Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?m=201810
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:53:52+00:00

Document:
The oral argument of the week is from ZEROCLICK, LLC v. APPLE INC., No. 2017-1267 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2018). This oral argument was interesting in that the panel seemed a bit suspicious about Apple’s motives for asserting that the words “program” and “code” were nonce words. While the claims were not written in Beauregard format, some questioning from the panel — namely, Judge Taranto — suggested that it was suspicious that Apple was seeking a holding that would convert Beauregard claims into means plus function claims. Namely, if the court were to declare that “program” and “code” are nonce words, it would open up many Beauregard claims to 112¶6/112¶(f) attacks. The panel sounded leery of making such a significant change to the law.
 audit instructions for monitoring usage of the content display system to selectively display an image or images generated from a set of content data.
In an apparent adjustment to distributed processing, some practitioners now begin their Beauregard claims by reciting: “One or more computer-readable storage media . . .” or the like.
I thought this was an interesting article about Dr. James Allison, the cancer researcher who was recently named the recipient of the 2018 Nobel Prize for Medicine. [Link].
Do you think the patent system played a role, whether limited or major, in funding this research?
I reported previously about the new troll that arrived in Breckenridge over the summer. [Link]. Just a heads up, Mr. Troll might not be here, if you are coming out to Colorado this winter.
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.—Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
(c) Exceptions.—(1) The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
(d) Duration of Rights.—(1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.
(e) Transfer and Waiver.—(1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.
Would you prefer to see the troll statue stay or go?
The Breckenridge Town Council voted to let the troll sculpture stay in place at least until next spring. Hopefully, it will not mysteriously spontaneously combust in the middle of the night before then.
Federal Circuit oral argument(s) at the AIPLA Annual Meeting?
The annual meeting of the AIPLA seems to be held at the end of October each year. Unfortunately, this is just before the November oral arguments are held by the Federal Circuit. So, attorneys visiting D.C. for the annual meeting do not have the opportunity to sit in on oral arguments at the Federal Circuit.
Perhaps the AIPLA and Federal Circuit could arrange for an oral argument to be held as part of the annual meeting event and at the hotel where the meeting takes place. I think many visiting attorneys would be interested in attending.
Would you be interested in attending a Federal Circuit oral argument, if given the opportunity?
The oral argument of the week is from EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, LP v. WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, No. 2017-1548 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2018). The panel spent most of the hour long oral argument inquiring into the on-sale bar issue. Questioning got fast and furious at one point with the judges stepping on one another’s questions. Cases discussed included Medicines (en banc), Helsinn, and Plumtree.
What were the offers for sale of the product, and when were they made?
Did the offers require the product to be made by the patented method?
If the offers were accepted, was Equistar obligated to supply product made by the patented method?
Before the critical date, did Equistar decide to fill orders with the patented method?
Before the critical date, could orders be filled with products produced by the conventional process or was only product produced by the patented method available?
Was the product produced before the critical date by the patented method made to enable the patentee to make offers before the critical date?
The opinion is available [here].
I’m experimenting with a new poll plug-in. Please take the poll below.
Should claim drafting be put back in the patent bar exam?
I’m experimenting with a different poll plugin. Please take the poll below.
Can you see this poll question?
Oral argument of the day: AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
We recognize that the Board has subject matter expertise, but the Board cannot accept general conclusions about what is “basic knowledge” or “common sense” as a replacement for documentary evidence for core factual findings in a determination of patentability. Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1385-86. To hold otherwise would be to embark down a slippery slope which would permit the examining process to deviate from the well-established and time-honored requirement that rejections be supported by evidence. It would also ultimately “render the process of appellate review for substantial evidence on the record a meaningless exercise.” Id. at 1386 (citing Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. Co., 393 U.S. 87, 91-92, 89 S.Ct. 280, 21 L.Ed.2d 219 (1968)).
K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has set the date for oral argument in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. as December 4, 2018.
Last week the Court also granted leave for the Solicitor General to participate in the oral argument as amicus curiae. And, Teva Pharmaceuticals filed its brief, available [here]. Also, an interesting admixture of intellectual property professors have signed on to what appears to be the single an amicus brief in support of Teva.
You can see the briefs at the SCOTUS blog: [Link].
Oral argument of the day: Sirona Dental Systems v. Institut Strauman AG, et al.
The oral argument of the day is from SIRONA DENTAL SYS. v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018). I thought this oral argument was interesting for the comments by Judge Moore about the property rights conveyed by a patent and the potential due process rights of the patentee. It is also interesting for her comments about the rights of a patent challenger in an IPR to be heard with respect to a Board’s proposed combination of references applied to an amended claim (perhaps about 7/9ths through the oral argument). Note that the oral argument took place in February of 2018 — before the Oil States decision by the Supreme Court.
Sorry, I don’t have time to splice out the particular sound bites on this one.
You are currently browsing the 717 Madison Place blog archives for October, 2018.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.