• この時間
    in:  | 

    この時間

                            目次はこちら

    この時間

     –>この時/このとき

    (INTERVAL)
    $$ The time interval is set in a known manner to avoid the possibility of detection of pulses directly from the transmitter 58a. / この時間間隔は、送信機58aからのパルスを直接検出しないよう、周知の方法で設定される。(USP8302478)

    (PERIOD)
    $$ Extending this period to 72 hours (held at +10V) gave an average current leakage of .about.200 nA. / この時間を72時間(+10Vに保持)に延長すると、~200nAの平均電流漏れが得られる。(USP8684503)

    $$ The period of time depends upon the distance to the next set of neighbouring readers 3 and the speed of the object 1. / この時間の長さは、次の一連の隣接リーダ3までの距離、及びオブジェクト1の速度によって変わる。(USP8284033)

    $$ However, the period could be changed, as needed to suit the application. / しかしながら、この時間は、用途に応じて適宜変更できる。(USP8276584)

    (TIME)
    $$ FIG. 3 (b) shows that in this example desired vehicle acceleration is constant, until time t1, and vehicle speed VS over this time is thus a straight line. / 図3(b)は、この場合は所望の車両加速度は時間t1まで一定であり、したがって、この時間にわたる車両速度VSは直線である。(USP8989970)

    $$ After this time the voltage is removed and the coated electrode removed from the emulsion. / この時間の後、電圧を解除し、コーティングされた電極をエマルションから取り出す。(USP8684503)

    $$ If this time is equal or less than Y seconds 81, the OFF mode is indicated to the user 84 and the program returns to the IDLE routine 71. / この時間がY秒以下である場合(81)、使用者にOFFモードが指示され(84)、プログラムはIDLEルーチン(71)に戻る。(USP8516628)

    $$ If the displayed stimulus is not detected as `Seen` within this time then the stimulus is categorised as `Not Seen`. / 表示された視覚刺激がこの時間内に「見えた」として検出されない場合、その視覚刺激は「見えない」として分類される。(USP8337019)

    $$ Typically, this time is set to a pre-determined limit, for example 1 second. / 通常、この時間は、予め定義した限度、例えば1秒にセットされている。(USP8337019)

                            目次はこちら

  • Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result
    in: Patently-O  | 

    Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result

    Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result

    In re Facebook (Fed. Cir. 2018) (nonprecedential opinion)

    Facebook’s U.S. Patent Application No. 13/715,636 claims a method for displaying a set of images after reshuffling or resizing the images.  The Examiner rejected Claim 1 (below) as anticipated; and that rejection was affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  Now on appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed and remanded — finding that the USPTO had too loosely interpreted the prior art.

    The claimed image rendering process begins with a sequence of images. Each image is assigned a “first position” within an “array of contiguous image elements” — in other words, the images are put in a particular order.  When a user adjusts the position or size of an image — there may be a need for reshuffling of the images into “second positions.”  The claimed method includes a requirement that the reshuffled sequence “be contiguous.” — i.e., no gaps in the array.

    Notice the reshuffle above that occurred from 1A to 1B when a user resized image 130.

    The claims expressly require that the reshuffle retain contiguity.  The problem for the PTO is that the identified prior art (Perrodin) did not require contiguity “in all cases.”   The court wrote:

    Nothing about Perrodin’s algorithm required contiguity.

    Continue reading Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result at Patently-O.

Rovi sues Comcast for infringing electronic program guide patents

On April 1, 2016, Rovi Corporation (NASDAQ: ROVI), a pioneer in the field of electronic program guides, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Comcast in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The lawsuit alleges that twelve years ago Comcast took a license to Rovi’s patent portfolio, but that license expired on March 31, 2016, without being renewed. Rovi says that Comcast has failed to remove any of its products and services from the market and also continues to provide those…

Continue Reading ...
  • How Drone Disabling Patents Change Everything

    The proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly referred to as drones, has cluttered airspaces all over the world in a precarious way. Security and privacy issues related to drones have prompted some organizations to ban the use of drones entirely… With so much interest in developing systems for drone disabling and capturing unauthorized drones, it’s not surprising to see patents being issued for related technologies over the past year by the U.S. Patent and Trademark…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Denying Institution because Petitioner Found to Lack Standing CBM2015-00180

    Takeaway: To establish a supplier’s privity for standing purposes in a CBM review in relation to customers that have been sued for infringement, a supplier should present evidence tying the customers’ accused products to the supplier’s products as well as … Continue reading

    The post Denying Institution because Petitioner Found to Lack Standing CBM2015-00180 appeared first on PTAB Trial Blog.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Just Who is a Patent Troll? Ask VirnetX.

    This blog recently reported on an East Texas jury awarding VirnetX over $600 million against Apple.  In a recent interesting article in Corporate Counsel by the Chairman and CEO of VirnetX Kendall Larsen titled, “Are We Patent Trolls? Ask Jason Bourne,” Mr. Larsen complains about the popular press labeling his company a “troll,” and explains why his company is not a “troll.”  First, Mr. Larsen defines a troll as having the following characteristics: “Their patents cover no real invention, no true breakthrough in science or technology[;] They are led by lawyers, not scientists, engineers or technology business executives[;] They neither develop, make nor sell any real products or licensable technology[; and] They assert weak patents — and usually seek nuisance settlements.”  First, Mr. Larsen explains how the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency paid a contractor to solve a problem covered by the invention—code named “Net Eraser,” came a simplified zero-click way to enable secure encrypted communications.”  Second, Mr. Larsen explains that his company is not led by lawyers, but scientists, engineers and technology business executives.  Third, Mr. Larsen explains how the “Gabriel Collaboration Suite, a set of integrated applications that enable secure messaging, secure voice and video calling, secure mail and secure encrypted file sharing with any other device,” is used in Google’s Play Store, Apple Apps Store and in Apple’s iMessage.  Notably, he states that, “Current licensees include Microsoft, Aastra, Mitel, NEC, Siemens and Avaya.”  Finally, he notes that his patents have been held valid four times by courts. 

    Do you agree with Mr. Larsen’s definition of a troll?  On the IPKat blog, I recently asked whether myth and metaphor are the primary drivers of innovation in intellectual property law.  Co-blogger Neil Wilkof subsequently asked the question of what happened to patent trolls.  Are the trolls still around?  Or, have they been relabeled away?  Does the popular media just need to stop using the term?  What do you think? 

    Continue Reading ...
  • The CAFC does superconductors: the story of Paul Chu and 1-2-3 superconductors

    Back in 2008, IPBiz discussed some of the aspects of the
    Paul Chu/superconductor affair, including text about “how”
    Chu’s group found out about the paper by Bednorz and Müller:


    CHU’S GROUP HAD A routine: the researchers divided up the journals and were responsible for catching any news of even the remotest significance. ”I told them you don’t have to understand what you read, but come back and tell us what you think is exciting,” Chu says. Zeitschrift fur Physik is not an obscure journal, but at places like Bell Laboratories it went unnoticed. ”It’s not in our tea room library,” said Bertram Batlogg, who rushed into the fray at Bell a month later. Chu, calling his staff together that morning last November, had a headstart. [IPBiz note: years later Batlogg would become enmeshed in the Schon science fraud.]

    link: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/11/flashback-on-peer-review.html
    See also: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/09/to-all-next-big-things-that-werent.html
    http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2014/12/plagiarism-problem-in-nevada.html

    An opinion from the CAFC on April 5, 2016 briefly alludes to a different version of “who” identified the paper by Bednorz and Müller.

    The context of the opinion was a challenge to inventorship of patents relating to the superconductors. The challengers lost.

    Some of the ancillary facts are of interest. Relevant to the amount of money previously given
    to the inventorship challengers (the amount Chu obtained is not mentioned here), one notes a statement in the recent post
    CRISPR dispute raises bigger patent issues that we’re not talking about by Shobita Parthasarathy: “Most, if not all, of the patent revenues, after all, will go to their institutions and not to them personally.” This statement that appears in phys.org is of questionable accuracy, especially as to “if not all.”

    The appellants in Meng and Hor v. Chu, who argued they should be listed as inventors and arguing against Paul Chu, lost at the CAFC:


    Appellants Pei-Herng Hor (“Hor”) and Ruling Meng
    (“Meng”) filed this suit against Appellee Ching-Wu Chu
    (“Chu”) under 35 U.S.C. § 256 for correction of inventorship
    of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,709,418 (“’418 patent”) and
    7,056,866 (“’866 patent”). Following an eight-day bench
    trial, the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of Texas denied both parties’ claims. For reasons
    discussed below, we affirm.

    This is a case about inventorship of patents relating to
    1-2-3 superconductors:


    The patents at issue generally relate to superconducting
    compounds that have transition temperatures higher
    than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. The ’418 patent,
    filed on January 23, 1989 and issued on June 6, 2006,
    covers compounds consisting of Yttrium, Barium, Copper,
    and Oxygen, assembled according to a 2-1-4 ratio of
    Yttrium to Barium to Copper.

    As to “who is who”:


    Chu worked with Hor and Meng in the High Pressure
    Low Temperature (“HPLT”) lab at the University of
    Houston. Chu was a physics professor and the lab’s
    principal investigator. Hor was Chu’s graduate student
    and, later, post-doctoral fellow. Meng served as an independent
    materials scientist.
    In November 1986, Meng’s Chinese mentor pointed
    her to an article entitled “Possible High Tc Superconductivity
    in the Ba-La-Cu-O System” by Bednorz and Müller,
    which she subsequently shared with Chu. Meng and Chu
    decided to reproduce the compound described in the
    article (“LBCO compound”) using the solid state reaction
    method. Meng and Chu disagree as to whose idea it was
    to use the solid state reaction method, an approach that
    differed from Bednorz and Müller’s, who used a coprecipitation
    method. Meng prepared the LBCO compound
    in late November, and the group observed it had
    superconducting qualities.

    Of the PRL publication:


    Publication, patent, and commercialization efforts for
    the rare earth superconductors soon followed. On March
    16, Chu submitted a paper to the Physical Review Letters
    describing complete substitution of the rare earth elements
    in YBCO-123, which was published on May 4. J.A.
    5304–07. Hor and Meng are listed as first and second
    authors to the paper, and Chu is listed last. J.A. 5304.
    The article does not mention partial substitution of rare
    earth elements in YBCO-214. Id.

    As to money:


    In 1988, DuPont licensed the technology relating to
    the ’418 and ’866 patents. Chu shared the proceeds
    evenly with the University of Houston, and then, out of
    his remaining portion, gave $137,000 to Hor and $137,000
    to Meng.

    Of the law:


    Because issued patents are presumed to correctly name
    their inventors, the burden of proving nonjoinder of
    inventors is a “heavy one,” which must be demonstrated
    by clear and convincing evidence. See Hess v. Advanced
    Cardiovascular Sys., 106 F.3d 976, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    In order to prevail on a § 256 claim, an alleged co-inventor
    must show that he contributed to the conception of the
    claimed invention and that his contribution was “not
    insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured
    against the dimension of the full invention.” Acromed
    Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Grp., 253 F.3d 1371, 1379
    (Fed. Cir. 2001). An alleged co-inventor’s testimony
    regarding his contribution must be corroborated, which
    courts assess under a “rule of reason” analysis. Ethicon,
    Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1461 (Fed. Cir.
    1998).

    “Conception, and consequently inventorship, are questions
    of law” which we review de novo. Sewall v. Walters,
    21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We review underlying
    factual determinations for clear error. Id. “Credibility
    determinations are entitled to strong deference.” Hess,
    106 F.3d at 980.

    (…)

    “An alleged coinventor’s
    testimony, standing alone, cannot rise to the
    level of clear and convincing evidence; he must supply
    evidence to corroborate his testimony.” Symantec Corp. v.
    Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1295 (Fed.
    Cir. 2008).

    Yes, the Ewen case is cited:

    Conception of a chemical compound “requires
    knowledge of both the specific chemical structure of the
    compound and an operative method of making it.” Fina
    Oil & Chem. Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473 (Fed. Cir.
    1997). However, where the operative method requires
    “nothing more than the use of ordinary skill in the art,”
    this “would not normally be a sufficient contribution to
    amount to an act of joint inventorship.” Falana v. Kent
    State Univ., 669 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

    Meng lost on “ordinary skill in the art”:


    The district court considered Meng’s use of the solid
    state reaction method and concluded that “the evidence is
    not clear and convincing enough for the Court to find that
    suggesting [use of the solid state reaction method] was
    anything beyond that of ordinary skill in the profession.”
    J.A. 51. Although Meng asserts the contrary, she does not
    specifically explain what differentiates her efforts from
    what would have been the ordinary efforts of a skilled
    artisan. Meng seems to suggest that she exercised more
    than ordinary skill because she “worked independently”
    and engaged in “excessive experimentation,” but these are
    only characterizations of the organizational structure of
    the lab and the quantity of work that Meng performed,
    not the level of skill she exercised. Accordingly, we agree
    with the district court that Meng’s work does not exceed
    the level of ordinary skill in the art.

    link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1746.Opinion.3-31-2016.1.PDF

    Continue Reading ...
  • Oxfirst Free Webinar: Determining the Value of a Patent

    Our friend at Oxfirst, Roya Ghafele, has let us know about another timely webinar sponsored by Oxfirst.  Dr. Ednaldo Silva, Founder and Managing Director of RoyaltyStat, and Dr. Roya Ghafele, Director of OxFirst will present “Determining the Value of a Patent”.  The talk will cover:


    Intangible assets represent a major share of today’s businesses. The patents associated with those assets are the legal underpinning in that innovation. Yet, despite their fundamental importance, there is a lack of understanding of the economic worth of a patent. This talk seeks to overcome this gap, by discussing the when, if, how, what and why of patent valuation.  (IP Valuation Expert Group, European Commission, 2014)

    Dr. Silva’s biography states: “Dr. Silva is an economist with over 20 years of experience in transfer pricing and the valuation of intangibles. Dr. Silva was the first IRS Office of Chief Counsel Sr. Economic Adviser, serving as a drafting member of the U.S. (1994) transfer pricing regulations and first economist in the APA Program. He has a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.”

    Dr. Ghafele’s biography states: “Dr. Ghafele has been the Director of OxFirst, a spin out from Oxford University since 2011. In addition she has held senior academic positions with Oxford University since 2008; following stints at Harvard and U.C. Berkeley. Prior to that she worked for 5 years as an Economist with the U.N.’s World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the OECD. She started her career with McKinsey & Company.”

    The talk is scheduled for Friday, April 15, 2016, 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM BST.  To register please follow this link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2134638427283858946 (Please note from Oxfirst that: “We only accept registrations undertaken with professional email addresses (i.e. we can’t accept registrations from yahoo, gmail or simiar private accounts)”)

    Continue Reading ...
  • Defend Trade Secret Act Moving Forward

    by Dennis Crouch I am always amazed how gridlock is pushed aside to implement intellectual property laws.  In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Senate passed the Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA, S. 1890) that would create a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation and provides for damages and injunctive relief (including a seizure order to prevent dissemination). […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Again with the Redundancy: Although MPHJ’s claim might be obvious, HP can’t pursue that argument

    HP v. MPHJ (Fed. Cir. 2016) Over the past few years, MPHJ has raised the ire of many with its enforcement campaign of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,381.  The claims seemingly cover HP’s multi-function scanner-printers that can be configured to email the scanned documents.  However, rather than suing HP for infringement, MPHJ sent letters to tens of thousands […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Samsung patent totals top 2,000 in Q1 2016, invents foldable and rollable electronic display screens

    In 2015, Samsung Electronics earned a total of 5,072 patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a slight increase from the 4,936 U.S. patents which the company took home in 2014. Including design and utility patents, Samsung has already taken in 2,017 U.S. patents since the beginning of 2016, an incredible pace which would blow past the firm’s 2015 totals if it holds up all year. As the text cluster from Innography shows us here, much of this recent research and development has focused…

    Continue Reading ...
  • FDA Approves Inflectra – Celltrion’s REMICADE® Biosimilar

    By Andrew Williams — Earlier today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Celltrion’s application to market Inflectra, a biosimilar to Janssen Biotech Inc.’s REMICADE (infliximab) anti-TNF-α antibody. This marks only the second biosimilar approved by the FDA pursuant to the BPCIA, and only the first to approve a therapeutic monoclonal antibody. Biologics License Application (“BLA”) 125544 was submitted by Celltrion, Inc. on August 8, 2014, and the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee recommended its approval on February 9, 2016 (see “Celltrion’s Proposed REMICADE® Biosimilar Recommended for Approval”). Of course, the date on which Celltrion will be able to market this…

    Continue Reading ...
  • TIME WHICH

                            目次はこちら

    TIME WHICH

    $$ The CALL_COMPLETES event occurs after a call holding time which is negative-exponentially distributed with mean value given by a parameter of…

    Continue Reading ...
  • HP loses appeal of IPR decision

    The bottom line:


    HP Inc. (“HP”) appeals from the final decision of the
    United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) in an inter
    partes review (“IPR”) proceeding finding claims 1–12, 14,
    and 15 of U.S. Patent 6,771,381 (the “’381 patent”), owned
    by MPHJ Technology Investments (“MPHJ”), unpatentable
    as anticipated, and finding claim 13 of the ’381 patent
    not unpatentable as anticipated. See Hewlett-Packard Co.
    v. MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC, IPR2013-00309, 2014 WL
    6617698 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2014) (“Final Decision”). HP
    argues that the Board erred by not also finding claim 13
    unpatentable as anticipated, and challenges the Board’s
    decision not to review whether claim 13 is unpatentable
    as obvious. Because the Board did not err and because we
    cannot review the decision not to institute, we affirm.

    One issue raised by HP


    “Anticipation is a question of fact reviewed for substantial
    evidence.” In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 1253,
    1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A finding is supported by substantial
    evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence
    as sufficient to support the finding. Consol. Edison
    Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
    HP argues that the Board did not consider all of the
    evidence presented, and that therefore the Board’s findings
    are not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically,
    HP argues that although the Board asserted that
    HP’s arguments relating to claim 13 were a repetition of
    the arguments HP had made with respect to claims 1, 2,
    and 7, HP had also referenced arguments and evidence
    presented relating to claim 9. Appellant’s Br. 16–17.
    Because the Board did not address those arguments, HP
    argues, it asks that the Board’s decision be reversed. Id.
    at 19.

    But HP could not convince the CAFC:


    We agree with MPHJ that the Board fully considered
    all of the evidence that HP presented. Although the
    Board decision does not directly state that it considered
    the evidence relating to claim 9, that evidence is almost
    identical to the evidence that HP presented with respect
    to claim 13. J.A. 2275, 2277. As the Board stated, the
    evidence regarding both claims “generally refers to the
    analysis of claims 1, 2, and 7[.]” Final Decision at *30.
    The only evidence listed in the treatment of claim 9, but
    not listed in the treatment of claim 13, is pages 33, 34,
    and 114 of SJ5. Compare J.A. 2275, with J.A. 2277.
    Those pages of SJ5 are cited in paragraph 132 of HP’s
    expert report, however, and paragraph 132 is listed in the
    treatment of claim 13. J.A. 1357, 2277. Accordingly, the
    Board did consider the evidence that HP alleges had been
    neglected.
    Moreover, review of SJ5 reveals that the Board’s finding
    that it does not teach a “list of available module
    means” is supported by substantial evidence. HP’s petition
    does not specifically identify what it views as the
    input, output, and process modules. See J.A. 1357, 1361,
    2275, 2277. The only “lists” HP identifies are “lists of
    destinations, workflows, and the like,” and the evidence
    presented does not equate destinations or workflows with
    input, output, or process modules. See J.A. 1357, 1458–
    59, 1539.

    The important part of the decision:


    HP also challenges the Board’s refusal to institute review
    on the basis that that HP’s obviousness ground in
    the petition was redundant in view of the instituted
    anticipation grounds.
    Before reaching the merits of HP’s argument, we must
    first address whether we have jurisdiction to consider the
    argument at all. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), “[t]he determination
    by the Director whether to institute an inter
    partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”

    HP argues that § 314(d) does not prevent our review
    of the issue of redundancy because the “under this section”
    language means that only determinations made
    under § 314 generally are immune from review. Id. As
    the only determination in § 314 is the determination
    whether “the information presented in the petition . . .
    and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable
    likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
    to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition,”
    HP argues, only that determination is immune from
    review. Appellant’s Br. 24 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).
    HP argues that, as a result, the § 314(d) bar does not
    apply to this case because § 314 does not give the Director
    the authority to refuse to institute review based on a
    determination of redundancy. MPHJ and the Director
    respond that we have interpreted § 314(d) to foreclose
    review of issues other than the § 314(a) determination.
    Appellee’s Br. 5–7; Intervenor’s Br. 16–18, 20–24.

    We agree with MPHJ and the Director that the
    § 314(d) bar on judicial review is not limited to the determination
    whether there is a reasonable likelihood that
    the petitioner would prevail. In Achates Reference Publishing
    v. Apple Inc., we specifically rejected as “crabbed
    and . . . contradicted by this court’s precedent” the argument
    that the “under this section” language in § 314(d)
    limited the bar on review. 803 F.3d 652, 658 (Fed. Cir.
    2015). Moreover, we have found that § 314(d) bars our
    review of aspects of the institution decision other than the
    § 314(a) determination whether there is a reasonable
    likelihood that the petitioner would prevail. SightSound
    Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed.
    Cir. 2015) (refusing to review Board’s consideration of
    obviousness in the final decision despite not being raised
    in the initial petition); Achates, 803 F.3d at 658 (refusing
    to review the Board’s assessment of the time-bar provisions
    of § 315(b)); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793
    F.3d 1268, 1273–74 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub
    nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890
    (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446) (refusing to review the
    Board’s decision to institute review of certain claims on
    the basis of prior art not asserted regarding those claims).
    Indeed, we recently held that § 314(d) bars our review of
    the Board’s decision not to institute IPR on redundancy
    grounds. See Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel
    Sys., Inc., Nos. 15-1116, 15-1119, ___ F.3d ___, slip. op. at
    6–9 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2016); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid
    Tech., Inc., No. 15-1072, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 798192, at
    *7–9 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016).

    link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1427.Opinion.3-31-2016.1.PDF

    **Separately, of simple historical interest:

    After 36 Years, Archivists Finally Found the Wright Brothers’ Airplane Patent

    The missing patent was found safe and sound in a Kansas storage facility

    link: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/after-36-years-archivists-finally-found-wright-brothers-airplane-patent-180958649/#XaofYdqyYqgj2oO0.99

    Continue Reading ...
  • Defend Trade Secrets Act Adopted by Senate

    In today’s political climate, any bipartisan legislative action is, well, unusual. Unanimous votes are like unicorns. But one happened yesterday, as the Senate voted 87-0 to approve the Defend Trade Secrets Act, S.1890. The DTSA does not preempt state laws, but provides trade secret owners with another, optional forum when the subject matter of the trade secret relates to interstate commerce. This means that local disputes will for the most part continue to be litigated in state courts, but for…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Tribute To Brazilian Legal Scholar Denis Barbosa

    Genius, brilliant, generous, wholehearted, warm, kind, funny, original, musician, art lover, brave, restless, these are few of the most suitable and recurrent attributes of Denis Borges Barbosa, who passed away on Saturday, April 2nd. Leading IP professor, researcher and attorney in Brazil, he was also the key international face of Brazilian IP, write Allan Rocha de Souza and Cláudia Chamas.

    Continue Reading ...
  • The PTAB at the Supreme Court – and the Federal Circuit’s Response

    The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee on April 25, 2016, with a decision expected sometime before the end of June… [S]ome of the Federal Circuit judges have shown signs that their position on these questions are not as rigid as previously thought. This is not unprecedented – for example, when the Supreme Court was on the verge of considering the patent fee-shifting statute of 35 U.S.C. § 285 in the Octane Fitness case, Judge Rader was seen…

    Continue Reading ...