Source: http://toyosu.com/ura2006.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:48:14+00:00

Document:
・Julie Creswell "So small a Town, So Many Patent Suits" New York Times (September 24, 2006).
・35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.
(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.
(2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.
・Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 80 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
・Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 72 USPQ2d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
・"USPTO to Give Patent Filers Accelerated Review Option: Proposal would guarantee final decision in 12 months" USPTO (June 26, 2006).
・"Changes to Practice for Petitions in Patent Applications To Make Special and for Accelerated Examination." 71 Fed. Reg. 36323 (June 26, 2006).
・"Discontinuation of the Online European Patent Register and Online Public File Inspection services"
・KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., cert. granted (U.S. 2006).
・Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., Nos.04-607 (U.S. 2006).
・Abbott Laboratories v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nos. 05-1433 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
・"'Nonprecedential' Federal Circuit Opinions May be Citable." IPO DAILY NEWS (JUNE 20, 2006).
・eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C. 05-130 (U.S. 1006).
・Brenda Sandburg, "You may not have a choice. Trolling for Dollars," The Recorder (July 30, 2001).
・Refac Int'l, Ltd. v. Lotus Dev. Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 38 USPQ2d 1665 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
・Michael Orey, "Intellectual Ventures: Focus on Patents." BusinessWeek (July 3, 2006).
...With its vast hoard of patents, IV could turn out to be the world's biggest patent troll. It could have the power, at least in theory, to sue a vast swath of Corporate America, becoming a force that smothers rather than nurtures innovation.
・Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 78 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir.　2006), Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied, 453 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir., June 28, 2006).
...We agree with the district court that the '119 application and the figures 3 and 4 associated with it, was "publicly accessible," and thus that it was a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).　The "printed publication" provision of § 102(b) "was designed to prevent withdrawal by an inventor . . . of that which was already in the possession of the public."　In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981).　Whether a given reference is a "printed publication" depends on whether it was "publicly accessible" during the prior period. Id.
...Controlling in our determination whether the '119 application was "publicly accessible" is our predecessor court's decision in In re Wyer. In that case, an Australian patent application was laid open for public inspection and an abstract of the application was published by the Australian Patent Office more than two years before the filing date of the corresponding U.S. patent application at issue in that case. Id. at 222. The existence of a published abstract that would have allowed one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence to locate the foreign patent application and the fact that the application was classified and indexed in the patent office, were central to the Wyer court's conclusion that the application was "publicly accessible." The court noted, "given that there is no genuine issue as to whether the application was properly classified, indexed, or abstracted, we are convinced that the contents of the application were sufficiently accessible to the public and to persons skilled in the pertinent art to qualify as a 'printed publication.'" Id. at 226.
In this case, the published '119 patent is even more of a roadmap to the application file than the abstract was in Wyer. As Ground Heaters observed, the '119 patent states that a possible use of the claimed invention is to thaw frozen ground by circulating heated liquid through flexible hoses -- the same use contemplated by the methods claimed in the patents in suit. Given such a pertinent disclosure, we conclude that no reasonable trier of fact could find that a person of ordinary skill in the art interested in the subject matter of the patents in suit and exercising reasonable diligence could not locate the '119 application, including figures 3 and 4 contained therein. n3 Indeed, it would be inconsistent to determine that one skilled in the art could have located a foreign patent application based on information in a published abstract, as our predecessor court found in In re Wyer, but not here, where there was an issued patent. After all, an issued patent is presumably more informative of the content of its application file than a mere abstract of the patent application. Moreover, there is no genuine dispute that the '119 patent was classified and indexed, as the abstract was in Wyer, further providing the roadmap that would have allowed one skilled in the art to locate the '119 application. Because no reasonable trier of fact could have found that the '119 patent did not provide sufficient information to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to locate the '119 application, including the figures contained therein, we agree with the district court and conclude that that application was "publicly accessible," and hence an invalidating § 102(b) prior art reference.
・"Drawings on File in Canadian Patent Office Were Prior Art "Printed Publications" in U.S." IPO daily news (April 21, 2006).
Copyright (C) Yasushi Toyosu, 2001-2007. All rights reserved.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102