Merz North America, Inc. files patent infringement suit over vocal treatment …
Triangle Business Journal
Raleigh’s Merz North America, Inc. has filed suit against Cytophil Inc., alleging the firm has violated several patents Merz holds on two products it offers for treating vocal paralysis. Cytophil was founded in East Troy, Wisconsin, in 2005 as a …
CBS NewsCharleston shooting: World shocked by racism, gun violence in US
A similar effect has been seen elsewhere. “The USA is completely out of step with the rest of the world. We’ve tightened our gun laws and have seen a reduction,” said Claire Taylor, the director of media and public relations at Gun Free South Africa.
World Reacts to Racial Tensions, Gun Violence in USVoice of America
By: Robert R. Sachs It’s been one year since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On its face the opinion was relatively conservative, cautioning courts to "tread carefully" before invalidating patents, and emphasizing that the primary concern was to avoid preemption of "fundamental building blocks" of human ingenuity. The Court specifically avoided any suggestion that software or business methods were presumptively invalid. But those concerns seem to have gone unheeded. The Court’s attempt to sidestep the tricky problem of defining the boundary of an exception to patent eligibility—"we need not labor to delimit the precise contours…Continue Reading ...
Yahoo News Canada (blog)BC teen’s award-winning invention set to help travellers breathe better on …
Yahoo News Canada (blog)
When Ebola broke out in West Africa last year, one of the biggest concerns was how to keep the virulent, deadly virus from being spread by international air travel. … “It definitely shows promise, and he’s smart to be undergoing patent protection for …
Apple is announcing that they’ve determined that a very small number of 3TB hard drives used in 27-inch iMac systems, may fail …Continue Reading ...
ForbesSurgical Robotics and the Attack of the Patent Trolls
These new surgical robots are creating a surge of intellectual property advancements and improving patient outcomes. Like Terminator or Darth Vader though, patent trolls and patent privateers threaten the surgical robotics industry’s vitality and growth.
ElectronicsWeekly.comRambus (RMBS), SK Hynix Amend Patent Licensing DealZacks.comRambus Inc. (RMBS – Snapshot Report) recently amended a patent licensing agreement with South Korean memory chip-making company, SK Hynix. The amendment extends the term o…Continue Reading ...
Federal Circuit Remands Because PTAB’s Claim Construction Was …
JD Supra (press release)
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administers post-grant patent proceedings under the America Invents Act. The PTAB has invalidated many patent claims, and has been referred to as a patent “death squad.” But a recent Federal Circuit decision …
Federal Circuit issues first reversal & remand of an inter partes review in …Lexology (registration)
In this case, there were European antecedents:
This dispute began in 2011 when Dr. Adolph’s German
company, AOT Systems GmbH (“AOT”), accused
TomTom of infringing EP 0 988 508 B1 (“EP ’508”), the
’836 patent’s European counterpart. In June 2011, representatives
of TomTom and Dr. Adolph met in person to
discuss the infringement allegations.
Yes, Teva is cited:
“[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic
to the patent (the patent claims and specification,
along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s
determination will amount solely to a determination of
law, and the Court of Appeals will review that construction
de novo.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135
S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (italics omitted). “On the other
hand, in considering extrinsic evidence, we review the
subsidiary factual findings underlying the district court’s
claim construction for clear error.” Vasudevan Software,
Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 676 (Fed. Cir.
Dr. Adolph argues the court incorrectly interpreted
the prosecution history, and therefore misconstrued the
phrase, and should replace “does not contain” maps with
“does not require” maps. Appellant’s Br. 51. Specifically,
Dr. Adolph contends that during prosecution he stated
that the invention described by claim 1 does not require
an initial map database, not that it does not contain one.
Id. Appellees counter the district court correctly found
prosecution history disclaimer when Dr. Adolph differentiated
his invention from Saito. See Appellee’s Br. 31.
The district court’s construction was based on the
prosecution history of the ’836 patent, but, as demonstrated
above, nowhere does Dr. Adolph actually assert
that the invention described by claim 1 does not contain
an initial map database. Because there is no “clear and
unambiguous” disclaimer that the tracking system does
not contain an initial map database, we reverse the
district court’s construction. Instead, there is a disclaimer
that the system does not require an initial map database.
Accordingly, we construe the phrase “destination tracking
system of at least one mobile unit” to mean “a destination
tracking system of at least one mobile unit that does not
require initial information relating to existing road networks.”
However, the prosecution history is part of the intrinsic
evidence, which this court reviews de novo. Enzo
Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., 780 F.3d 1149, 1153 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (“‘[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence
intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and
specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history),
the judge’s determination will amount solely to a
determination of law, and the Court of Appeals will
review that construction de novo.’”) (quoting Teva, 135 S.
Ct. at 841).
“Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
meanings to one of skill in the art when read in
the context of the specification and prosecution history.”
Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d 1362,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). “There are
only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee
sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,
or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the
claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, there is neither lexicography nor disavowal. Rather,
the ’836 patent uses the term “node” to mean, simply,
a “geographic location.” This construction is consistent
with the specification, which associates nodes with various
geographical locations, including origins and destinations,
and intersections. ’836 patent col. 7 ll. 41–44. The
district court’s construction is therefore reversed.
Continue Reading ...
Therefore, these terms should be construed to reflect
their plain and ordinary meaning: “storage device” means
“storage device.” It does not mean the claimed invention
must use a different storage device for each type of data,
as all three types of data can be stored on the same storage
device as described in claim 1.
Chattanooga Times Free PressPatent madness: Purdue granted 93 in 2014
Journal and Courier
“Strong interest from faculty, staff and student innovations and the new policies we have enacted to ease the disclosure and patent process have encouraged more patent filings and startup creation,” Chad Pittman, vice president of PRF’s Office of …
Purdue University a leader in patent output with 93South Bend Tribune
UA Makes List of Top 100 US Patent ProducersArkansas Business Online
2014 UK Patent Applications Up From 2013Mondaq News Alerts (registration)
Chattanooga Times Free Press -Inside Indiana Business (press release) -Purdue Exponent
all 32 news articles »
Minneapolis Star TribuneCharleston shooting leaves many around world shaking heads at enduring US …Minneapolis Star TribuneA 21-year-old white man, Dylann Storm Roof, is accused of fatally shooting nine people at a Bible study at the historically bla…Continue Reading ...
Corporate Counsel (registration)PTAB Allows Challenge to Investor’s Patent Strategy
Corporate Counsel (registration)
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has granted pharmaceutical company Celgene Corp. permission to file a motion for sanctions for abuse of process against an organization created by hedge fund manager Kyle Bass, a move that, if successful, could …
Federal Circuit Overturns Patent Trial And Appeal Board Decision On Claim …Mondaq News Alerts (registration)
An Overview, A Summary And An Update To The Latest Patent ReformJD Supra (press release)
Shouldering the burden: who has the pre- and post-institution burden to …Lexology (registration)
all 14 news articles »
In a discussion of Intuitive Surgical, Forbes gets into issues of –patent trolling– in the robotic surgery space.
One suit against Intuitive Surgical was brought by Alisanos LLC after Medicanica – a company that retained surgical robotics patents – transferred its patent portfolio to Alisanos in a “licensing arrangement.” That agreement ensured Medcanica received a portion of any licensing fees Alisanos could extract from other companies. Alisanos itself is owned by the Medici Portfolio, a company that offers patent “monetization” services. Medici states that its “fee for advisory services is contingent on making money for the client.” In short, Medici and Alisanos make money when they propound demands on other companies for alleged patent infringement.
Undoubtedly, there are inherent benefits to having companies that aid inventors seeking compensation when their intellectual property has been infringed upon. When, however, neither the company suing nor the company for whose benefit a suit is being brought are actually producing products or services, innovative companies are harmed without benefits being provided to the public. This practice of so-called patent privateering levies tangible costs for innovators globally. Just like pirates taxing commerce with unfair attacks on the high seas, innovative companies can be sapped of their capital and their vitality by patent litigation boutiques for hire. Often, the targets do not even know which company is launching an attack and who will ultimately benefit financially.
Freedom for companies to innovate without fear of frivolous patent lawsuits helps promote healthy competition and healthy patients. Competition in this marketplace benefits consumers by driving down costs of care, and a competitive marketplace is a healthy marketplace.
link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timsparapani/2015/06/19/surgical-robotics-and-the-attack-of-patent-trolls/Continue Reading ...
Federal Circuit Decreases Strength of Presumption Against Treatment of Patent …
JD Supra (press release)
Accused infringers challenging patent claims now have a new arrow in their quiver as a result of yesterday’s holding in Williamson v. Citrix Online, et al. In an en banc decision, the Federal Circuit replaced an earlier three-judge panel opinion and …
United States: Federal Circuit En Banc Decision In Williamson v. Citrix …Mondaq News Alerts (registration)
Federal Circuit gives challengers another tool to invalidate software-based …Lexology (registration)
Federal Circuit Weakens the Presumption against Means-Plus-Function Claim …The National Law Review
MarketWatchGilead Patent for its Sovaldi Hep C Drug is Rejected by Chinese Authorities
Wall Street Journal (blog)
In a setback for Gilead Sciences GILD -0.58%, Chinese authorities have rejected a patent for its Sovaldi hepatitis C treatment, according to one of the patient advocacy groups that filed a challenge. Although Gilead holds another patent on the drug …
China rejects Gilead’s patent for $1000-a-day drugMarketWatch
China rejects patent linked to Gilead hepatitis C drugReuters
Sovaldi Patent Rejected in China Following Third-Party ChallengeRegulatory Focus
TheStreet.com -FiercePharma -PharmaTimes
all 79 news articles »
The Patent & Trademark Office Has a Slanted View of the First Amendment
Cato Institute (blog)
The Patent and Trademark Office found that this trademark was disparaging to Asians, however, so refused to register it under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act. This provision says, among other things, that the PTO may refuse to register a trademark that “[c …
The good news was
that at last you could finally copy this …Is a national private copying exception that does not come with a “fair compensation” requirement – as is the case of the recently introduced exception for personal copies for private use pursuant to s28B of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‘CDPA’) – compatible with what is required under EU law, notably Article 5(2)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive?This very question was subject to an application for judicial review brought by BASCA, the Musicians’ Union, and UK Music against UK Government.After months of uncertainty, this morning Green J issued his judgment in BASCA v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. HOWEVER: while accepting claimants’ application, the judge did not expressly rule on the actual compatibility of UK exception for personal copies for private use with EU law, and envisaged the possibility that a reference is made to everybody’s favourite court, ie the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) [see para 21].The judge started by noting that Article 5(2)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive leaves Member States with a wide margin of discretion as to the scope of the resulting national private copying exceptions. As IPKat readers will know, there are indeed fairly diverging approaches at national levels as regards both the language of relevant exceptions and the “fair compensation” systems, with currently 21 out of 28 Member States having levies in place.Coming to the case of the UK, in this Member State the Secretary of State decided to introduce a narrow exception only for those purchasers of content who wish to copy for their own private use. The Government decided against any broader exception which would, for example, have permitted copying by family, friends or others within a social circle [so called “household exception”]. Because of the narrow scope of the UK exception, the Government also decided against introducing a “fair compensation” requirement by means of copyright levies, on consideration that these would be “inefficient, bureaucratic and unfair, and disadvantage people who pay for content” [see Katreport here, and also para 9 of the judgment]. This appeared possible under Recital 35 in the preamble to the InfoSoc Directive [whose meaning has been recently addressed by the CJEU in Copydan, here], which states that “[i]n certain situations where the prejudice to the rightholder would be minimal, no obligation for payment may arise.”In addition, UK Government provided two main justifications for not introducing a levy system alongside a private copying exception [see paras 12 ff]:
- The only relevant “harm” that would, in principle, need to be compensated for is the risk to rightholders of lost, duplicate sales. In the view of the Secretary of State, there was no automatic correlation between the desire to copy and lost sales; if the former was constrained the latter would not necessarily occur. As such, if a limited exception to copyright was introduced this would not impact upon duplicate sales.
- Sellers of content already price-in to the initial sale price – whether fully or in part – the fact that consumers treat content that they purchase as fair game when it comes to copying for personal use [so called “pricing-in principle”].
.. The bad news now is that
lack of compensation requirement
was not supported by sufficient evidenceAccording to the judge, the problem was that UK Government failed to provide adequate evidence as to the fact that no compensation was required because the harm to rightholders would be minimal.In other words, “the conclusions and interferences which have been drawn from the evidence the Secretary of State has relied upon are simply not warranted or justified by that evidence.” [so all the evidence-based policy advocated in recent years has not translated to actual evidence-based legislative outcomes? That’s shocking, says Merpel]Does this mean that s28B must be struck down? Not really … or not yet.According to the judge, whilst this may be “sufficient … to result in the decision [to adopt s28B CDPA] being rendered unlawful“, it does not invalidate this provision. In fact,“It is, in theory, possible for the Secretary of State to re-investigate the issue in order to address the evidential gap which now prevails. If he does this then one possible outcome would be that the gap that I have identified is plugged and the present decision becomes justified. Another outcome might be that following further investigation the gap in the evidence remains un-plugged in which case the Secretary of State could either repeal section 28B or introduce a compensation scheme. A third possibility is that the Secretary of State simply decides to introduce a compensation scheme without more.”What may happen now is that a reference to the CJEU is made, seeking further clarification about questions yet to be determined.So stay tuned for further developments!
The American Foundation for the Blind held their 19th Annual Helen Keller Achievement Awards event was held yesterday and Apple was one of the Honorees. Apple’s …Continue Reading ...
The case was neatly summarised here by Jeremy Speres who will also be joining the conversation. It should be another good one and you also are very welcome to take part over twitter using the #sandtondiscussion.
I must mention a word of caution though; speed tweeting during these sessions can easily lead to spelling mistakes so please be careful when using “etraction” and “use” or “prior use”, the auto-correct combination can truly be scandalous (as I found out just a moment ago)!
Last week’s discussion really was interesting. We were joined by none other then Julius Stobbs of Stobbs IP who provided some excellent insight into how UK practitioners are structuring their questionnaires and advertising to show/explain that shapes are not merely recognised as distinctive features but function as independent trade marks. John Ndlovu did a great job canvassing the tricky terrain between South African case law and that of Europe. Some highlights include:
Darn it! Slept through my alarm for #sandtondiscussion and instead dreamt I was there in person. oh well. Had good guava juice.
— goldenrail (@Ivoryblossum) June 15, 2015More and more decisions hinging on balancing tm monopoly v fair competition #sandtondiscussion
— Lita Qamata (@LQamata) June 15, 2015Same goes for limping trade marks- must be able to function independently and indicate origin #sandtondiscussion
— Maureen Thuto Makoko (@MaureenThuto) June 15, 2015
Continue Reading ...amusing myself watching @Reinhrdt going through biscuits in this #sandtondiscussion like brendan venter in a disciplinary hearing.
— Brother Nic (@nicrosslee) June 15, 2015