• CAFC in ALVARADO HOSPITAL.  A dissent by Judge Newman.
    in: 未分類  | 

    CAFC in ALVARADO HOSPITAL. A dissent by Judge Newman.

    One must always keep in mind that the CAFC has jurisdiction in non-patent areas.
    On 22 August 2017:

    Because Prime Hospitals’ breach of contract claim is
    fundamentally a suit to enforce a contract and it does not
    arise under the Medicare Act, we hold that the Court of
    Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over that claim
    under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. We also hold
    that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction,
    however, over Prime Hospitals’ alternative claims
    seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s transfer order
    in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand for further proceedings.

    Judge Newman dissented:

    I respectfully dissent from the ruling that the Medicare
    Act’s jurisdictional assignment to the district courts
    does not apply when there is an offer of settlement of a
    Medicare reimbursement claim.

    Nonetheless, my colleagues endorse the transfer of
    this action from the district court to the Court of Federal
    Claims under the Tucker Act, reasoning that the statutory
    assignment of Medicare jurisdiction does not apply
    when the issue includes a proposal for settlement of a
    Medicare claim. However, as precedent has resolved,
    settlement of a Medicare claim does not remove the
    statutory Medicare Act jurisdiction. See Pines Residential
    Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. United States, 444 F.3d 1379 (Fed.
    Cir. 2006)

  • Two CAFC judges in Nidec case:  we question whether the practice of expanding panels
    in: 未分類  | 

    Two CAFC judges in Nidec case: we question whether the practice of expanding panels

    The outcome was that appellant lost:

    Nidec Motor Corporation (“Nidec”) appeals a final
    written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The Board
    determined that claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19 of U.S.
    Patent No. 7,626,349 (the “’349 Patent”) are invalid as
    anticipated or obvious. We affirm.

    What the CAFC did not decide:

    Both Broad Ocean and the Director argue that the
    Board properly applied the joinder and time bar statutes
    to allow joinder and institution in this case. Nidec disagrees.
    We need not resolve this dispute. Nor need we
    address the Director’s and Broad Ocean’s arguments that
    the Board’s joinder determination is non-appealable in
    light of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)’s bar of judicial review for
    institution decisions or Nidec’s argument that the Board’s
    practice of expanding panels violates due process. For the
    reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board’s conclusion
    that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable as
    obvious over Bessler and Kocybik. Because there is no
    dispute that Broad Ocean timely filed the First Petition
    (containing the obviousness ground), the issues on appeal
    relating only to the Board’s joinder determination as to
    anticipation ultimately do not affect the outcome of this
    case. Both parties agree that, if we affirm as to obviousness,
    we need not address Nidec’s argument that various
    procedural aspects of the Board’s joinder decision require
    reversal of its holding concerning anticipation by Hideji.
    See Oral Arg. at 1:28–2:33 (June 8, 2017), available at
    16-2321.mp3 (Nidec agreeing that we need not address
    the anticipation ground based on Hideji in any respect if
    we determine that the Board was correct in its obviousness
    determination under Bessler and Kocybik).

    Nidec loses:

    The Board concluded that “the use of
    sinewave commutation and independent Q and d axis
    currents would have provided predictable results to
    address known problems associated with other types of
    motors.” J.A. 29. Nidec asks us to reweigh the evidence
    the Board used to make its determination, which we may
    not do. See In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327,
    1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

    The opinion was per curiam. There was a two judge
    concurring opinion which included:

    Although we do not decide the issues here, we
    have serious questions as to the Board’s (and the Director’s)
    interpretation of the relevant statutes and current


    The issue in this case is whether the time bar provision
    allows a time-barred petitioner to add new issues,
    rather than simply belatedly joining a proceeding as a
    new party, to an otherwise timely proceeding. Section
    315(c) does not explicitly allow this practice. We think it
    unlikely that Congress intended that petitioners could
    employ the joinder provision to circumvent the time bar
    by adding time-barred issues to an otherwise timely
    proceeding, whether the petitioner seeking to add new
    issues is the same party that brought the timely proceeding,
    as in this case, or the petitioner is a new party.

    Of some interest as to the expanded panel:

    Nidec alleges that the two administrative judges added
    to the panel were chosen with some expectation that
    they would vote to set aside the earlier panel decision.
    The Director represents that the PTO “is not directing
    individual judges to decide cases in a certain way.” Director
    Br. 21 (quotation marks omitted). While we recognize
    the importance of achieving uniformity in PTO decisions,
    we question whether the practice of expanding panels
    where the PTO is dissatisfied with a panel’s earlier decision
    is the appropriate mechanism of achieving the desired
    uniformity. But, as with the joinder issue, we need
    not resolve this issue here. Nor need we address the
    predicate issue of appealability.

  • Guest Post by Prof. Lefstin: Ariosa v. Sequenom and the Path Ahead for Subject … – Patently-O

    The National Law Review
    Guest Post by Prof. Lefstin: Ariosa v. Sequenom and the Path Ahead for Subject
    The Federal Circuit has issued its decision in a closely-watched biotechnology case, Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom. The opinion clarifies several aspects of the patent-eligibility inquiry in the wake of Mayo v. Prometheus, and has significant long
    Federal Circuit Finds Sequenom’s Diagnostics Patent Claims Patent Ineligible Mondaq News Alerts (registration)
    Federal Circuit hold Sequenom diagnostic method patent invalid under 101Lexology (registration)
    Sequenom Comments On US Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Ruling MarketWatch

    all 49 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • IPR by Shire Development successful against U.S. Patent 8,318,813

    From a press release by Lucerne Biosciences:

    Lucerne Biosciences, LLC announced today [13 June 2015] that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), on June 4, 2015, entered an adverse judgment against the company in the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,318,813 that cancelled all thirteen of the patent’s claims involving the treatment of Binge Eating Disorder with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX). LDX is an FDA-approved treatment for moderate to severe Binge Eating Disorder in adults and is marketed under the trade name “Vyvanse®” by Shire U.S. Inc. The inter partes review of the ‘813 patent was based on a petition initiated by Shire Development LLC that alleged the patent would have been obvious at the time of its invention on September 13, 2007 and therefore was invalid. Inter partes review is a provision of the American Invents Act (AIA) to challenge the validity of a patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    link: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ptab-invalidates-lucerne-biosciences-813-patent-for-the-treatment-of-binge-eating-disorder-with-lisdexamfetamine-dimesylate-300098752.html

    Note also: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/shire-development-llc-v-lucerne-biosciences-llc-granting-part-motion-to-submit-suppl


    On the other side of the coin, one notes that Kyle Bass is seeking an IPR against Shire.

    Yesterday [1 April 2015], he [Bass] filed challenges against patents for two Shire drugs – the Lialda medicine for ulcerative colitis and the Gattex treatment for short bowel syndrome. The move comes just a few weeks after he challenged a patent that Acorda Therapeutics ACOR +1.68% holds on its Ampyra multiple sclerosis drug.

    In his view, some drug makers and biotechs hold specific patents that do not represent an innovation and, instead, are designed to fend off competition. By challenging the patents, he argues that drug prices can be lowered.

    Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2015/04/02/innovate-or-else-kyle-bass-strikes-again-and-challenges-shire-patents/

    Continue Reading ...
  • “60 Minutes” story on “smartest dog” omits relevant earlier work?

    On June 14, 2015, CBS “60 Minutes” re-broadcast “The Smartest Dog in the World” which originally aired on October 5, 2014. Anderson Cooper was the commentator. Denise Schrier Cetta, producer.

    Not mentioned was that the NY Times had covered the story years earlier, in 2011.

    Although “60 Minutes” mentioned a scientific paper by John W. Pilley on his border collie Chaser, which was published in the journal Behavioural Processes. “60 Minutes” did not mention earlier relevant work. From the 2011 Times article:

    Chaser belongs to John W. Pilley, a psychologist who taught for 30 years at Wofford College, a liberal arts institution in Spartanburg. In 2004, after he had retired, he read a report in Science about Rico, a border collie whose German owners had taught him to recognize 200 items, mostly toys and balls. Dr. Pilley decided to repeat the experiment using a technique he had developed for teaching dogs, and he describes his findings in the current issue of the journal Behavioural Processes.

    One recognizes that when a later “author” copies work from a previous author, that is a bad thing. Here, one has a situation wherein a third party fails to cite relevant work of a first party.

    Apart from the matter of “not citing prior art,” there is an issue of “who came up with the key idea.” The patent office is charged with the responsibility of identifying relevant earlier parties. In Cooper’s story, arguably this was not done. Here, the “invention” of a dog (specifically a border collie) recognizing items was done by the Germans, but Pilley greatly improved upon the “invention.” Cooper mentioned the latter, but not the former; which was the truly “inventive” action, or was it both?

    Of the analogy to patents, one recalls non-obviousness requires a “difference in kind” not merely a “difference in degree”:

    The outcome of optimizing a result-effective variable may still be patentable if the claimed ranges are “critical” and “produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.” Aller, 220 F.2d at 456; see Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620.

    link: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2012/08/applied-materials-loses-appeal-of-bpai.html

    Continue Reading ...
  • 夢追う札幌の発明おじさん 「売れなくても役立つものを…」 – BIGLOBEニュース

    夢追う札幌の発明おじさん 「売れなくても役立つものを…」
    小原さんが発明を始めて13年。これまでのヒット作は、「スーパースロープ」(2万3000円)だ。どこでも段差をなくすために、ミリ単位で調節することができるというすぐれもの。 「妻が自転車で、段差があったところで転んだ。それがこれを発明するきっかけだった。工事は不要で、9 …

    and more »

    Continue Reading ...



    $$ The flat portion may have a substantially elliptical shape when viewed along the said direction. / 前記平坦部は前記方向、即ち、当該平坦部の平面に直交する方向に沿って見た場合に実質的に楕円形状であり得る。(USP8221108)

    $$ The cluster function may have a shape approximately equal to the target template. / 前記クラスタ関数は前記目標テンプレートにほぼ等しい形状を有してもよい。(USP8121346)

    $$ The blisters may have any suitable shape including those with a square, circular, ovular or rectangular profile. / ブリスターは、正方形、円形、卵形または長方形断面などを含む適切な形状を有することができる。(USP8066002)

    $$ This can enable the mouth of the duct to have a different shape to that of the inlet. / これによって、ダクトの口が入口の口と異なる形状を有するのを可能にすることができる。(USP7213467)

    $$ Generally a spot is any distinct area of high intensity radiation and may, as will be described later, be adapted to have a particular shape. / 一般的に、スポットは、高強度放射の任意の明確な区域であり、以下に説明するように、特定の形状を有するようになっていると考えられる。(USP7589825)

    $$ Slots 60 are formed in the arm portions 42 of the strop 40 and have a "keyhole" shape with a narrow portion 65 and a wider end portion 67. (USP6974125)

    $$ Preferably the cable is wound upon the mandrel such that exposed turns of the cable have a conical shape. (USP6655453)

    $$ The reciprocating piston machine of claim 9 wherein the stator and the rotor have a cylindrical shape. (USP5542308)

    $$ A light pen input system according to claim 5, characterised in that the light spot has a rectangular shape.(USP5959617)

    $$ The 64×64 neuron SOM has the typical non-increasing convex shape of high resolution smooth pdf vector quantisers. (USP6990246)

    $$ The final section of the window has the shape of the falling half of a Hanning window of height H and duration 0.8 pitch periods. (USP6175821)

    $$ The guide member 20 has the shape of a major segment of a right circular cylinder and with openings 22 therein through which project an array of freely rotatable rollers 23. (USP4834839)

    $$ It can also help to track the movement of an object having the shape of a regular pattern of a periodic nature. (USP5027203)


    Continue Reading ...
  • ‘Biased? India has a balanced pharma patent regime’ – Daily News & Analysis

    Daily News & Analysis
    ‘Biased? India has a balanced pharma patent regime’
    Daily News & Analysis
    India has a balanced pharmaceutical patent regime in place because it needs to hold the rights and interest of a wide section of consumers who are in need of free medicines, according to Frederick Abbott, professor of international law at the Florida
    Patents show different side of handset maker XiaomiWantChinaTimes

    all 2 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • The Loi Hamon: France sets new standards for industrial and artisanal GIs

    Geographical indications (GIs) have been much in the news recently, following the recent successful outcome of the Geneva diplomatic conference on the revision of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications [on which see earlier Katpost here]. There’s further news now, coming from France, where an Implementing Decree for the 2014 Loi Hamon was issued last week. Katfriend Marie-Gabrielle Plasseraud has prepared a short comment on this development which, she explains, has an impact not only on GIs but also on French trade mark practice. This is what she writes:

    The recent implementation of French industrial and artisanal GIs

    On 2 June the French government issued Decree No. 2015-595 on industrial and artisanal geographical indications and relative to trade mark aspects, enacted under Article 73 of the Consumer Protection Law No. 2014-344 (the so-called Loi Hamon) of 17 March 2014.

    Background: creation of a new French GI

    The aim of the Loi Hamon is not only to enhance consumer protection and information but to promote the development of French territories as well as local know-how and traditions. Since it broadens the scope of protected French GIs to non-agricultural products and non-foodstuffs, French handicrafts such as Limoges porcelain and the Basque béret could now enjoy specific protection. This law was enacted in the midst of a highly publicised legal dispute over the name ‘Laguiole’ between the village of Laguiole and the owner of a portfolio of ‘Laguiole’ trade marks: see General Court Case T-453/11, Szajner v OHMI / Forge de Laguiole, 21 October 2014 (discussed here on this weblog); and also the Paris Court of Appeal decision of 4 April 2014.  

    The Loi Hamon indeed creates a new section in the French Intellectual Property Code (‘IPC’), this being Articles L. 721-2 et seq. which are dedicated to industrial and artisanal GIs, defined as follows:

    “An indication of origin shall consist of the name of a geographical area or of a specific place used to designate a product – other than agricultural, forestry, food or seafood products – which originates from such area and which possesses a given quality, a reputation or other characteristics attributable mainly to this geographical origin.” 

    Like protected appellations of origin and protected GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Article L. 641-10 et seq. of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code), the newly created industrial and artisanal GIs constitute prior rights that can oppose to trade mark applications (Article L. 711-4 d) IPC).

    The provisions of the 2 June 2015 Decree

    The Decree provides that the French National Institute of Intellectual Property (‘INPI’) will be the competent authority concerning these industrial and artisanal GIs, unlike protected appellations of origin and protected GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs which are regulated by another public authority, the National Institute of Origin and Quality.

    The certification application

    The Decree contains provisions regarding (i) INPI’s certification procedure (examination of the specification, organisation of a public inquiry and consultation); (ii) the definition of the role of the organization in charge of the defence and management of industrial and artisanal GIs; (iii) the conditions under which a trade mark opposition may be filed by industrial and artisanal GI holders as well as local collectivities (‘collectivités territoriales’).

    The certification application has to be filed by a private organization with legal personality in charge of the defence and management of the industrial and artisanal GI at issue (‘organisme de gestion et de defense’). The specification of the application will have to contain information such as the name of the product, the definition of the geographical area, the quality, the reputation or the characteristics attributable to the geographical origin, the production process and the control system. Such applications can be filed online with INPI and over 200 applications are expected in the coming months according to a recent survey.

    Following INPI’s examination, the certification application will be published simultaneously in the French Bulletin of Intellectual Property (‘BOPI’) and in the Official Journal of the French Republic (‘JO’). This publication opens a two month period of public inquiry and consultation, further to the new Article R. 721-3 IPC. If the GI is registered following this process, the product may be marked with the logo on the left.

     * Opposition procedure – new relative grounds 

    Under the Loi Hamon, a French trade mark application or an International registration designating France can now be challenged on new relative grounds, i.e. that there exists an industrial and artisanal GI or the name of a local collectivity.

    As far as an opposition based on a prior industrial and artisanal GI is concerned, the Decree provides that the opposition may be filed by either: (i) the organization in charge of the defense and management of the industrial and artisanal GI (under examination or registered); or (ii) a local collectivity if industrial and artisanal GI at issue is contained in the name of the local collectivity.

    As far as an opposition based on the name of a local collectivity is concerned, it may be filed by a local collectivity if the trade mark application adversely affects the name, the image or the reputation of such collectivity. In this respect, the Loi Hamon provides for a special trade mark watch service for local collectivities, but no implementing Decree has yet been issued. 

    A possible extension of EU GI protection to non-agricultural products?

    After inventing GIs in the first half of the 20th century, will France play a pioneering role and influence the evolution of European protection of GIs? The European Commission conducted a public consultation on the subject in 2014 (see draft report of 21 April 2015) which clearly shows some interest in industrial and artisanal GIs on a European level.

    Given the fact that these industrial and artisanal GIs constitute prior rights under French law, trade mark practitioners should watch out for this new type of GI when conducting prior right searches in France and when filing French trade marks (or International registrations designating France).
    Continue Reading ...
  • SHAPE + Ving


    SHAPE + Ving

    $$ When the user selects a particular implement, data defining a continuous three dimensional shape covering a patch of pixels and representin…

    Continue Reading ...
  • A prelude to patent litigation? Ericsson tackles Apple in Europe

    FRAND fight. Occasional IP blogger and Katfriend Thomas Dubuisson has sent us the following account of some forthcoming patent litigation which should be of the greatest interest to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) IP licence enthusiasts in Europe. He writes:

    Actions speak louder than words: Ericsson files lawsuits In Europe against Apple

    After more than two years trying to reach an agreement with Apple, and after exhausting all other options to conclude a licence on FRAND terms, multinational telecommunications giant Ericsson has now decided to use a less amicable means of forcing Apple to obtain a valid licence for Ericsson’s technology.

    … or taking you to court.

    With one of the industry’s strongest IP portfolios (which includes more than 37,000 patents granted worldwide), Ericsson –- after offering to enter into arbitration to reach a mutually beneficial global licensing agreement for their patents on FRAND terms –- has filed suits against Apple in Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The central question in this case is how much can the Swedish mobile telecoms equipment maker charge for its technologies through the medium of a licence? To give some idea of the scale of the sums the parties may have in mind, Samsung, another smartphone maker, agreed to pay Ericsson $650 million to end a licence dispute last year.

    As readers may know, every Apple smartphone and tablet with cellular capability uses technology from Ericsson. That’s quite a big deal, but not a big surprise, when one considers the long history of Ericsson’s innovative technical contributions — a history that is briefly explained in a complaintfiled in the U.S. As stated 
    “in 1878, Ericsson sold its first telephone; in 1977, Ericsson introduced the world’s first digital telephone exchange; in 1991, Ericsson launched 2G phones on the world’s first 2G network; in 1994, Ericsson invented Bluetooth; in 2001, Ericsson made the world’s first 3G call for Vodafone in the UK; and in 2009, Ericsson started the world’s first 4G network and made the first 4G call”.

    The current “Apple-Ericsson battle” started in January 2015 in the United States. Apple shot first, with a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court of Northern District of California alleging that some patents were not essential and that the royalties requested for their use were excessive. Two days later, Ericsson filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas asserting its rights under 41 patents covering many aspects of Apple’s iPhones and iPads. It followed this action by lodging two complaints with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), seeking to exclude Apple’s product from the U.S. market. More precisely, the proceedings refer to the 2G GSM and 4G LTE standards (which have enabled the creation of high speed data networks that connect the world and which, for instance, enable people to send pictures, video chat, etc), as well as other technology that is not standardized but is related to, for instance, the design of semiconductor components and non-cellular wireless communications.

    Just checking the software

    When a patent holder declares that a patent is “essential” (a patent that is necessary in order to implement an industry standard technology so as to enable products and services offered by different vendors to interoperate), he makes an irrevocable commitment to license that patent on FRAND terms and conditions i.e. fair (no anti-competitive or unlawful licensing terms), reasonable (no excessive or extreme licensing rates), and non-discriminatory (the licensor treats each individual licensee in a similar fashion). Under the FRAND commitment, essential patent owners like Ericsson are compensated proportionally in relation to their contribution to the standardized technology. But in this case, according to Ericsson, “Apple does not currently have any license for Ericsson’s technology, but continues to sell products, for which its licenses have expired, on a global scale”. In other words, Apple continues to profit without having a valid licence in place. That’s the reason why the Swedish multinational has filed some European lawsuits, also asserting non-standard essential patents, against Apple.

    It could take quite some time before we get a decision but, in any event, with so much money at stake, it’s going to be an exciting battle. The venue of the fight is also worthy of note. Apple won the race to court in Silicon Valley, a place where the company is perhaps more likely to be defended than anywhere else in the States. However, in Europe, the outcome of the various patent disputes may well differ depending on how the different national courts deal with infringement and validity claims. In any case, this patent licensing case will be interesting to follow. 
    Continue Reading ...
  • Is 3D printing good or bad for counterfeiting?

    Back in March, this Kat had the privilege of taking part in a two-day programme in New York, under the auspices of the International Trademark Association (INTA(, on the subject of 3D printing. For sure the highlight of the programme (clearly not this Kat!) were the presentations by the husband and wife 3D printing gurus, Professor Hod Lipson and Melba Kurman. While the focus of their collective remarks was not in the main directed to trade marks, or even to IP issues generally, one observation by Ms Kurman caught my attention, namely that 3D printing may not lead to an increase in the manufacture and distribution of counterfeit products, pointing to the economic requirements of product counterfeiting. Her observations on counterfeiting have stayed with this Kat.

    When we talk about counterfeiting, we do not mean the scenario whereby an individual makes an unauthorized copy of an item in the comfort of his home. While this may well be a blatant infringement, the end result is that a lone item has been created for use by its maker (indeed, this convergence between manufacturer and consumer is one of the defining characteristics of 3D printing).  Seen in this way, such unauthorized copying is simply the most recent manifestation of the time-old question: how do we deal with technological advances in our ability to make reproductions? Rather, the question addresses a very different issue: how do we understand the economics of counterfeiting and how does 3D printing fit into this economic ecosystem?

    This Kat’s hands-on experience with counterfeiting focuses on frequent interactions with the local customs authority on behalf of various clients. From this perspective, we see the finished product, in transit from its overseas manufacturer and assorted middle men, on its way to the local distributor, subject to the vigilance of customs. If we are lucky, we can obtain information from the local distributor about the identity and location of the overseas manufacturer. Otherwise, we have to satisfy ourselves with information about one of the overseas distribution middle men, if at all. What we never encounter is the underlying business infrastructure by which products and product designs are identified and then manufactured abroad; the means by which prospective customers for these counterfeit products are put into contact with the manufacturer; and how payment is made and shipping arrangements are dealt with.

    While we may not like the counterfeiting business, it cannot be gainsaid that it is a complex enterprise, both organizationally and logistically. Underpinning all of this is the need for extremely tight cost controls to support the counterfeit version of economies of scale. Counterfeit products have to be price-competitive with the original product. How much the price differential needs to be will depend on the nature of the particular product. But, whatever the pricing, the counterfeiter will likely work on the basis of a small profit margin. It does not pay to maintain a counterfeiting operation in order to make a single copy of an item, but it also does not pay to set up a counterfeiting operation unless a critical mass of items can be cheaply made and distributed, usually to other countries.

    This being so, how might 3D printing affect the counterfeiting business? At first glance, the argument can be made—not very well. First, there is the need to purchase 3D printers. While there is much talk about a 3D printer in every house, this Kat suspects that a counterfeiter would need to purchase a more expensive version of the machine. How will the cost of such a machine stack up with the cost of kit in a traditional counterfeiting operation is not clear. So too is the cost and availability of the materials needed for 3D manufacture. Moreover, no matter how cheap or expensive are the machine and the materials, not to speak of labour, the perspective counterfeiter will need to deal with the simple fact that 3D printing is a slow way to make the same item on a repeated basis. The bespoke nature of 3D printing is of no advantage here. The question is: what is the aggregate time differential between making 1,000 counterfeit units of a hot designer hand-bag as opposed to making them in the conventional counterfeit manner? To this, then, needs to be added the other cost factors in assessing the economic viability of using 3D printing as the basis for a counterfeit operation. This Kat admits that he simply does not know the answer.

    Perhaps, however, this Kat is ultimately not asking the right questions. First, maybe the real inquiry is whether a counterfeiting model based on wide-scale distribution of unauthorized production files is possible (keeping mind the convergence between the manufacturer and consumer in the 3D printing world). Secondly, product counterfeiting depends in significant part upon whether brands will continue to be commercially relevant. If the answer is “no”, the results could be devastating for both the genuine brand manufacturer and the counterfeiter. Stay tuned.

    Continue Reading ...
  • PTAB Invalidates Lucerne Biosciences’ ‘813 Patent for the Treatment of Binge … – PR Newswire (press release)

    PTAB Invalidates Lucerne Biosciences’ ‘813 Patent for the Treatment of Binge
    PR Newswire (press release)
    WILMINGTON, Del., June 13, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Lucerne Biosciences, LLC announced today that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), on June 4, 2015, entered an adverse judgment against the company in the inter partes review of U.S. Patent …

    and more »

    Continue Reading ...
  • Apple’s Original Patents Relating to Health App and ResearchKit Surfaced in Europe this Week

    Patently Apple reported on the first of three Apple patent applications yesterday that were published by the European Patent Office late on Thursday. Our first report titled "New Apple Watch Patent Covers Wearable Multi-Modal Physiological Sensing System," focused on advancing the Apple Watch’s heart rate sensors to work while a user is in motion. Today we’re reporting on the second and third patents in this group which cover Apple’s Health app and ResearchKit.

    Continue Reading ...