Source: http://toyosu.com/ura1999C.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:28:59+00:00

Document:
!!!This is an Unpublished Hearsay!!!
・Harvard Uses Cybersquatting Law for Infringement Suit: University seeks injunction, may pursue damages later",　E-Commerce Law Weekly (December 30, 1999).
・President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Michael Rhys, No. 99CV12489RCL, (D. Mass., filed 12/6/99).
・Shannon P. Duffy, "Prior Markman Rulings in Patent Case Can be Relitigated if Case Settles on Appeal", The Legal Intelligencer (December 28, 1999).
・Hudson, Kris, "Boulder, Colo., Inventor Wins Patent Suit over Wrap-Around Flashlight" Daily Camera -Boulder (Dec. 9, 1999).
・Accola, John, "Inventor of light prevails in suit lost patent protection costs lawyer $7 million." Denver Rocky Mountain News (Dec. 9, 1999).
・Associated Press, "Inventor wins $7 million in patent case", Denver Post (Dec. 2, 1999).
・Dan Fishman, "7M PATENT MALPRACTICE AWARD - SCARY STUFF!", Deja.com misc.int-property (Dec. 9, 1999).
・Dugie Standeford, "First Electronic Utility Patent Application Filed in Pilot Project", IP Law Weekly (December 28, 1999).
・"Gamut Trading Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission", 97-1414 (Fed. Cir. 12/22/1999).
Until the Supreme Court's decision in A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U.S. 689 (1923), the prevailing rule in the United States was that the authorized sale of a validly trademarked product, anywhere in the world, exhausted the trademark's exclusionary right; thus the holder of the corresponding registered United States trademark was believed to have no right to bar the importation and sale of authentically marked foreign goods. However, in the Bourjois case the Court recognized the territorial boundaries of trademarks, stressing that the reputation and goodwill of the holder of the corresponding United States mark warrants protection against unauthorized importation of goods bearing the same mark, although the mark was validly affixed in the foreign country. In Bourjois the foreign-origin goods were produced by an unrelated commercial entity and imported by a third person, although the goods themselves were related in that the United States trademark owner bought its materials from the foreign producer. See Id. at 692.
...Since the Bourjois decision, the regional circuits and the Federal Circuit have drawn a variety of distinctions in applying gray market jurisprudence, primarily in consideration of whether the foreign source of the trademarked goods and the United States trademark holder are related commercial entities and whether the imported goods bearing the foreign mark are the same as (or not materially different from) the goods that are sold under the United States trademark, applying a standard of materiality suitable to considerations of consumer protection and support for the integrity of the trademarks of domestic purveyors, all with due consideration to the territorial nature of registered trademarks in the context of international trade.
Gamut directs our attention to cases in which the courts have refused to exclude gray market goods. For example, in NEC Electronics v. CAL Circuit Abco, 810 F.2d 1506, 1 USPQ2d 2056 (9th Cir. 1987) the court held that the importation of genuine NEC computer chips by the defendant, an entity unrelated to any NEC company, did not constitute infringement of the United States "NEC" trademark when there was no material difference between the NEC product imported by the defendant and the NEC product imported by the NEC United States subsidiary; the court distinguished Bourjois on the ground that in Bourjois the United States trademark owner could not control the quality of the unaffiliated foreign producer's goods, whereas when the companies are commonly controlled there is a reasonable assurance of similar quality. Id. at 1510, 1 USPQ2d at 2059.
A similar refusal to exclude was reached in Weil Ceramics & Glass, Inc. v. Dash, 878 F.2d 659, 11 USPQ2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1989), wherein the court held that the United States trademark "Lladro" was not infringed by importation and sale of authentic "Lladro" figurines by one other than the trademark holder. The court reasoned that there is no need to protect the consumer against confusion when the goods imported by the defendant are identical to the goods imported by the United States trademark holder. Id. at 672, 11 USPQ2d at 1012. The court also reasoned that when the foreign manufacturer and the United States trademark holder are related companies, there is no need to protect the domestic company's investment in goodwill based on the quality of the trademarked goods, for the foreign manufacturer has control over their quality and the goods (porcelain figurines) are unchanged from their original quality.
However, when there are material differences between the domestic product and the foreign product bearing the same mark, most of the courts that have considered the issue have excluded the gray goods, even when the holders of the domestic and foreign trademarks are related companies, on grounds of both safeguarding the goodwill of the domestic enterprise, and protecting consumers from confusion or deception as to the quality and nature of the product bearing the mark. Thus in Societe des Produits Nestle v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633, 25 USPQ2d 1256 (1st Cir. 1992) the court held that the foreign owner of the United States trademark "Perugina" and its Puerto Rican subsidiary that imported Italian-made "Perugina" chocolate could prevent the importation of "Perugina" chocolate made under license in Venezuela, because the product is materially different in taste; the court referred to the likelihood of consumer confusion and loss of goodwill and integrity of the mark.
Similarly in Original Appalachian Artworks v. Granada Electronics, 816 F.2d 68, 73, 2 USPQ2d 1343, 1346 (2d Cir. 1987) the court held that the United States owner of the "Cabbage Patch" mark can prevent importation of "Cabbage Patch" dolls that were made and sold abroad under license from the United States owner, on the ground that the foreign dolls were materially different from the dolls authorized for sale in the United States because their instructions and adoption papers were in the Spanish language. See also Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading USA, Co., 112 F.3d 1296, 42 USPQ2d 1801 (5th Cir. 1997) (foreign owner of United States trademark and domestic distributor can prevent the importation of authentic "Herend" porcelain that is materially different in color, pattern, or shape from the "Herend" porcelain made for sale in the United States); Lever Brothers Co. v. United States, 981 F.2d 1330, 25 USPQ2d 1579 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (in action against Customs Service, "Sunlight" brand dishwashing liquid sold in Great Britain by Lever-UK was required to be excluded because materially different from the "Sunlight" dishwashing liquid sold in the United States by Lever-US; third party importation was an act of trademark infringement).
These decisions implement the reasoning that the consuming public, associating a trademark with goods having certain characteristics, would be likely to be confused or deceived by goods bearing the same mark but having materially different characteristics; this confusion or deception would also erode the goodwill achieved by the United States trademark holder's business. Thus the basic question in gray market cases concerning goods of foreign origin is not whether the mark was validly affixed, but whether there are differences between the foreign and domestic product and if so whether the differences are material.
・"Used Kubota Tractors Made for Japanese Market Infringe Kubota Trademark When Imported Into U.S.", IPO DAILY NEWS (DECEMBER 29, 1999).
"attachment means for removably securing said air inlet cover to said housing; and said cover including means for increasing the pressure developed by said vacuum-blower during operation as a blower when air is being supplied to said impeller through said aperture cover."
...The doctrine of claim differentiation can shed light on the proper scope to be afforded a claim limitation, for "[t]here is presumed to be a difference in meaning and scope when different words or phrases are used in separate claims. To the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous, the doctrine of claim differentiation states the presumption that the difference between claims is significant." Tandon Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023, 4 USPQ2d 1283, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 1987). However, the doctrine of claim differentiation does not serve to broaden claims beyond their meaning in light of the specification, see Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1480, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and does not override clear statements of scope in the specification and the prosecution history. These documents require that clause  be construed to mean that the restriction ring is permanently affixed to and included as part of the cover. On this construction, the claims can not be literally infringed by a device having a separate restriction ring that is inserted and removed as a separate part.
...In patent claims, "including" is normally a comprehensive term, used in a way similar to "having" or "comprising." JOHN LANDIS, MECHANICS OF PATENT CLAIM DRAFTING, section 7. In a claim element, use of the forms "comprising," "having," or "including," commonly means that whatever element is comprised, had, or included, is not necessarily the only element encompassed by the subject of the clause that contains that verb.
...Thus, the choice of the word "including" was appropriate to give the applicant the broad coverage sought and deserved for his original concept.
...The court mistakenly takes the described embodiment to be unique, inferring that the specification teaches that embodiment alone. The court notes that "[t]he specification shows only a structure whereby cover and ring are permanently attached to each other. This was not simply the preferred embodiment; it was the only embodiment." On the contrary, the specification does not claim such uniqueness and describes another embodiment, specifically one in which the flow restriction ring is not permanently attached to the cover. Everywhere the word "embodiment" is used to denote what is described in the specification of the '528 patent, it is used in the phrase "a preferred embodiment."（強調は原文） More important, the inventor contrasts the preferred embodiment not, as the court thinks, with disadvantageous prior art, but rather with a less-preferred embodiment of the invention at hand: a blower with a replaceable, i.e., non-attached, ring. As the inventor states, the method of construction of the preferred embodiment, in which the flow restriction ring is indeed built into, and thus "part of," the air inlet cover, is advantageous in that "it automatically restricts the size of air inlet . . . without having the operator manually insert or remove a replaceable ring." '528 patent, col. 7, ll.6-12. But as noted above, there is no prior art for the flow restriction ring, so that such a ring in any form was part of the invention. In particular, an owner-replaceable ring, i.e., one not attached, was clearly part of the invention, and is described by element  of claim 16 of the '528 patent. In short, an "included" but definitely not "attached" flow restriction ring is a feature of an embodiment of the invention, but not the preferred embodiment.
・Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 53 USPQ2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 12/10/99).
・"Context of Claims and Specification Dictate Meaning of Claim Term 'Including'", 59 PTJC 378 (December 17, 1999).
・Tom Leffert, "Toro v. White Consolidated (Fed. Cir. No. 98-1334; 12/10/99)", Law News Network's Discussion Groups: Intellectual Property (Dec. 28, 1999).
・K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 52 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
an upper shoe portion and a lower frame portion . . .
a non-rigid shoe portion adapted to receive and substantially enclose the entire foot of the skater . . .
a base portion, . . .
said non-rigid shoe portion being permanently affixed to said base portion at least at said toe area and said heel area for substantially preventing movement therebetween at least in a horizontal plane, wherein at least a portion of said non-rigid shoe portion extends continuously from said base portion to at least the top of said ankle support cuff.
・Federal Register Notice "Revised Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112, para. 1 'Written Description' Requirement; Request for Comments", 64 Fed. Reg. 71427-71440 (December 21, 1999).
・Federal Register Notice- "Revised Utility Examination Guidelines; Request for Comments", 64 Fed. Reg. 71440-71442 (December 21, 1999).
・"DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT PROGRAM", U.S. PTO (August 15, 1999).
・"DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT PROGRAM" (February 10, 1998).
・"America Online, Netscape Can Continue to Use Their Bit-Mapping Frame Processing Technology", IP Law Weekly (December 22, 1999).
・Wang Lab., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377, 53 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 12/17/1999).
・"Patent Covers Character-Based Online System, Not Bit-Mapped System" 59 PTCJ 404 (Dec. 24, 1999).
・Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
・"USPTO TO REEXAMINE Y2K PATENT", IPO Daily News (Dec. 22, 1999).
・Gregory Aharonian, "PTO to reexamine Dickens/Boeing Y2K patent", Internet Patent News Service (Dec. 22, 1999).
・"Commissioner's Decision to Reexamine Y2K Patent", IPO (Dec. 22, 1999).
・米国特許第5,806,063号"Date Formatting and Sorting for Dates Spanning the Turn of the Century"
・"Update on the Alleged Dickens 2000 Patent"
35 U.S.C. 303 Determination of issue by Commissioner.
(a) Within three months following the filing of a request for reexamination under the provisions of section 302 of this title, the Commissioner will determine whether a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned is raised by the request, with or without consideration of other patents or printed publications. On his own initiative, and any time, the Commissioner may determine whether a substantial new question of patentability is raised by patents and publications discovered by him or cited under the provisions of section 301 of this title.
1.520 Reexamination at the initiative of the Commissioner.
The Commissioner, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, may determine whether or not a substantial new question of patentability is raised by patents or printed publications which have been discovered by the Commissioner or which have been brought to the Commissioner's attention even though no request for reexamination has been filed in accordance with § 1.510. The Commissioner may initiate reexamination without a request for reexamination pursuant to § 1.510. Normally requests from outside the Patent and Trademark Office that the Commissioner undertake reexamination on his own initiative will not be considered. Any determination to initiate reexamination under this section will become a part of the official file of the patent and will be given or mailed to the patent owner at the address as provided for in § 1.33(c).
・Dugie Standeford, "PTO Commissioner Orders Reexamination Of Controversial Y2K Fix Patent: Dickinson calls for review upon discovery of new information.", IP Law Weekly (January 6, 2000).
・"SECURE AND CONFIDENTIAL ACCESS TO PATENT APPLICATION STATUS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET", U.S. PTO, PRESS RELEASE #99-50 (December 20, 1999).
・TERESA RIORDAN, "Patents Considered Vital to Thrive on the Internet"(December 20, 1999).
・Steven P. Fallon of Greer, Burns & Crain, "Will 35 U.S.C. 101 Harm Your Golf Handicap?", Intellectual Property Today (August 1998).
・Fred M. Greguras of Fenwick & West, "Intellectual Property and Licensing Issues", Intellectual Property Today (August 1998).
・"Dickinson Urges IP Community to Press Congress for More PTO Dollars", IP Law Weekly (December 10, 1999).
・CARL S. KAPLAN, "Copyright Decision Threatens Freedom to Link." CYBER LAW JOURNAL, The New York Times (December 10, 1999).
・BOB TEDESCHI, "Ticketmaster Sues Again Over Links." CYBER LAW JOURNAL, The New York Times (August 10, 1999).
・CARL S. KAPLAN, "Is Linking Always Legal? The Experts Aren't Sure." CYBER LAW JOURNAL, The New York Times (August 6, 1999).
・"Web Operator Contributorily Infringed By Providing Address for Browsers" 59 PTCJ 405 (Dec. 24, 1999).
・Intellectual Reserve Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry Inc., No. 2:99-CV-808C (D. Utah, 12/6/99).
・Midwest Industries Inc. v. Karavan Trailers Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999), cert. denied (U.S. 1999).
・"Rules and Regulations", Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 232, P. 67774 (December 3, 1999).
・"Federal Register Notice re: Revision of Patent and Trademark Fees for FY 2000" USPTO (Dec. 3, 1999).
・United States Metal Refining Company v. Lemelson, CV99-02216 (Reno 1999).
・Gregory Aharonian, "Amazon wins injunction against Barnes & Noble", Internet Patent News Service (Dec. 2, 1999).
・Amazon.com Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com Inc., No. C99-1695P (W.D. Wash. filed October 21, 1999, 12/1/1999).
・Dugie Standeford, "Court Enjoins barnesandnoble.com From Using '1-Click' Technology: The public is served if Express Lane is shut down and Amazon.com is allowed to innovate", E-Commerce Law Weekly (December 8, 1999).
・AP, "Amazon Lawsuit Gets Injunction" Findlaw Legal News (Reuter) (Dec. 3, 1999).
・Brunsvold, Brian G., O'Reilley, Dennis, "Drafting Patent License Agreements 4th Edition", BNA Books (September 1998).
・Mike Godwin, "Clinton Administration Shares Draft Of Crypto-Export Policy Changes: Critics say new rules do not go far enough", E-Commerce Law Weekly (December 1, 1999).
・"PRESIDENT SIGNS LANDMARK PATENT REFORM/TRADEMARK CYBERPIRACY　LEGISLATION!!", IPO Daily News (Nov. 30, 1999).
・John Schwartz, "Satellite TV Carriers To Get Local Stations: New Federal Law Ends Restriction", Washington Post; Page E04 (November 30, 1999).
・"Justices to review dispute over patent-infringement lawyer fees", FindLaw Legal News, WASHINGTON -AP (Nov. 30, 1999).
・Laurie Asseo, "Court Reviews Lawyer Fees Dispute", Washingtonpost, Associated Press (Nov. 29, 1999).
・Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 99-502 (U.S. 1999).
・Ohio Cellular Products Corp. v. Adams USA, Inc., 175 F.3d 1343, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481(Fed. Cir. 04/23/1999).
・"LINN CONFIRMED BY SENATE FOR FEDERAL CIRCUIT" IPO DAILY NEWS? (Nov. 23, 1999).
・Gregory Aharonian, "Linux gurus debate impact of crappy patent on Linux", Internet Patent News Service (Nov. 22, 1999).
・Susan Brown, "No Joy In Mudville: The Federal Circuit Is Swinging For The Fences After Zurko: Will The Court Get Fanned?", IP Worldwide (Oct. 1999).
・STEVE LOHR, "Microsoft Faces a Class Action on 'Monopoly'", The New York TImes (November 22, 1999).
・Reuters, "Jury awards Lucent $9.6 mln in infringement damages", FindLaw Legal News (Nov. 18, 1999).
・Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 94 F. Supp.2d 477, 46 USPQ2d 1874 (E.D. Va. 10/23/1998).
・Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 94 F. Supp.2d 537 (E.D. Va. 1998).
・Dugie Standeford, "Senate Oks Spending Bill With Satellite TV, Internet, and Anti-Cybersquatting Provisions", E-Commerce Law Weekly (November 23, 1999).
・AP, "Showdown Over Internet Broadcasting" FindLaw Legal News (Nov. 12, 1999).
・AP, "UC Regents Approve Genentech Settlement", FindLaw Legal News (Nov. 19, 1999).
・Reuters, "Genentech, university near patent settlement - WSJ", FindLaw Legal News (Nov. 16, 1999).
・AP, "Report: Genentech to pay $200 million patent dispute settlement", San Francisco Gate (November 16, 1999).
・"PATENT REFORM BILL PASSES AFTER 4 YEARS !!!!!!!!!!", IPO Daily News (Nov. 22, 1999).
・"CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1554, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMMUNICATIONS OMNIBUS REFORM ACT OF 1999 (House of Representatives - November 09, 1999)"
・THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, "Judge Says Time Is Right for Microsoft Settlement" New York Times (November 23, 1999).
・Dahlia Lithwick, "Richard Posner- A human Pentium processor has been assigned to settle the Microsoft case.", Slate MSN (Nov. 23, 1999).
・"HOUSE PASSES PATENT REFORM AS PART OF OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL!!!", IPO Daily News (Nov. 19, 1999).
・BARNABY J. FEDER, "Genentech to Settle Patent Dispute Over Growth Hormones", New York Times (Nov. 17, 1999).
・Brenda Sandburg, "Senate Mulls Patent, Net Name Reform", The Recorder/Cal Law (November 18, 1999).
・"Legislation: House Agrees to Conference Report On Patents, Cyberpiracy, and Satellite-TV", BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, Volume 59 Number 1449 (November 11, 1999).
・"Patent on Long-Distance Billing Method Is Infringed But Invalid for Anticipation", BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, Page 65, Volume 59 Number 1449 (November 11, 1999).
・Jim Davis, "Apple wins round in iMac knockoff suit", CNET News.com (November 8, 1999).
・United States v. Microsoft (Trial) Court's Findings of Fact (11/5/99).
・"'Monopoly' Champ? Now play 'Antitrust': Judge Rules Microsoft Is a Monopoly", FindLaw News (Nov. 9, 1999).
・STEVE LOHR, "A Clear-Cut Finding in Blunt Language: A Legal Structure for the Endgame.", New York Times (Nov. 6, 1999).
・Karen Donovan, "U.S. v. Microsoft: Findings of Fact: Obscure law may complicate Microsoft appeal", New York Law Journal (November 9, 1999).
...The [Antitrust] Expediting Act will allow the Justice Department to seek immediate review at the U.S. Supreme Court, vaulting over sympathetic judges from the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., who ruled in Microsoft's favor in June 1998.
・Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 98-1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
"Intergraph has not shown a substantial likelihood of success in establishing that Intel violated antitrust laws in its actions with respect to Intergraph or that Intel agreed by contract to provide the benefits contained in the injunction"
・"Intel wins appeal of injunction in Intergraph case" (REUTERS) MSN (Nov. 5, 1999).
・Alan Boyle, "Report calls for national 'e-archive': National Research Council calls for a digital version of the Library of Congress. Don't count on it right away as copyright issues will certainly interfere." MSNBC (November 4, 1999).
・Gregory Aharonian, "Y2K patent being asserted, surprising computer consultants", Internet Patent News Service (November 2, 1999).
・Erich Luening, "Firms may face fees for using patented Y2K fix", CNET News.com (November 1, 1999).
・Tinabeth Burton, " Will Submarine Patents Torpedo Y2K Remediation Efforts?", ITAA's Year 2000 Outlook, Volume 4, No. 37, Information Technology Association of America, Arlington, VA (October 29, 1999).
・Gregory Aharonian, "Y2K patent stirs controversy - someone even sends in prior art", Internet Patent News Service (November 5, 1999).
・Ritchenya A. Shepherd, "Y2K Fixers Are Outraged by Patent: Payment Demand Programmer seeks royalties for 'windowing,' but his rivals say it preceded patent", The National Law Journal (December 8, 1999).
・"PATENT REFORM", IPO Daily News (Oct. 4, 1999).
・"Senate Judiciary Panel Clears Bills To Reform Patent Law, Adjust PTO Fees" 59 PTCJ 4 (November 4, 1999).
・"IP SUITS -- Compiled from News Wire Reports:", IPO Daily News (Nov. 4, 1999).
・AT&T Corp. v Excel Communs., Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 50 USPQ2d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
・"PATENT REFORM BILL MOVES AHEAD IN SENATE", IPO Daily News (Nov. 3, 1999).
・"Q. Todd Dickinson and Anne Chasser Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee", USPTO (Nov. 3, 1999).
・Gregory Aharonian, "19991029　Are PTO trademark operations as mismanaged as patent operations?", Internet Patent-News (Oct. 27, 1999).
・"PATENT REFORM BILLS HELD OVER ", "SENATE PATENT BILL ON IPO WEB SITE", "SENATE AND HOUSE BILLS SIMILAR", IPO Daily News (Oct. 28, 1999).
・S. 1798 "American Inventors Protection Act of 1999"
・Gregory Aharonian, "19991027　Latest news on patent reform manipulations in the Senate", Internet Patent-News (Oct. 27, 1999).
・"PATENT REFORM LEGISLATION", IPO Daily News (Oct. 28, 1999).
・"IP SUITS -- Compiled from News Wire Reports", IPO Daily News (Oct. 27, 1999).
・"PATENT REFORM LEGISLATION", IPO Daily News (Oct. 27, 1999).
・Gregory Aharonian, "PATNEWS: Alert!!! Looks like Senate taking up patent reform" Internet Patent News Service (Oct. 26, 1999).
・Jenna Greene, "Pundit or Pest? : Author of popular e-mail newsletter riles patent agency", Legal Times (October 25, 1999).
・"FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOMINEES CLEAR COMMITTEE" IPO Daily News (Oct. 25, 1999).
・TERESA RIORDAN, "New Books on Patent Data and Intellectual Property" New York Times (Oct. 25, 1999).
・"Priceline.com Sues Microsoft" BLOOMBERG NEWS, New York Times (Oct. 14, 1999).
・Priceline.com v. Microsoft, No. 99-CV-1991 AWT (D. Conn. filed October 13, 1999).
・"Licensing, it's what's inside: Intel Claims Major Win In Long Legal Battle With Intergraph" Dow Jones, FindLaw Legal Backgrounds (Oct. 13, 1999).
・"Intel Claims Major Win In Long Legal Battle With Intergraph" Dow Jones Business News -- dowjones.com (October 12, 1999).
・"Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Is Issued for Patent Business Goals" 58 PTCJ 638 (Oct. 7, 1999).
・"PTO PROPOSES RULE CHANGES" IPO Daily News (Oct. 8, 1999).
・"Notice of Proposed Rulemaking-Changes To Implement the Patent Business Goals" USPTO (Oct. 6, 1999).
・Federal Register: October 4, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 191), "Proposed Rules", Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, Page 53771-53845.
・63 Fed. Reg. 53497 (56 PTCJ 647, 655, 10/8/98).
・"SUPREME COURT DENIES REVIEW OF BUSINESS METHOD PATENT CASE.", IPO Daily News (Oct. 13, 1999).
・Excel Communications Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 99-95, review denied (U.S. 1999).
・"Supreme Court Petitions for Certiorari Review Denied in Patent Cases", 58 PTCJ 790 (October 14, 1999).
"The importance of the question presented in this certiorari petition makes it appropriate to reiterate the fact that the denial of the petition does not constitute a ruling on the merits."
Ferag AG v. Quipp Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 1566, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1514-15 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1383, 51 USPQ2d 1055, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
If this subject matter anticipates the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious, the invention itself must also have been "ready for patenting" at the time of the offer or sale -e.g., the invention must have been reduced to practice or embodied in "drawings or other descriptions . . . that [are] sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention."
Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 119 S. Ct. 304, 311, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998).
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d 1573, 1580, 12 USPQ2d 1026, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1550, 35 USPQ2d 1065, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
・Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg.Michigan Inc., No. 99-1011 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
・WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. SAMARA BROTHERS, INC., 99-150 (CERTIORARI GRANTED 10/04/1999).
・Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers Inc., No. 99-150 (2d Cir. 10/4/1999).
・"Trade Dress Case Will Be Reviewed on Proof Of Inherently Distinctive Product Designs", 58 PTCJ 638 (October 7, 1999).
・Two Pesos Inc. v. Taco Cabana Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 23 USPQ2d 1081(1992).
・"Clowns in the Supreme Court? Not! :High Court Rejects Ringling Bros. Appeal In Trademark Case -Dow Jones" FindLaw LEGAL GROUNDS (October 5, 1999).
・"High Court Rejects Ringling Bros. Appeal In Trademark Case" Dow Jones Newswires (October 5, 1999).
・Ringling Bros-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows Inc. v. Utah Division of Travel Development 170 F.3d 449, 50 USPQ2d 1065 (4th Cir. 1999)(57 PTCJ 414, 3/25/99),. review denied (1999).
・RINGLING BROS.-BARNUM, ETC. V. UT DIV. OF TRAVEL DEVEL., 98-2004 (certiorari denied 10/04/1999).
・[FINDLAW_NEWS] FindLaw Legal Grounds (October 1, 1999).
"Cryptic ruling? Time to reconsider: Appeals Court to Reconsider Encryption Ruling Against White House" Dow Jones.
・Brenda Sandburg, "9th Circuit Set to Review Encryption Case En Banc.", The Recorder/Cal Law (October 1, 1999).
Copyright (C) Yasushi Toyosu, 1999-2006. All rights reserved.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.