SHOW…CASE  場合を示す

                        目次はこちら

SHOW…CASE  場合を示す

$$ FIG. 4 is a time chart showing a case in which no response is received to a signal transmitted over the satellite link; / 図4は、衛星リンクを介して送信された信号に対する応答が受信されない場合を示すタイムチャートである。(USP5877871)

$$ FIGS. 9, 10 and 11 show, as an extreme case, buffer occupancy VBV for two bitstreams A0 and B0. (USP6983015)

$$ The example set out below shows a case where one picture in bitstream A, and two in bitstream B have had their picture type modified on re-coding. (USP6831949)

$$ Although the figure shows the case of two-channel stereo, this description also applies to M-channel directional encoding systems, and an extension to n=4 or more pseudostereo means is implemented similarly with n×n "interpolation" matrix means preceded by n-1 gains A1 to An-1. (USP5671287)

$$ FIG. 12C shows the case where the patch is made via outlier 23004. (USP02029357)

$$ FIG. 12B shows the case where the patch is made directly. (USP02029357)

$$ FIG. 2 shows the case of three clients A,B,C sending messages to a server S.(USP6138168)

                        目次はこちら

Continue Reading ...
  • Newsflash, Politico: ‘Patent Death Squad’ Alive and Well – The National Law Review


    IPWatchdog.com
    Newsflash, Politico: ‘Patent Death Squad’ Alive and Well
    The National Law Review
    Politico, the popular political journalism publication, recently ran the story “Patent Reform Advocates: PTO Process Not Patent ‘Death Squad.’” The story was based on a blog post by patent reform advocate Unified Patents. Politico reported Unified
    For Patent Owners Patent Quality is all about ValueIPWatchdog.com
    Independent Patent ClaimsPatently-O
    New Patent Board Is a Loose CannonWall Street Journal
    JD Supra (press release) -EFF -Lexology (registration)
    all 9 news articles »
    Continue Reading ...
  • Battery startup awarded first patent for lithium-ion battery in Japan – Albany Business Review


    Albany Business Review
    Battery startup awarded first patent for lithium-ion battery in Japan
    Albany Business Review
    An Albany, New York startup focused on building better lithium-ion batteries has secured its first Japanese patent, positioning the company to eventually sell its technology in Japan. Bess Technologies, co-founded by Fernando Gómez-Baquero, develops …

    Continue Reading ...
  • Innovation in baseball: the axe bat (and US Patent 8,801,551)

    Yahoo.sports has a piece on the axe bat now used by Dustin Pedroia.

    Yes, there is mention of a patent:


    In 2006, a New Yorker named Steve Leinert obtained a patent on the axe handle for a baseball bat, a concept Ted Williams hit on decades earlier in his book “The Science of Hitting,” in which he compared a baseball swing to that of an axe. “Try it for yourself,” Williams wrote. “Get a bat and swing it against a telephone pole. I do this with doubting young Washington players. Where is the wrist position at point of impact? Square and unbroken, that’s where, just as when you hit a tree with an ax.”

    The axe handle felt more comfortable to Leinert, and he shopped it around to manufacturers. He met rejection after rejection, companies frightened off by something so novel, until Baden, whose main products to that point were balls, fell in love with the Axe Bat and agreed to license it for 20 years starting in 2009.

    Note the text which shows a New Jersey connection:


    It took five years for MLB to climb onboard, and even now Baden isn’t making the bats for Pedroia because it doesn’t have a license from the league. Victus Sports, a small New Jersey-based company, produces the axe-handle bats for major league players, something Pedroia learned by happy accident.

    Link to article in yahoo.sports: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-dustin-pedroia-uses-the-axe-bat–which-may-make-the-round-handle-obsolete-013113798.html

    One of the relevant patents is US 8,801,551, with first claim:


    . A bat comprising: a body, comprising a first material, the body defining an exterior surface with a top end and a bottom end; a barrel portion having a barrel cross-section with a substantially circular perimeter that defines a center point; the barrel cross-section defining a longitudinal axis substantially perpendicular to the barrel cross-section, the longitudinal axis intersecting the barrel cross-section at approximately the center point, the longitudinal axis intersecting and extending through the exterior surface, near the top and bottom ends, at respective upper and lower intersection points, and otherwise within the exterior surface; a handle portion that includes the bottom end, the handle portion having a separately formed handle component comprising a second material; the handle portion defining a maximum forward distance, measured along a first line perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, from a first point on the longitudinal axis to a first location on the exterior surface of the handle portion that is farthest forward of the longitudinal axis; the handle portion defining a maximum rearward distance, measured along a second line perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, from a second point on the longitudinal axis to a second location on the exterior surface of the handle portion that is farthest rearward of the longitudinal axis; the handle portion also having an asymmetrically flared region extending from an upper boundary to a lower boundary, the upper boundary being more proximate the top end and the lower boundary being more proximate the bottom end; the asymmetrically flared region defining a non-circular cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the non-circular cross-section having a major axis, wherein the major axis increases continuously throughout the asymmetrically flared region, from the upper boundary to the lower boundary; and portions of the exterior surface, in the asymmetrically flared region, defining a front edge and a rear edge, wherein the distance from the longitudinal axis to the front edge, measured along respective lines perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, is greater than the distance from the longitudinal axis to the rear edge, for each point of the longitudinal axis throughout the asymmetrically flared region.

    And, yes, Ted Williams is cited in the patent:

    Williams, Ted & Underwood, John, “The Science of Hitting,” (New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1986; 1st ed. 1970)

    ***Text in the yahoo.sports article

    He met rejection after rejection, companies frightened off by something so novel, until Baden, whose main products to that point were balls, fell in love with the Axe Bat and agreed to license it for 20 years starting in 2009.

    sounds in “Chester Carlson” and is highly relevant to the patent reform discussion. Yes, there still are individual inventors who may have a big impact.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Google suffers setback at the US Supreme Court in Vederi case related to Google Street View


    The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant certiorari leaves intact a March 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [CAFC], which threw out a district judge’s finding that Google had not infringed on four different patents of Vederi LLC. The case will now return to lower courts for further proceedings.

    link: http://recode.net/2015/06/22/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-google-patent-appeal-over-street-view/

    The March 2014 decision by then-CJ Rader had noted:


    However, the district court erred
    in construing “substantially elevations”
    without sufficiently considering the
    intrinsic evidence in this case.
    In this case, the claim language is a
    critical part of the record that shows the
    error in the trial court’s reading of the claims. T
    he opera-
    tive language in this case is “substantially
    elevations.” The district court’s construction
    requiring elevation, and “elevation” alone
    in the strict sense,
    gives no effect to the “substantially” modifier
    contained in the claims.
    “A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the
    claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”
    Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372
    (Fed. Cir. 2005).
    By effectively reading “substantially” out the claims, the district court erred

    This was a “claim construction” case, not a “doctrine of equivalents” case:


    Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, this
    court reverses the district court’s claim construction
    ,
    vacates its judgment of non-
    infringement and remands for further proceedings
    consistent with this opinion.

    From the past

    –from 2011
    So things don’t look very promising for Vederi, but we’ll see.

    link: http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/2011/04/google-street-view-v-vederi-llc-a-lesson-on-provisional-patent-applications/

    –from Oct. 2014

    In November 2011, U.S. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, who sat by designation in district court, adopted a claim construction for the patents proposed by Google, ruling that Vederi’s patents cover “vertical flat” images rather than curved images like those used in Google Street View.

    Largely as a result of that claim construction, the judge ruled in September 2012 that Google had not infringed Vederi’s patents, which he said covered stitched-together flat images rather than spherical ones.

    The Federal Circuit held in March that Judge Kozinski had been too strict in his construction of a patent claim that defined Vederi’s images as “substantially elevations,” which is an architectural term for a flat, typically illustrated image of a building.

    The Federal Circuit found that the inclusion of the word “substantially” meant that Vederi’s patent claims were not exclusively limited to flat images, and that the trial court had erred by ignoring the word.

    link: http://www.law360.com/articles/590402/google-asks-high-court-to-take-up-street-view-patent-fight

    from 2015

    http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2015/06/will-googles-patent-battle-over-street-view-mapping-eventually-spill-over-to-apple-maps.html

    Continue Reading ...
  • Independent Patent Claims – Patently-O


    Patently-O
    Independent Patent Claims
    Patently-O
    As with dependent claims, the average number of independent claims per patent has also dropped significantly over the past decade. (From around 3.2 to 2.5 independent claims per patent). As the histogram shows below, the decline comes primarily from a …
    For Patent Owners Patent Quality is all about ValueIPWatchdog.com
    Newsflash, Politico: ‘Patent Death Squad’ Alive and WellThe National Law Review
    New Patent Board Is a Loose CannonWall Street Journal
    JD Supra (press release) -EFF -Lexology (registration)
    all 10 news articles »
    Continue Reading ...
  • Does a former employee have to “forget” past information to avoid trade secret litigation?

    See Ron Sokol’s post Can trade secret laws be used to intimidate? including


    You are not required to “forget” what you learned. Go over your nondisclosure agreement. Chances are it prohibits certain use and disclosure by you of an actual trade secret.

    Sokol alludes to a certain trade secret case, which was Cypress v. Maxim, discussed on another blog in the following way:


    Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., H038555 (Apr. 28, 2015). Cypress sued Maxim for trade secret misappropriation, alleging Maxim was attempting to hire its employees in violation of California law. Cypress pled two theories: (1) the names of its employees were trade secrets and Maxim wrongly obtained and exploited a list of its employees, and (2) Cypress was seeking to hire its employees to misappropriate their knowledge of Cypress’ touchscreen technology. The trial court denied Cypress’ requests for preliminary relief, finding Cypress had no evidence to support its claims. One piece of telling evidence the court noted was a declaration submitted by Maxim’s attorney demonstrating she learned the name of nearly every Cypress employee who worked on touchscreen technology by spending an afternoon perusing LinkedIn. Facing an upcoming hearing on Maxim’s demurrer to its first amended complaint, Cypress voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice. Maxim thereafter sought and was awarded $180,817.50 in sanctions on the ground Cypress had brought its suit in bad faith, which under California law has two prongs: (1) objective speciousness of the claim, and (2) subjective bad faith in bringing or maintaining the action, i.e., for an improper purpose.

    link: http://www.noncompetereport.com/2015/05/06/cases-are-easier-to-start-than-they-are-to-finish-california-court-awards-180000-in-sanctions-for-meritless-trade-secret-misappropriation-lawsuit-brought-in-bad-faith/

    Continue Reading ...