting read.

    3.  David Long published a post on Essential Patents titled Judge Mitchell rules there are factual issues whether patent is “essential” to a standard (Cellular Eqpt v. ZTE), discussing a recent ruling from the Eastern District of Texas denying a patent owner’s motion for summary judgment that the patent in suit is not essential to the practice of an ETSI standard, and thus not subject to FRAND terms.  The court concluded that there was conflicting evidence, including the patent owner’s own previous statements to the effect that the patent was standard-essential. 

    4.  I’d bet that many of my readers are already aware of this, but until recently I wasn’t.  Docket Navigator published a blog titled Docket Report that provides short descriptions of recent rulings in U.S. patent cases.  Some of them are related to remedies issues, such as this post reporting on a recent district court decision not increasing the royalty rate for an award of ongoing royalties (finally, some common sense!)  I have added Docket Report to the list of “Other Blogs of Interest,” on the left-hand side of this post.  And while I’m on the topic of other blogs and websites, perhaps you’ve never noticed, but both the left- and right-hand sides contain lots of additional blogs and websites of possible interest.  In particular, the bottom left-hand side lists “Other Sites of Interest,” including news sites but also a variety of other sites on topics relating to science, philosophy, and culture.  Some (relatively) recent additions that I greatly enjoy are Aeon and Five Books.  Check them out.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Nintendo Files Copyright, Trademark Infringement Suit Against Operator of ROM Websites

    Nintendo’s complaint targets the operator of LoveROMS.com and LoveRETRO.co who has made thousands of Nintendo titles available online for free from platforms including the Game Boy, the original Nintendo Entertainment System, Super NES, Nintendo 64 and Nintendo DS, among others. Nintendo alleges that just the top 10 games on the LoveROMs site in which Nintendo is a copyright claimant and trademark owner have been downloaded more than 60 million times. Further, the LoveROMs website allegedly…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Power Integrations mandamus: really just the camel’s nose under the tent.

    Power Integrations disputed PTAB’s determinations as to printed publications, which
    led to non-institution of an IPR, and filed a mandamus request. It failed.

    The CAFC observed:


    This is not to say that mandamus will never lie in
    response to action by the agency relating to the noninstitution
    of inter partes review. The circumstances
    described by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as illustrations
    of issues for which an appeal might be justified (e.g.,
    constitutional issues, issues involving questions outside
    the scope of section 314(d), and actions by the agency
    beyond its statutory limits) would be potential candidates
    for mandamus review as well. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at
    2141–42; SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359
    (2018). But this case involves no issues extraneous to the
    application of patent law principles of unpatentability
    based on printed publications, nor does it involve any
    “shenanigans” on the part of the Board that might justify
    appellate review or review by mandamus. See id. at 2142;
    see also SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359.

    Continue Reading ...
  • このとき

                            目次はこちら

    このとき

    –>この場合

    法律用語として、「とき」は、仮定や条件をあらわす「場合」の意味に用いられ、「時」は時刻または実際の(物理的)な時間をあらわす。訳文では、これらが混在しているようにもみえる。

    (NOW)
    $$ Thus the empty shuttle is now aligned with hose 26A. / したがって、空のシャトルは、このときホース26Aと位置合わせされる。(USP8157485)

    $$ The magazine is now ready for the docking operation previously described. / このときマガジンは、先に述べたドッキング操作の準備ができている。(USP8047416)

    $$ This enables the liquid matrix material to be cured as a series of layers, each layer being cured at a different time. / このことは、液体マトリクス材料を一連の層として硬化させることを可能にする。このとき、各層は異なる時点で硬化する。(USP8066842)

    (THEN)
    $$ Any unused paint is then recycled and returned to the paint tank 41 via a BPR 45. / このとき、未使用の塗料はリサイクルされ、BPR45を介して塗料タンク41に戻される。(USP8733392)

    $$ The oil then either returns to sump 4 or is collected in a separate reservoir. / このとき、オイルはサンプ4に戻されているか、別個の油溜めに収集されている。(USP8657901)

    $$ Holes for fasteners are then drilled in predetermined locations. / このとき、締結用の孔が所定の位置にあけられる。(USP8152428)

    $$ The customer terminal is then ready to receive and decrypt ADUs. / このとき顧客端末はADUを受取って、デクリプトする用意ができている。(USP6996722)

    (THIS)
    $$ In this event, measurements are preferably made which detect the change in concentration of dissolved oxygen within the lungs during this further transition period. / このとき、測定は好ましく行われ、このさらに別の転移期間中に肺内の溶解された酸素の濃度の変化を検出する。(USP8255036)

    $$ As this happens, the rear end of the stop pin 30 is forced outwardly by engagement with the flared third region 243 of the tool 240 to form the lip 36. / このとき、ストッパピン30の後側端部は、縁部36を形成するためにツール40の広がった第3の領域43と係合することにより外側へ押し込まれる。(USP8235828)

    $$ However, it is possible for the angulation control to be manipulated at this time, and this will cause position to be lost. / しかし、このときに、角度制御部が操作される可能性があり、それにより位置が失われてしまう。(USP8113846)

    $$ This causes the support member 234 to rotate and therefore also the spindle 226 and the first detent plate 238. / このとき支持部材234も回転し、スピンドル226及び第1歯付き板238も回転する。(USP6691849)

    (IF)
    $$ If so, and the current state is Idle, it sets the track and deallocation timers. / このとき現在の状態がアイドルであるときは、これはACSadmitCall()追跡および再割り当てタイマを設定する。(USP6330313): if(そうであれば)

    $$ Alternatively, the recorder 36 may be a 60 field/s machine arranged to record the frames in burst mode as pseudo-interlaced fields and as if they were still 60 field/s 2:1 video. / あるいは、レコーダ36はバーストモードでフレームを疑似インターレースフィールドとして記録するように構成された毎秒60フィールドの機械でもよく、このときは毎秒60フィールド2:1のビデオであるかのように処理される。(USP5313281)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ It would also be possible to combine the permission granted signals using some logic means to give a single signal indicating that all three had granted permission and to apply that single signal to the first module which would then reset in response to it. / 何らかの論理手段を用いて許可承諾信号を組み合わせて、3モジュールの全部が許可を承諾したことを示す単一の信号を与え、その単一の信号を第1のモジュールに印加させることも可能であるが、このとき第1モジュールはそれに応じてリセットする。(USP5398233): which

    $$ FIG. 11 shows a cross-section of one of the stand-off disks 60 as viewed along a line A-A in FIG. 4 with the sealing ring 62 uncompressed. / 図11は、図4の線A-Aに沿って見たときのスタンドオフディスク60の一つの断面図を示し、このとき、シールリング62は押し付けられていない。(USP8523111): with

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • United Cannabis Responds: Highly enriched extracts of plant cannabinoids are inventive

    I note that the ‘911 patent claims are novel and inventive because they are directed to never before made liquid formulations of highly enriched extracts of plant cannabinoids. While I believe all thirty-six claims of the ‘911 patent are valid and enforceable, as did the patent examiner who issued the patent, the number and breadth of our claims gives United Cannabis safety in numbers if and when it should become necessary to defend our rights.

    The post United Cannabis Responds: Highly…

    Continue Reading ...
  • The Chinese “Super Trademark”: A Creative Strategy for Overseas IP Protection

    Enforcement of trademark rights in China is an ongoing issue faced by numerous corporations.  Invalidating or canceling a trademark registration in the Chinese market is time-consuming and costly.  The best way to defend your company’s valuable intellectual property assets is to put in place as many protections as possible.  If your company owns a creative design mark, consider going beyond the standard trademark registration and getting the “super trademark” by obtaining copyright registration…

    Continue Reading ...
  • CAFC Upholds 101 Invalidation of Database Claims on Summary Judgment Despite Berkheimer

    On Wednesday, August 15th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. which upheld a decision by the district court to invalidate patent claims owned by BSG Tech as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Jimmie Reyna, Evan Wallach and Todd Hughes found that the district court correctly determined that patent claim asserted by BSG Tech were invalid as abstract ideas lacking any…

    Continue Reading ...