Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2015/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:23:23+00:00

Document:
(Fed. Cir. 1991), citing Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus.
Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
to the "urban legend" that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 285.”).
art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v.
the specification.” Id. at 1313.
not rise to the level of a clear and unmistakable disavowal.
of “chambers” requires some sort of an enclosure.
intended. See Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp.
Note published US application 20150210970, titled ARRANGEMENT OF A PHOTOBIOREACTOR OR A MICROBIOLOGICAL REACTOR .
Dunlap Codding has a recent post titled The Cold Reality of Our Favorite Frozen Treat Lawsuits mentioning certain trademark disputes in the ice cream biz.
BDI challenges each of these determinations on appeal.
Design patents are presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C.
256 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Hupp v.
Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 1461 (Fed. Cir.
fact-finder could find otherwise. See SRAM Corp. v.
AD-II Eng’g, Inc., 465 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
consonant with [the] claimed design.” 730 F.3d at 1314.
designs as part of the proper obviousness determination.
obviousness purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Id.
1244558, at *6; see also id. at *7.
having fuzzy material at the foot opening. See Durling v.
Smartflash LLC and Smartflash Technologies Ltd.
29, 2013, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
Inc. (“Google”) on May 7, 2014 and Amazon.com, Inc.
patent that issued on August 5, 2014, U.S. Patent No.
access to data via payment information.
Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
patents” issued that may not be valid. 157 Cong. Rec.
S1379 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
process is “to provide a cost-efficient alternative to litigation”).
factors, such as unclean hands, in its analysis.
prior to any appeal from a PTAB final determination.
efficient not to stay the case.
Here, all four factors weigh against a stay in this case.
abuse its discretion when it denied Apple’s motion to stay.
totality of the factors weigh in favor of a stay.
law. Thus, not obvious, obvious, not obvious.
ry verdict was supported by substantial evidence.
and therefore not within the scope of the prior art.
reference is analogous art is a question of fact.
Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
problem the inventor is trying to solve. Id.
the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit analyzed preemption in two steps. First, the court determined “whether [the claim] falls within the subject matter of copyright.” Second, “the cause of action is examined to determine if it protects rights that are ‘equivalent’ to any of the exclusive rights of a federal copyright.” The Fifth Circuit joined other circuit courts (including the First, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits) in finding that “state law claims based on ideas fixed in tangible media are preempted by § 301(a).” It found that the Spear Marketing’s claims were within this scope of preemption because: 1) computer software is a tangible medium; and 2) input/output data from VaultWorks is a trade secret. When addressing the second prong, the court found that the allegations of copying, communicating, and transmitting were equivalent to the reproduction and distribution rights under Copyright Law.
One wonders if the trend of courts requiring greater specificity in trade secrets (which might be advanced by fixing the ideas in tangible media), will run afoul of preemption?
It’s a nice gesture on Google’s part, but will two patents make a big difference for the startups? Not really. One reason is the patents Google is giving out are mostly defanged. They come with licensing terms that prevent the new startup owners from invoking them against certain companies and, more broadly, a patent can only be used for defensive purposes – otherwise the startup will have to give it back to Google.
Ultimately, though, receiving a Google patent will not change the destiny of any individual startup. History shows that successful startups – think Uber or Pinterest or AirBnb – get where they are by focusing on innovation and execution, not by mastering patent strategy.
The real significance of the Google Patent Starter Program is instead more subtle, and should be seen against the backdrop of other moves Google is undertaking to change the economic incentives that have made patents such a problem for the tech sector in the first place.
One other such move came in April when Google opened a temporary patent portal in April that let sellers ask if the company wanted to buy their assets. According to Kurt Brasch, a lawyer at Google, the program was a big success. In a phone interview, he wouldn’t provide many details, but did say the company bought numerous patents at purchase prices ranging from $3000 to $250,000.
He suggests that patent reform was bipartisan. He omits that the opposition to patent reform is also bipartisan.
That it is breaking down is a sign of the success of an otherwise very dubious public relations campaign seeking to cast the idea of patent reform as a giveaway to corporate interests and the Chinese.
One issue is that Goodlatte's "loser pays" provision is a problem for small inventors and universities, not so much of a problem for big companies, and nothing to do with the Chinese. One can look at the recent Columbia University / Illumina matter. Was Columbia University a troll who should pay Illumina's legal fees because Columbia lost?
of DNA science and of legal obviousness.
for infringement of five DNA sequencing patents. Inter partes reviews followed.
Foundation Grant Announcement.” Reply Br. 6–7.
believe their simultaneous inventions were patentable.
whole weighs only modestly in favor of obviousness.
invention” as reflected in a 2003 presentation.
claimed invention. Appellee’s Br. 57.
would find an invention obvious. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v.
Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art.”).
higher level of knowledge and ability.
a partial answer. See J.A. 3581.
the reversible terminator cleavable dye label issue.” J.A.
Appellant’s Br. (-1548) 57; Appellant’s Br. (-1550) 57.
Commercial success does not favor nonobviousness.
was disclosed in a single prior art reference, Tsien.
(which would tend to show the invention was nonobvious).
compared with the closest prior art.’” Kao Corp. v.
compound gave superior results . . . .”) (emphases added).
been obligated to disclose this chemistry in the patent.
whether adding a deazapurine was obvious.
patentability over the prior art, and is therefore rejected.
patentability over the prior art of record).
Not sure if I just misfollowed your comments, but bumping up the skill level to find obviousness is exactly the wrong way to apply the PHOSITA standard.
The higher you go up that level of capability, the more will be "obvious" and that is reason enough NOT to conflate the levels and what is "obvious" at the different levels.
This appears to be nothing other than the outlawed "Flash of Genius."
I laughed at your closing Andrew.
The quantum of error that is "reversible" or not is an interesting one.
And as here, shifting the proper establishment of one of the factors of PHOSITA working against the arguments one side is making may be seen as saying that the error was self-induced.
But I do not think a court should make its judgment on an error-induced PHOSITA - no matter which side introduces that error. It is the function of the court in applying PHOSITA to get that set-up right, and I do not think the quantum of reversible error should be judged against the error-prone argument, poorly made.
Even if the Federal Circuit defers to the Board, the "shortcuts" of not explicating the proper foundations of applying the law are problematic. Shall we revisit eBay for a quick lesson?
and initially assigned to Lance L. Gooberman .
whereby said patient can be discharged in an ambulatory condition within about eight hours of being sedated with said anesthetic agent without a significant amount of diarrhea.
It is widely known that heroin addicts fear and loathe heroin detoxification. For the addict, withdrawal can be like having a massive panic attack, an acute case of Huntington's Chorea, a psychological shock syndrome, and a nasty flu, all rolled into one.
Even if we discount the less than warm reception by addicts, the current method of detoxifying an individual from opiates is flawed in several respects. First of all, it is extremely uncomfortable for individual patients. Second, it can take days, and even weeks, for treatment, and this treatment is very expensive when one considers the overall length of stay at a hospital. Third, it is not very effective. Early relapse is the rule rather than the exception.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570 (2007).
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
claims, such claims must comply with Twombly and Iqbal.
that is alleged in Addiction and Detoxification’s complaint.
or products of the defendants which are being accused.
constitute patent infringement. Commil USA, LLC v.
entitled to relief,” particularly in view of Form 18, Fed. R.
need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. Rule 8's pleading standard "does not require 'detailed factual allegations.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) ("Specific facts are not necessary . . . ."); Speaker, 623 F.3d at 1380 (quoting Iqbal). But it requires more than "barren recitals of the statutory elements, shorn of factual specificity," Speaker, 623 F.3d at 1384, and more than the mere possibility of liability or mere consistency with liability, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 570. What is needed is "facial plausibility" of the claim, which exists "when the plaintiff pleads factual [**10] content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Rule 8 "simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation [*985] that discovery will reveal evidence" of the alleged violation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
Overview of case: -The district court erred when it dismissed an action a Swiss corporation and a Delaware corporation filed against a Florida corporation and its president, alleging, inter alia, misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001-688.009 and civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets concerning the design, manufacture, servicing, and pricing of plaintiffs' turbochargers; -The district court relied on judgments about the merits of the case that went beyond what was authorized at the complaint stage when it found that plaintiffs' complaint showed that their claim alleging misappropriation of their trade secrets was time-barred under Fla. Stat. § 688.007, and was precluded by Fla. Stat. § 688.002(4)(b) because plaintiffs did not take reasonable steps to protect their trade secrets.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). Given Accent's admissions, both in its complaint and before the district court, we conclude that its complaint fails to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Accent's MUTSA claim.
A trade secret plaintiff clearly needs to establish both elements, but I’d like to discuss the second element, i.e., reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. Specifically, I’d like to focus on this element in the context of defending one’s trade secret from disclosure through a Freedom of Information Act Request (“FOIA”) or Open Records Request (“ORR”).
A hypothetical may help highlight one particular inequity that can arise at the junction of trade secrets and FOIA/ORR. Imagine that your company is required to submit an application or documentation to a state or federal agency in order to conduct business, obtain certification, or gain approval to contract with the agency. Examples include a defense contractor submitting information to the Department of Defense, a pharmaceutical company submitting test or trial results to the FDA, or an oil and gas company submitting information to a local governing body, such as the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, in order to conduct business. The information or documentation at issue may be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, but often, the submitted information may contain trade secrets.
200 pages of US discovery materials to Nippon lawyers in Japan.
Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) and granted the request.
The judge affirmed the master.
Momentum for Goodlatte Innovation Act slipping away?
Lobbyists for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry are fighting to include a provision that would exempt some FDA-approved drug patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's trial-like reviews, which were set up as a fast and low-cost way to challenge the validity of patents. But some seniors groups have opposed that inclusion.
Compositions and methods for a hybrid biological and chemical process that captures and converts carbon dioxide and/or other forms of inorganic carbon and/or C1 carbon sources including but not limited to carbon monoxide, methane, methanol, formate, or formic acid, and/or mixtures containing C1 chemicals including but not limited to various syngas compositions, into organic chemicals including biofuels or other valuable biomass, chemical, industrial, or pharmaceutical products are provided. The present invention, in certain embodiments, fixes inorganic carbon or C1 carbon sources into longer carbon chain organic chemicals by utilizing microorganisms capable of performing the oxyhydrogen reaction and the autotrophic fixation of CO.sub.2 in one or more steps of the process.
introducing an inorganic carbon compound and/or an organic compound containing only one carbon atom into a bioreactor comprising an environment suitable for maintaining oxyhydrogen microorganisms and/or capable of maintaining extracts of oxyhydrogen microorganisms; and converting the inorganic carbon compound and/or the organic compound containing only one carbon atom into the organic chemical product and/or a precursor thereof within the environment via at least one chemosynthetic carbon-fixing reaction utilizing the oxyhydrogen microorganisms and/or cell extracts containing enzymes from the oxyhydrogen microorganism; wherein the oxyhydrogen microorganisms used are Rhodococcus sp.; wherein the organic chemical product produced includes compounds with carbon chain lengths between C5 and about C30; and wherein the chemosynthetic fixing reaction is at least partially driven by chemical and/or electrochemical energy provided by electron donors and electron acceptors that have been generated chemically and/or electrochemically and/or are introduced into the environment from at least one source external to the bioreactor.
Competition and Innovation Act [BPCIA].
under the trade name Zarxio.
"should" meant "must." The CAFC, by a 2-1 vote, decided it did not.
shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.
Bottom line. Sandoz wins on this point.
for preventing and extinguishing fires.
102 by U.S. Patent 5,799,652 (“Kotliar”).
substantial new question of patentability.
or regulations with which it is not in conflict.” Id.
the statutory scheme and § 1.948(a)(2).
and a design for use with its juice bar services.
industry, and is weak for that reason.
LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
We cannot deem the Board’s errors harmless.
"We are in a serious dispute with Ford," said Michael Richards, president of the global automotive division of Trilogy, parent company of Versata. Prior to the press conference he told the Free Press that some of Versata's protected trade secrets are included in Ford's patents. "We believe we've identified at least three areas where our trade secrets were copied into their patent, and I think we will find more," Richards said.
Google has been a significant player in many facets of the patent world — as a creator, critic, litigator, buyer and big data indexer. Today, it’s taking the wraps off a product that is its flagship in the last of those categories: It’s launching a new version of the Google Patents search, which will now also incorporate related results of Prior Art and Google Scholar citations.
Google says the old google.com/patents link and its standalone Prior Art Finder will continue to work for now.
IPBiz is not certain that the "new" search was that helpful for prior art on Joule's work, and indeed not even thorough.
Which way is Congress going on patent reform; the 101 question.
If the concern is that the inventions would be obvious or are not enabled or are not fully within the grasp of the inventor, there are other sections of the statute that could be used to deny an applicant a patent. But to deny patentability for a patent to an invention that is so clearly useful to so many people does not fulfill the requirement of the Constitution to promote the useful arts.
If the courts are unwilling to listen to the scientists and the patent community as to the effects these positions have on innovation, perhaps it is time to engage the legislators and the White House to clarify the law to ensure that we continue to promote the useful sciences.
one notes, currently, to the extent Congress and the White House are contemplating patent law, they are interested in curbing the power of patentees, not expanding the power.
Jane Pauley, not Charles Osgood, introduced the stories for July 19, 2015. Mark Strassman does the cover story on blind people playing baseball. John Blackstone on comedians Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, a recycle from Sept. 14, 2014 . Title of piece: Real Characters. Anthony Mason on Brian Wilson.
The story of Melinda Wilson. Lee Cowan on spam in Hawaii. The islands are a spam-a-holic's paradise. Martha Teichner. Steve Hartman.
Headlines: Another service member from Chattanooga shooting died. National Guard forces to be armed in several states at recruiting stations. JEB Bush on Trump: enough with slanderous attacks. Obama at "Hamilton". Today's weather: hot. Thunderstorms in northeast.
Almanac. July 19, 1941. V for victory sign introduced. Colonel Victory. 3 short knocks, 1 long. ...-. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.
Martha Teichner on artist J.M.W. Turner. Movie: Mr. Turner. Mike Lee wrote and directed "Mr. Turner." At 24, in 1799, did a self-portrait. Julian Brooks curator of show at DeYoung Museum in San Francisco. Turner transformed Venice into magical city. Town of Margate. "Admiral Booth." Died in 1851 at age 76. Recall from December 2007: J. M. W. TURNER: A look at the works of British artist J.M.W. Turner at the National Gallery of Art in Washington with Morley Safer.
John Blackstone on Key and Peele. Last year named in Time's 100 most influential people. Peabody. They worked on MAD TV. Both born to white mother/black father. Presidential aide named "Luther". Emotional valve.
Pauley on "New Horizons" going to Pluto. Tombaugh Regio. In 2006: dwarf planet. Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Kuiper belt.
Anthony Mason on Brian Wilson. Greek Theater in Los Angeles, Al Jardine. Cake wheeled out from back stage. 73rd birthday. A summer of milestones. Released 11th solo album. John Cusack plays older Brian Wilson. Wilson was 20 when Beach Boys signed with Capitol Records. Cousin Mike Love. 1965: Pet Sounds Album, including Wouldn't it be nice. Mike and the guys didn't like it, but Brian said, we got to grow. 1980's. Melinda: when you tell the truth everything works out. Melinda was working at a Cadillac dealership. Dr. Lande was controlling Brian Wilson. Melinda called attorney general about situation. I want out of this hell hole. In 1991, family found out about changed will. Nine year ordeal over. Melinda and Brian married in 1995. Belinda: when we got married, I won.
Confronting 100 fears in 100 days. Nichtophobia. Michelle Fuller. Fear of tarantula. Fear of trapeze. Debbie Millman, School of Visual Arts in NYC. Fear of snakes. Adam Strawasser. Fear of frying food. Fear of insects for dinner. Fear of trapeze (continued). Tapping into inner strength. Fear of dancing in public. Fear of skydiving.
Opinion. NYT on Cosby deposition. What to make. Joseph Phillips. John Wooden on importance of character. Reputation is what others think you are. If the allegations are true, Cosby has flawed character with stellar reputation. The Bill Cosby legacy. Does value of works outweigh character flaws? Behaviors carry consequences.
Cosby legacy will be determined by character Cosby manifests now, not his reputation.
Monday: US and Cuba upgrade to embassy status. Tuesday: Anniversary of Pink Floyd's The Wall. Wed. Prince George 2 years old. Saturday: National Dance Day.
Sunday Journal. JericKa Duncan on Randall Smith, victim of Chattanooga shooting. Shooter: 7 month visit to Jordan.
Next week: Heart and Soul. Love is in the air.
Hotel people as troll victims: not thinking the problem through?
Part of the "push" for patent reform comes from small businesses who are getting warning letters from so-called patent trolls. A post in praise of the Innovation Act illustrates the cluelessness of many backing the Act, who manifest a knee-jerk, rather than thoughtful, analysis of the problem, and potential solution.
One of a troll’s greatest weapons is to prey on innocent companies and customers who bought a patent without knowing it may be infringing on someone’s patent.
One notes that this is NOT the problem facing small enterprises in troll attacks; they did not "buy" a patent. They typically may be practicing a method (not patented) that (allegedly) falls within the scope of claims of the "troll" patent.
Separately, frequently overlooked by Innovation Act backers is the reality that many defenses are non-infringement defenses, rather than invalidity defenses (i.e., the patent claim is not invalid (not a "bad" patent) but rather not infringed).
that more precisely address the perceived problem. Mr. Bryan should be more thorough in thinking about the problem, and the proposed solution. His post rings of superficiality in thought.
Although Basulto's statement is true, it misses the more basic issue that patent citation analysis is gibberish. Having highly cited patents does not really mean much.
Edlyn S. Simmons and Nancy Lambert. "Patent Statistics: Comparing Grapes and Watermelons" In Recent Advances in Chemical Information, Proceedings of the 1991 Montreux International Chemical Information Conference & Exhibition, H. Collier, Ed, (Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge; CRC Press) pp 33-78 (1992).
Separately, the link by Basulto to Harvard is to a working paper by Tom Nicholas. Reference 9 of the working paper is to Jaffe/Lerner. Reference 28 is to Bessen/Meurer. Reference 45 is Lemley/Shapiro on the Wright Brothers. The discussion of the Wright Brothers patent from reference 44 is inane, especially because the patent had nothing to do with controlled sustained flight, and was filed months BEFORE December 1903. As to foreign patents, the Germans did not allow the Wright patent, the French did; both countries did well in early aviation. The U.S. was behind because the War Department could not envision the benefits of the Wright's work. Nothing to do with patents.
Instead of viewing patents as we once did — as a way to encourage inventiveness and innovation, we may be better suited to see them for what they have become: an economic drag and an attractive target for patent trolls, who see them as a way to exact tributes from deep-pocketed tech companies.
The political drumbeat against trolls is the "exacting of tributes" from smaller enterprises, not from deep pocket companies. The reality of the drumbeat may be that deep pocket companies don't want to be bothered by little guy inventors.
Small and independent hotel owners today are facing their ultimate nightmare: an infestation. But the risk to their livelihoods isn’t of the traditional critter-type variety, it’s a 21st century pest: the patent troll.
Basulto seems to be a futurist who doesn't know the past (or the present), and is doomed by the pronouncement of George Santayana.
Lee Cowan, not Charles Osgood, introduced the stories for July 12, a visit to Sunday at the Shore, beginning with East Hampton. arry Peterson does the cover story, a modern day treasure hunt. Second, Alan Jackson interviewed by Lee Cowan.
Third, Bill Geist at the Boardwalk at Ringer Stadium on marbles. Fourth, Nancy Giles on flavors of ice cream. Fifth, Tracy Smith on sea lions. Christine Johnson. Martha Teichner. Mo Rocca.
Bonita Knier on headlines. Meeting in Brussels on Greece. John Kerry in Vienna on Iran. Donald Trump at FreedomFest. NAACP ends boycott of South Carolina. Joaquin Guzman from Toluca. First pitch at Seattle Mariners game by oldest person to throw out first pitch. 90s in northeast.
Lee Cowan on Grey Gardens in East Hampton. Edie Beall. 1975 documentary on Grey Gardens. The "Edies" were cousins of Jackie Bouvier. Raccoons living in walls. Board of Health tried to evict them. In 2006, a Tony Award musical. Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore. Big Edie died in 1977. Sally Quinn and Ben Bradley bought house in 1979, with agreement not to tear down house. Bay Street Theater in Sag Harbor. Little Edie died in 2002. How happy we would be. Grey Gardens now estimated at $20 million.
Barry Petersen on looking for treasure in Montana. Dale Knedsen is looking for treasure hidden by Forrest Fenn. Forrest made money selling artifacts. Poem with nine clues. Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.
Tracy Smith on sea lions in California.
Obviousness in patent law goes to predictability. Baseball is not predictable.
The biggest blemish against Buchholz this season came April 12 in the Bronx when he got rocked for 10 runs (nine earned) in 31⁄3 innings. Since, he has been worthy of top-of-the-rotation status, posting the eighth-best ERA (2.54) among AL pitchers with at least 10 starts since May.
Buchholz lost on July 10.
SFA v. Newegg. Richard Frenkel was also on the appellant team.
in which the case was litigated”).
JEB Bush said: "workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows"
But in their context and later clarification, it's clear that Bush was making a very serious point about a very real issue: underemployment. That makes this episode an early test of Bush's strength in the Republican field, as well as a challenge to his rivals who would consider pouncing on the moment. Would they want to attack Bush when they agree - and in fact are largely building their entire campaigns - around his broader point about an Obama economy that has left too many working too few hours?
One notes that the issue of low work force participation [e.g., "Under President Obama, we have the lowest workforce participation rate since 1977" and separately --The percentage of Americans in the workforce — those who either have a job or are actively seeking one — dropped to 62.6 percent, a 38-year low. -- is distinct from underemployment.
This is of special concern because "underemployed" are considered to be IN the workforce. If one normalized to a factor such as "hours worked" instead of "Americans in the work force", the situation would look worse.
Since the mid-1990s there has been a dramatic shift in the part-time versus full-time status of the older workforce. The ratio of part-time to full-time employment among older workers was relatively steady from 1977 through 1990. Between 1990 and 1995, part-time work among older workers began trending upward with a corresponding decline in full-time employment. But after 1995, that trend began a marked reversal with full-time employment rising sharply. Between 1995 and 2007, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules nearly doubled while the number working part-time rose just 19 percent. As a result, full-timers now account for a majority among older workers: 56 percent in 2007, up from 44 percent in 1995.
The percentage of people 65 and older in the labor force increased from 12.1 percent in 1990 to 16.1 percent in 2010.
America's workforce is aging, with nearly a third of workers now over 50 and employees over age 65 outnumbering teenage workers for the first time since 1948.
PTAB renders decision related to dispute between San Francisco-based Square Inc. and Washington University prof Robert Morley Jr.
San Francisco-based Square Inc. and St. Louisan Jim McKelvey, a Square co-founder along with Square co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey, sued Washington University associate professor Robert Morley Jr. in federal court in St. Louis in 2010, alleging McKelvey’s name was left off a patent for Square, a small plastic device that plugs into a cellphone or iPad and allows merchants to process credit card transactions.
The lawsuit alleged McKelvey worked with Morley to develop a prototype for Square. Morley later filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that he was unfairly cut out of the Square enterprise after developing key software.
The litigation was stayed, or put on hold, while the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board evaluated Square’s request that the board review the patentability of 17 claims of the patent, referred to as the “’946 patent” in court documents.
So, McKelvey's name was allegedly cut off from a patent, and Morley was cut out from the company. In the patent before PTAB, five claims survived challenge.
In a 6-5 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Wednesday [July 8, 2015] denied a rehearing en banc of a three-judge panel decision from February, dashing the hopes of patent owner Cuozzo Speed Technologies and its attorney John Kasha of Kasha Law to modify the procedures of the federal agency.
are part of or a predicate to the ultimate merits.
apply in a §18 review.
that helps prevent electrical shorting.
ed States Patent No. 6,432,586 (“ ’586 patent”).
The defendant is SKI. The issue is personal jurisdiction.
in North Carolina. J.A. 129–31.
are to customers outside of the United States. J.A. 111.
whether the assertion of jurisdiction is consistent with due process.
Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
tions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’ l Shoe Co. v.
Celgard must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.
Inc. v. Univ. of Toronto Innovations Found., 297 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“Capital One”) . The three patents were U.S. Patent Nos.
chines, manufactures, and compositions. 35 U.S.C. §101.
But there is an implicit exception.
or abstract ideas. Id. at 2355.
that ‘[a] n idea of itself is not patentable.’” Id.
(quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
, such as the Internet.
abstract idea to one field of use . . .
er they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e. , budgeting).
directed to an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 599 , 613.
nication medium, are all generic computer elements.
computer tasks does not make an abstract idea patent-eligible.

References: v. 
 § 285
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 § 103
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 301
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 688
 § 688
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 §18
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 §101
 v.