• この時(時点)
    in:  | 






    $$ 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)

    $$ 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)

    $$ 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)

    $$ 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


  • 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…

  • A unicorn with patents does exist – AppDynamics has small but growing patent portfolio

    AppDynamics is an example of what is known in the venture capital world as a “unicorn,” a start-up company which reaches a valuation that exceeds $1 billion. In early November, IPWatchdog ran an article describing that nearly one-third of unicorns had no intellectual property assets. Thanks to the patent portfolio analysis tools available through Innography, we can see that this start-up actually holds a portfolio of 9 U.S. patents and 22 patent applications. While a 9 patent portfolio is not…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Sightsound v. Apple: CAFC can review PTO on whether patents are CBM

    From the precedential decision:

    SightSound Technologies, LLC (“SightSound”) is the
    owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,191,573 (the “’573 patent”) and
    5,966,440 (the “’440 patent”). Apple Inc. (“Apple”) petitioned
    the United States Patent and Trademark Office
    (“PTO”) for covered business method (“CBM”) review of
    claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ’573 patent and claims 1, 64,
    and 95 of the ’440 patent. The PTO granted Apple’s
    petition and instituted CBM review. The Patent Trial
    and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued a final decision
    finding all the challenged claims would have been obvious.
    SightSound appealed.

    We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the PTO’s
    decision to consider issues not explicitly raised in the
    petitions. We do, however, have jurisdiction to review
    whether the patents qualify as CBM patents. We affirm
    the Board’s determination that the ’573 and ’440 patents
    qualify as CBM patents. Finally, we affirm the Board’s
    final decision with respect to claim construction and

    link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1159.Opinion.12-11-2015.1.PDF

    Continue Reading ...
  • A Systematic Approach to a Successful Patent Licensing Program

    Patent licensing is becoming increasingly challenging and it requires thorough preparation on the licensor’s part to convince a potential licensee that a license is both required and inevitable and to persuade them into serious negotiations. The steps involved will vary based on whether your patents are already being infringed upon or if they protect a new technology that can extend market value or penetration. In this article, the focus is on the research and preparation for the licensing of…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit Finds Disavowal of Claim Scope Through Disparagement of Prior Art, and Affirms Resulting Judgment of Non-Infringement

    Authored by Georg C. Reitboeck and Jessica Cohen-Nowak Digest of Openwave Systems, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2015-1108 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015) (precedential).  On appeal from D. Del.  Before Moore, O’Malley, and Chen. Procedural Posture: The district court entered final judgment … Continue reading

    The post Federal Circuit Finds Disavowal of Claim Scope Through Disparagement of Prior Art, and Affirms Resulting Judgment of Non-Infringement appeared first on CAFCBlog.com.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Can a work of authorship which is copyrighted be a trade secret?

    The post titled Sheriff’s association blocks release of jail standards in lawsuit suggests that which is copyrighted can be protected as a trade secret:

    As they prepare to argue the $10.7 million suit, attorneys for Edwin Burl Mays Jr. have asked the county for “Oregon Jail Standards, Policies and Criteria that were used in inspections of the Deschutes County Adult Jail between 2010 and 2015,” court records show. Mays’ son, Edwin Mays III, died of a methamphetamine overdose in the jail nearly a year ago.

    Those standards might shed some light on the best practices the sheriff’s office aspired to at the time of Mays’ death, which is under investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice. His father’s attorneys have argued that Mays asked for medical help; the jail’s video of the night Mays died, released to The Bulletin in March, shows him behaving erratically while deputies mock him.

    Though Mays’ attorneys can have the so-called Oregon Jail Standards, they remain sealed because they’re the property of the nonprofit Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association. The association says the standards are proprietary content. The standards, which are voluntary, are distinct from state and federal laws and are used in biannual inspections of county jails.

    The standards can be released to Mays’ attorneys under a protective order, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken determined Nov. 24. A protective order means in this case the standards are sealed and can only be shown to a select group of people directly or indirectly involved in the lawsuit — such as experts and court recorders .

    Aiken’s Nov. 24 order also states any “documents, testimony, written responses or other materials” in the case that contain information the sheriffs’ association reasonably believes is confidential can be designated as such.

    Although the standards are applied in the inspection of public facilities, the association argues they are a “trade secret” under Oregon law because the association owns them. John Bishop, the association’s executive director and the retired sheriff of Curry County, in an email Wednesday compared the standards to “the formula for Coca Cola or the recipe for KFC.”

    One has the text

    “Making the standards public would destroy their value,” Bishop wrote.

    BUT note

    Online U.S. Copyright Office records show the association registered a copyright for the first edition of the Oregon Jail Standards in 1999; the most recent registry is for the fifth edition of the standards in 2012. A representative of the Portland office of the law firm that handled the most recent registration, Lane Powell PC, could not be reached for comment.

    Generally, the public is prohibited from duplicating material that’s under a copyright, according to University of Oregon law Professor Emeritus Dominick Vetri, but that doesn’t necessarily bar the public from knowing what the work contains.

    A request to view the standards, submitted Thursday to the Library of Congress, was not responded to. Not all works registered with the Copyright Office are kept at the Library of Congress, and not all are published. If a work is published, the library determines whether it will maintain a copy for public viewing.

    From the Duke Law Journal in 1981:

    to enforce rights under copyright, copies of the trade secret must be deposited at the
    Copyright Office. This requirement amounts to public disclosure of the secret, eliminates trade secret protection, and once again strips protection away from confidential ideas.

    More on this later.

    **As a footnote, as of 10:48am eastern on Dec. 15, patentlyo seems to be “not responding.”

    Continue Reading ...