Source: http://ip-updates.blogspot.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:19:42+00:00

Document:
In Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Reexam Beverage Can Co. (March 17, 2009) the Federal Circuit reiterated that the notice provisions of §287 do not apply where the patent is directed to a process or method.
[A] party that does not mark a patented article is not entitled to damages for infringement prior to actual notice. Although Rexam asserted only the method claims of the '839 patent against Crown, the district court dismissed Rexam's counterclaim because the '839 patent also includes unasserted apparatus claims. The district court erred.
The purpose behind the marking statute is to encourage the patentee to give notice to the public of the patent. The reason that the marking statute does not apply to method claims is that, ordinarily, where the patent claims are directed to only a method or process there is nothing to mark. Where the patent contains both apparatus and method claims, however, to the extent that there is a tangible item to mark by which notice of the asserted method claims can be given, a party is obliged to do so if it intends to avail itself of the constructive notice provisions of section 287(a).
In this case, both apparatus and method claims of the '765 patent were asserted and there was a physical device produced by the claimed method that was capable of being marked. Therefore, we conclude that AMS was required to mark its product pursuant to section 287(a) in order to recover damages under its method claims prior to actual or constructive notice being given to MEC.
Id. at 1539 (emphasis added). In this case and Hanson, the patentee only asserted method claims despite the fact that the patent contained both method and apparatus claims. In American Medical, in contrast, "both apparatus and method claims of the '765 patent were asserted." American Medical, 6 F.3d at 1523. Because Rexam asserted only the method claims of the '839 patent, the marking requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) does not apply Consequently, we reverse the district court's grant of Crown's motion for summary judgment dismissing Rexam's counterclaim for infringement of the ' 839 patent.
Effective October 1, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is expanding and "enhancing" the original First Action Interview Pilot Program which ended on June 28, 2009.
Under the Enhanced First Action Interview Pilot Program ending April 1, 2010, the examiner will conduct a prior art search and provide the applicant a pre-interview communication, which is a condensed preview of objections or rejections proposed against the claims. Within 30 days from the issue date of the pre-interview communication, the applicant must either choose not to have a first action interview with the examiner, or schedule the interview and file a proposed amendment or remarks (arguments). The response period to reply to this pre-interview communication can be extended by 30 days.
Should the applicant choose not to have a first action interview, a First Action Interview office action will be promptly issued and the applicant will have one month or 30 days, whichever is longer, to reply. If an interview is scheduled, the applicant must be prepared to discuss issues related to the patentability of the claims. If agreement is not reached on all claims in regards to patentability, the applicant will be given a First Action Interview office action to which the applicant will be given one month to reply with limited extensions of time and this First Action Interview office action will be considered the first action on the merits. The applicant can also waive receipt of the First Action Interview office action during the interview with the examiner, convert the previously-submitted draft amendment to a formal amendment, and proceed directly to the second substantive examination.
a. The full pilot procedure (Pre-interview communication, interview and first action).
b. Waiver of the interview (Pre-interview communication and first action only).
c. Waiver of the interview and first action (by filing a reply in compliance with 37 CFR 1.111(b) in response to the Pre-interview communication).
d. Waiver of the first action (by requesting entry of a proposed amendment during the interview).
Washington – The Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that it is expanding its First Action Interview Pilot Program in which an applicant is entitled to an interview with the patent examiner prior to the first office action on the merits in a new utility application. The program will expand to additional technology areas for a six-month period beginning on October 1, 2009. The initial pilot program was limited to two computer-related technology areas.
The initial six-month pilot program, which began April 28, 2008, has shown that the patent process benefits when interaction between the applicant and the examiner are enhanced at the beginning of examination because patentability issues can be resolved early when the applicant and the examiner discuss them one-on-one. For the applications involved in the initial pilot, the First-Action Allowance rate increased six-fold when compared to applications from the same technology area not involved in the pilot.
The USPTO will continue to survey applicants during the expanded pilot to make further improvements to the program.
For details regarding eligibility and criteria for participation in the pilot, see the USPTO Web site, at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/faipp_v2.htm.
On July 7, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI published his third encyclical letter titled "Caritas in veritate" (Charity in Truth) which, among other things, states that "On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care. At the same time, in some poor countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder the process of development."
In response, the Intellectual Property Owners Association announced that it and others "are working to educate on the incentives that IP rights provide for advancing knowledge and creating jobs."
Good luck in bringing some of that same religious fervor to your organization.
The latest issue of The Trademark Reporter includes Sandra Edelman's timely and informative article on bona fide intent, entitled "Proving Your Bona Fides - Establishing Bona Fide Intent to Use Under the U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act," 99 Trademark Reporter 763 (May-June 2009).
According to the TTABlog, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's recent decision in Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Friedrich Winkelmann, 90 USPQ2d 1660 (TTAB 2009) [precedential], brought the bona fide intent issue to the forefront for many trademark practitioners. There the Board sustained Honda's opposition to Herr Winkelmann's Section 44(e) application to register the mark V.I.C. for vehicles, ruling on summary judgment that Winkelmann had failed to establish the requisite bona fide intent to use his mark in the USA.
According to Edelman,"registration applicants should be very careful about including too many products or services in their intent-to-use based applications, and should maintain some minimal level of contemporaneous documentation and provable business rationale for the products or services listed in the application."
attempts to find licensees, including ones outside of the U.S.
The Office will require no further reasons for accelerated processing. This service will apply to existing applications as well as to applications filed after May 12, 2009. You can find further information about the various accelerated services in the patents fast grant guidance.
According to the press release, "the ‘green’ patents initiative was one of the key deliverables announced at the UK/China Economic and Financial Dialogue on May 11, with China already agreeing to adopt the proposal. The Intellectual Property Office is working with other major trading partners to get them to sign-up to the green patents fast-track system."
In the U.S., so-called "petitions to make special" (except those based on applicant’s health, age, or the PPH pilot program), are required to comply with the detailed requirements for the accelerated examination program as set forth in this notice.
We review the rulings of the ITC under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c); Osram GmbH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "Rulings of law by the ITC are reviewed for correctness, and findings of fact are reviewed to ascertain whether they were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Osram, 505 F.3d at 1355. . . .
We review claim construction de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). We generally do not construe claim language to be inconsistent with the clear language of the specification; "[u]sually, it is dispositive." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). . . .
. . . the fundamental disagreement between the parties boils down to whether fixed optics are a "working channel." . . . the parties agree that infringement requires the accused devices to be used with an endoscope having at least two "working channels" and that the accused devices have only a single "working channel" if the fixed optics are not a "working channel." Based on our claim construction, the ITC correctly concluded that ERBE presented no evidence that any accused device had been used with an endoscope that had at least two "working channels" and, therefore, that there was no evidence of direct infringement and thus no basis for finding induced or contributory infringement. In light of this holding, we need not address the other arguments raised on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Subscribe via other "feed aggregators"
"Your weekly update has become an interesting part of my MBA class, Current Topics on Business Law." -- Professor of Business Law at business school of major southern university.
"I have been enjoying your IP updates . . ." - Chief IP Counsel for a major U.S. corporation.
"Your IP update is very helpful." - U.S. patent attorney.
"Anything Under the Sun Made By Man"
"Law for Nerd's at Heart"
The "I/P Updates" news service is written and published by William F. ("Bill") Heinze (e-mail, v-card, resumé), an intellectual property attorney in Atlanta, Georgia USA. It provides the latest news and information for intellectual property practitioners via an RSS feed, Atom feed, and website at www.ip-updates.com. Readers can even search the "I/P Updates" archives here.
This cocky little new service also offers e-mail subscriptions here. The "I/P Updates" newsletter is electronically distributed to over 18,000 intellectual property practitioners with law firms, corporations, governments, service providers, vendors, policy makers, and academic institutions around the world. Click here for some of their testimonials, and, remember, "if you like the newsletter, you'll love the way that we practice law."

References: v. 
 §287
 § 287
 v. 
 § 706
 § 1337
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.