Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2011/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:25:08+00:00

Document:
Cross-appeals are for expanding rights.
A headline at The Scientist is Retraction vindicated? A definition of "vindicate" is To provide justification or support for. One might thus read the headline as prefacing a story wherein further evidence is found to support the retraction.
But not everyone is convinced. Much of the evidence presented in all three papers is based on PCR, which revealed bits of hybrid DNA containing genetic sequences from both the trypanosome and its host. But PCR is highly prone to artifacts, said Dunning Hotopp. "Any time you do a PCR and you have a sequence that's common between two pieces of DNA, you have the potential to create a chimera," which is then amplified during the subsequent rounds of PCR, she explained. "The results of the method could be chimeras that look like lateral gene transfer. I don't think that's what happening," she added, "but I think that's still a black mark against the paper."
According to some researchers, Teixeira and his team could easily quell the controversy surrounding the three papers. To validate the PCR results, Feschotte noted, it's important to use specific primers located in the regions flanking the suspected insertion and verify the sequence. "That would really be the nail in the coffin," he said, but "they don't do that."
Another potential validation is to visualize the suspected integration sites using a technique known as a southern blot, something Teixeira and his team did. Unfortunately, some researchers did not find the results of these tests conclusive.
I'm confused. Why the controversy? This is not technically challenging to complete(subclone genome DNA, pull out insertions, sequence to identify insertion site, check prior to infection, possibly for chimerism in the infected subject and for genome-wide insertion in progeny). If the authors provided that, then it's pretty much a done deal. If the authors did not provide that, then it shouldn't be published. Have we collectively somehow lost the essence of experimental design, execution and conclusions? It's embarassing that we'd be even having this discussion in an online forum.
"I know it's not the same as a private e-mail account. I know the university owns my e-mail. But I'm not sure how I feel about" having it subjected to a public records request, [ Peter Berg, a labor studies professor at Michigan State University ] said.
For the Mackinac Center, public employee e-mail is another day at the office.
Mackinac Center lawyer Patrick Wright said the center's requests for public information should be considered no more remarkable than those filed by news organizations or citizens. Seeking information about public employee activity that is potentially criminal — like using public resources for political purposes — is at the heart of what the law was designed for, he said.
breach of its license to those patents.
In a post titled Lawmakers Question Patent Reform Bill, Grant Gross presents some of the downsides to the present patent reform bill ("America Invents Act"; S.23 in the Senate).
Mel Watt [D-NC] questioned whether the bill's proposed change, which would award a patent to the first person to file an application instead of the first person to create the invention, would hurt small inventors.
The bill would also expand so-called prior user rights, the right of an inventor or company that's been using an invention without patenting it to continue using it after another company patents it.
An expansion of prior user rights would discourage inventors from sharing their knowledge and reward those who "don't contribute to the progress of science," said Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican.
The expansion of prior user rights would apply to companies outside the U.S. and would reward the theft of U.S. intellectual property, Sensenbrenner added. "How does that help America compete?" he said. "The prior user rights expansion is going to end up giving China a get-out-of-jail-free card."
USPTO Director David Kappos disagreed, saying the lack of prior user rights in the U.S. hurts manufacturers that set up plants inside the country. Many other countries have prior user rights, giving U.S. manufacturers incentives to open plants in those countries, he said.
It does not appear Kappos denied the truth of what Sensenbrenner said.
Unfortunately, the Patent Office does not keep track of 131 affidavits separately. They are keyed into the system generally as an affidavit, without regard to what type of affidavit. So I wasn’t able to obtain any useful data from the Patent Office. I then asked around to a number of colleagues and the consensus seems to be that 131 affidavits are filed in less than 1% of patent applications.
One notes Crouch found the overall number is less than 1%, but also found the use of 131 declarations is technology specific.
In biotechnology and organic chemistry - one found a Rule 131 affidavit in the file history of 1.43% of the cases.
But who cares what the frequency of use is? For example, do we eliminate various provisions of patent law based on a low frequency of use? Do "public use proceedings" have to go? It's the underlying concept that matters. Do we reward the person who invented first, or the person who filed first? Will intervening publications defeat an invention? The answer should be yes or no.
It's not practical to file a patent application for every change a company makes to a product, but in a first-to-file system, competitors may try to beat the inventing company to the patent office, he said.
"The alternative for us is to rush to massively increase our patent filings, not to exclude competitors from copying our products, but to protect ourselves against those who would use our own inventions against us in court," Chandler said. "That would be a totally unproductive distraction."
Thus, Chandler recognizes "first to file" by itself is a " totally unproductive distraction ". But prior user rights will more likely help a big entity than a garage inventor.
The patent reform bill is manifestly designed to help those who have already made inventions, and are trying to protect the status quo. It discriminates against the little guy with a step out invention.
Isobutanol has been produced in recombinant microorganisms expressing a heterologous, five-step metabolic pathway (See, e.g., WO/2007/050671 to Donaldson et al., WO/2008/098227 to Liao et al., and WO/2009/103533 to Festel et al.). However, the microorganisms produced have fallen short of commercial relevance due to their low performance characteristics, including, for example low productivity, low titer, low yield, and the requirement for oxygen during the fermentation process. Thus, recombinant microorganisms exhibiting increased isobutanol productivity, titer, and/or yield are desirable.
on January 14, 2011, the entity Butamax (a joint venture of Du Pont and BP) sued Gevo on the claims of US 7,851,188.
US 20110076733 (Gevo) derives from application serial number 12/855276, filed August 12, 2010, and priority is claimed to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/272,058, filed Aug. 12, 2009, and U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/272,059, filed Aug. 12, 2009 .
Equip. Innovations, Inc., 72 F.3d 872, 878 (Fed. Cir.
a license. In De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.
parties' course of performance and course of dealing to an agreement).
ment. 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Nieves v. Univ. of P.R., 7 F.3d 270, 276 n.9 (1st Cir.
or conclusory statements are insufficient.” SRI Int’l v.
Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed.
Tolbert v. Queens Coll., 242 F.3d 58, 75 (2d Cir.
ing United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.
accused products made for Standard Products.
showing only the Seat Pocket.
demonstrate that it has protectable trademark rights.
summary judgment on appellant’s false advertising claim.
results for Seat Pockets in a search for Seat Sacks.
Beecham Corp., 960 F.2d 294, 297–98 (2d Cir. 1992).
in granting Childcraft’s motion for summary judgment.
The United States remains the world’s dominant force in science, according to research published yesterday by the UK’s Royal Society. Knowledge, Networks and Nations reports that the US spends more on R&D than any other country and publishes more scientific papers while, crucially, there are more citations of US scientific works than those from any other country. It all means that the US wins not only on quantity but, much more importantly, on quality as well.
Criticisms of linking the proxy "citations to an article" with "quality of the article" have appeared before. Further, the source of the citation data (ISI) tends to favor US journals over third world journals.
And, yes, as to patents, citations have been used to measure "quality."
David Letterman mistakenly referred to Michigan State beating Butler in the NCAA finals last year.
Butler lost to Duke in the finals, after beating MSU.
In the "top 10" list on political dinners, Letterman did not include the Powers matter at the Biden dinner in Winter Park, FL.
access to court proceedings and records.
the parties.” See id. at iii–iv.
court’s consideration and opinion writing.
of this court for the violation of Federal Circuit Rule 28(d).
The invalidating reference in question was handout material that was freely distributed to 600 students in a class. Additional copies were sold to anyone who asked. Further, the material (textbook) was cited in a number of journal articles and the material was sold to journal readers who contacted the professor about the material.
The patent involved is US 5,930,156, and the re-exam is 90/008,645. A relevant case is TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
A victory may allow Kodak to extract $1 billion from Apple and RIM should it win the case, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Antonio Perez said in an interview last week.
Kodak stock has increased 5%.
In the "patent reform" business of 2011, there is advocacy of post-grant review (aka opposition). To see how a bigger entity can use such a procedure against a smaller entity, see the trademark case of Citigroup v. Capital City Bank.
opposition to the registration of CCB’s marks.
Big companies armed with savvy lawyers can now use the reexamination process as a way of quashing smaller companies; it costs little to file a re-exam petition and a lot to defend a patent. In the past four years, the number of re-exams filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has increased dramatically, and most of those requests are routinely granted. This trend has placed huge demands on a patent office that is underfunded and under-resourced.
In effect, powerful unscrupulous players have court-approved legal immunity to abuse a patent reexamination system already showing signs of strain. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) observed recently that mere fact of re-examination, regardless of its outcome, can be "a death sentence for a patent."
him on the brief were JON E. WRIGHT and BYRON L.
PICKARD. Of counsel on the brief were CLARENCE T.
To their great credit, the CAFC is generous in taking pro se appeals, which often amounts to airing the airheads out, as in this case.
This case was NOT a pro se case. What is Gary Odom thinking? Or is Gary referencing the non-pro se IV folks as airheads?
Curiae Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association.
In re Jung and Wood is about US application 10/770,072 and the "Wood" in the caption is Lowell Wood, and yes CLARENCE T.
TEGREENE of Intellectual Ventures is one of the attorneys.
improperly as a “super-examiner,” this court affirms.
anticipation or single-reference obviousness over U.S.
continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C.
Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578 (internal citation omitted).
were entirely consistent with that long-standing practice.
the burden to show invalidity).
Wilmshurst, a U.K. citizen, is one of a group of scientists and science reporters whose legal troubles have served as a rallying point for libel-reform advocates. His troubles began with a 2007 presentation he gave in the United States, during which he claimed that a heart device on which he had previously been the lead researcher was dangerous and that its manufacturer, Boston-based NMT Medical, covered up two studies that were unfavorable to the device. When a Canadian newspaper quoted him in a story, NMT issued three separate libel claims against Wilmshurst; that case is still pending.
The original case is still pending, and Barry says that Wilmshurst has "declined to respond in detail" to "cogent evidence … that NMT did not attempt to conceal data and that Dr Wilmshurst knew this when he made his accusations."
There is a WILMSHURST, Martin, Philip; listed as an inventor on PCT/EP2010/062303 ( WO/2011/023680) with applicant CYTOS BIOTECHNOLOGY AG.
Those who remember the "War at the Shore" between Canseco and Sikahema will find Canseco's latest scam amusing.
"We discovered the Canseco who showed up was Ozzie when he took off his shirt and didn't have José's tattoos on the biceps that appear in our advertising," a Celebrity Boxing representative told El Nuevo Herald.
Wow, the absence of the trademark tattoos snagged Jose. A clear case of passing off foiled by the missing mark. Is this an IP story or what?
If you don't remember the "War at the Shore"
And, per Sikahema's "Rutgers is Wrong," Rutgers football was terrible in 2010.
"Parking profits overseas" was an issue addressed by Lesley Stahl on March 27, 2011. In 1980s and 1990s, Bermuda and the Caymans were destinations. Lesley talked about Zug, Switzerland. Taxes are 15-16% in Zug. The population of Zug is 26,000. Transocean moved to Zug two years ago. They have 12-13 employees in Zug. Weatherford is also located in Zug. After the threat of law change, executives of Transocean and Weatherford are located in Geneva. John Chambers, head of Cisco, was interviewed by Stahl. Economist Martin Sullivan was interviewed, who noted moves of companies to Switzerland and Ireland. 600 American companies have a presence in Ireland. There is a trend to shift patents to affiliates in foreign countries. Pfizer's tax rate was lowered to 17% and GE's tax rate lowered even further. The tax law forces companies to keep the profits outside the US. Thus, money earned outside the US stays outside the US. Cisco has $40 billion overseas. All companies 1.2 trillion. Chambers placed the issue as "give us a level playing field."
"One Child at a Time" was a story about a woman (Elissa Montanti ) helping children with medical needs. The "60 Minutes" story featured Wa'ad. The Global Medical Relief Fund is the name of Elisa's entity.
"The Sage of St. Anthony" was about Bob Hurley, the basketball coach. Hurley has been at the job for 39 years. Valuable lesson learned here.
Andy Rooney: life can be dangerous to your health. 30 years ago, coffee caused cancer. Now, 3 cups of coffee is good for you. Drink up, because they might say tomorrow it's bad. Andy is waiting for a study that ice cream lowers your cholesterol.
Harry Coover discovered SuperGlue. Cyanoacrylate, the chemical name for the glue, was first uncovered, as a chemical, in 1942 in a search for materials to make clear plastic gun sights for World War II, but it would not be until 1958 that the chemical was marketed as SuperGlue. Coover worked as a chemist for Eastman Kodak until 1973 and as Vice President of the company from 1973-1984. Coover was later a consultant on programmed innovation methodology.
Coover died at age 94 on March 27, 2011.
Much has been made by poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg and other historians over the notion that Lincoln was a serial pardoner. This is untrue - Lincoln not only approved the execution of deserters, but 38 alleged Indian raiders were hanged by his order in Mankato, Minn. on Dec. 26, 1862, still the largest mass execution on U.S. soil.
Henry Whipple, the Episcopal bishop of Minnesota and a reformer of U.S. policies toward Native Americans, urged Lincoln to proceed with leniency. On the other hand, General Pope and Minnesota Senator Morton S. Wilkinson told him that leniency would not be received well by the white population. Governor Ramsey warned Lincoln that, unless all 303 Sioux were executed, "[P]rivate revenge would on all this border take the place of official judgment on these Indians." In the end, Lincoln commuted the death sentences of 264 prisoners, but he allowed the execution of 39 men.
One of the 39 condemned prisoners was granted a reprieve.:252-259 The Army executed the 38 remaining prisoners by hanging on December 26, 1862, in Mankato, Minnesota. It remains the largest mass execution in American history.
Thus, the post by Harold Holzer, in omitting the fact of the 264 commutations, is a bit deceptive.
Intel vice president for global public policy Peter Cleveland said CEO Paul Otellini was in Washington last week for a private meeting with House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith to discuss the issue.
"This is an area where something could get enacted into law and Intel is right in the middle of it, very hopeful about legislation," Cleveland said during an upcoming episode of C-SPAN's "The Communicators."
Cleveland praised the Senate's recent passage of Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy's (D-Vt.) patent reform bill, calling the vote of 95-5 a good consensus.
Cleveland said several of the bill's provisions, including a switch to a first-to-file system rather than first-to-invent, and allowing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to keep its fees, are improvements.
However, he said Intel would like to see the House bill include a process known as an inter partes review, through which disputes over how patents are issued can be handled administratively rather than via litigation. Cleveland said the process would save tech firms millions on legal costs.
"We spend $125 million on patent litigation, oftentimes down in Texas. We fight and we fight hard," Cleveland said, noting Intel holds more than 46,000 patents in its portfolio.
"This is a drag on our ability to innovate. It is frivolous litigation and we're not the only ones that suffer from this; Microsoft and other tech companies suffer like we do."
Credit for dancing in "Black Swan"
Of the misrepresentation angle: They wanted to create this idea in people’s minds that Natalie was some kind of prodigy or so gifted in dance and really worked so hard to make herself a ballerina in a year and a half for the movie, basically because of the Oscar,” says Lane.
In the current discussion on patent reform, the "first to file" proposal can be viewed as an effort to diminish the role of the true inventor.
Fast Draw illustrated idea that remote cameras can be used to generate revenue via fines. Google Earth used to find unapproved swimming pools and generated $70K. Traffic camera used to scan license plates to find outstanding traffic tickets.
David Edelstein reported on Elizabeth Taylor. As alive on screen as anyone before or after. The trait of "certainty." The grown-up steadiness. Father of the Bride. A Place in the Sun. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Giant. The Cleopatra "triple whammy." Reflections in a Golden Eye. "She knew what she wanted, and got it."
The National Cherry Blossom Festival in DC. Peak next Tuesday through Friday. The project took off in 1909. March 27, 1912 was the day of planting of replacement trees that "took." First festival in 1935.
The first "Arthur" was in 1981. The Sunday Morning profile was on Russell Brand, the actor in the new Arthur. Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Of drugs: I've been clean for 8 years.
Pulse. Plan spring cleaning? Yes. Men 55%, Women, 70%.
Nancy Giles on freedom of speech commented on the video by a UCLA student on Asian students. Alexandra Wallace. Giles noted: UCLA.=United Caucasians Lost Among Asians.
41 years ago, Taylor and Burton sat for an interview on 60 Minutes with Charles Collingwood. Having a fight is one of the great exercises in marital togetherness. Burton: don't attack the soft spot in the underbelly. Taylor: I'm a professional Jew. Burton: Jesus Christ was unquestionably Welsh. Taylor talked about 17 year old son. Taylor and Burton were wearing onks.
69 carat Cartier diamond. Richard was nominated for his 6th Academy Award that year (Anne of a Thousand Days). Of Oscars, does the best performer win? Butterfield 8 was sympathy vote. Burton on Oscars: Part sentiment, part affection, part of the business. Richard Burton never received an Oscar.
Bob Schieffer had reported on "what we didn't know" about the Reagan assassination attempt.
CBS Sunday Morning Moment of Nature: forest in Central Oklahoma where migrating birds are headed back north.
The ITC said on Friday, March 25, that it will review a decision in January by the Administrative Law Judge or ALJ, who had found there was no occurrence of infringement and turned down Kodak's patent infringement suit.
Laura Quatela is Kodak's chief intellectual property officer.
The head of mechanical and industrial engineering at Qatar University announced plans this week to develop an "artificial cloud" that will be positioned in the sky to provide shade and help reduce the heat in stadiums for the 2022 World Cup. The incredible plan has made news around the world with many wondering how Qatar University could come up with such a fantastical concept. Well, it didn't. The Simpsons did.
And how long before the Simpsons are applied as prior art at the USPTO?
summary judgment as to nonobviousness before the district court.
gets another chance to prove obviousness.
to make any finding on the level of skill in the art.
(Fed. Cir. 2007), or even guarantee success, see Alza Corp.
from the prior art a reasonable likelihood of success. Id.
ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419-21.
difference to the final determination of obviousness.”).
clear it was applying on summary judgment.
bide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1573 (Fed. Cir.
Moore v. Wesbar Corp., 701 F.2d 1247, 1253 (7th Cir.
would have understood from the prior art.
Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed.
and failed entirely to address one claim limitation).
Inc., 382 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
701 F. Supp. 2d at 1166-67 (citing Texas Digital Sys., Inc.
judgment or its prima facie case of obviousness. Oral Arg.
on prior use. Texas Digital, 308 F.3d at 1218.
The Calvo-Goller case of the libelous book review?
See the discussion on IPOsgoode.
Trolling the oceans for alguronic acid?
According to Jonathan Wolfson, the chief executive of Solazyme, the alternative-energy company that makes Algenist, the product came about after a fortuitous suggestion roughly six years ago by Arthur Grossman, a microalgae expert who’s now an adviser to the brand. At first, Solazyme executives had a good chuckle about the idea of getting into skin care, Mr. Wolfson said. “I really never thought I’d be standing in a store like this,” he told a gathering of reporters during a preview at Sephora Fifth Avenue, amid shiny display cases of primer and volumizing mascara.
Studies conducted by an independent lab and commissioned by Algenist, none of which have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, showed alguronic acid increased cell regeneration and the synthesis of elastin (which gives skin that snap-back youthful quality). This testing also demonstrated that alguronic acid provided protection against cell damage induced by ultraviolet rays, and inhibited the enzymes that break down elastin.
After reviewing press materials and Solazyme’s 84-page patent application, Dr. David McDaniel, a dermatologist and the director of the Institute of Anti-Aging Research in Virginia Beach, Va., said he was impressed by the in-vitro testing of alguronic acid. “In the petri dish, their data seems to show some substantial benefits to their active ingredient,” he said. But he cautioned that in-vitro testing does not demonstrate how a final formulation works off the shelf.
including Harrison Dillon and Jonathan Wolfson and US 20070166266.
Flexibility in anaerobic metabolism as revealed in a mutant of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii lacking hydrogenase activity.
The Journal of biological chemistry 2009;284(11):7201-13.
The Journal of biological chemistry 2007;282(35):25475-86.
Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not the same thing!
Plagiarism, or copyright infringement to give it its legal term, may be rife over the internet but that is not to say that it is fine to copy the work of others.
Refer to various IPBiz posts to learn that "copyright infringement" is NOT the legal term for plagiarism.
House not going to accept S.23 "as is"?
The draft includes major changes incorporated in the Senate patent-reform bill that passed earlier this month, including first-to-file and fee-setting authority for the Patent and Trademark Office.
Under terms approved last month by the CIRM board, the new chair could be paid as much as $400,000, which is nearly seven times the median California household income of $61,000. The Klein proposal calls for only $150,000 of the $400,000 to come from "taxpayer" funds. The remainder would come from so-called "private" funds donated to CIRM several years ago by philanthropists. In fact, those "private" funds are now "taxpayer" funds, just as any gift becomes the property of the recipient, and the cash is in state/CIRM coffers.
The current scheming to trick California voters as to the salary of the chairman of CIRM is just another chapter in a long history of doublespeak at CIRM. At the end of the day, it is clear CIRM did not deliver.
In January 2011, an ITC judge ruled that Kodak's patent, asserted against Apple and RIM over cameras in mobile phones, was invalid. The full ITC will announce on March 25 whether it will review the decision of the ALJ.
In the ExxonMobil ad, a scientist said that "in using algae to form biofuels, we're not competing with the food supply, and they absorb CO2, so they help solve the greenhouse problem as well".
But a complainant, who noted that any carbon dioxide absorbed by algae would be re-released back into the atmosphere when it was burned as fuel, objected that the ad misleadingly implied that the technology would reduce CO2 levels.
However, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) considered that the ad's claim "went beyond stating the mitigation benefit".
According to the authority, the scientist's statement may mislead viewers to conclude that it was due to the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere that using algae to form biofuels helped "solve the greenhouse problem," by acting as a carbon sink.
See the flowchart "Technology Patent Portfolio Strategy"
Although this post suggests the Patent & Trademark Office must be run by geezers , readers of Fark know better.
Patent protection for stem cells in Europe?
Brüstle was granted a German patent relating to his method in 1999, but this was subsequently challenged by the environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, on the basis that the human embryonic stem cell lines used originated from fertilised human eggs and so offended public morality, as set out in the EU Biotechnology Directive on the protection of biotechnology inventions.
In 2006, the German Federal Patent Court partially invalidated the patent, prompting Brüstle to appeal to the German Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Court referred questions about the scope of the Biotechnology Directive to the CJEU, in particular seeking clarification on whether the exclusion of the human embryo from patentability concerns all stages of life from the fertilisation of the ovum, or whether other conditions must be satisfied, such as the attainment of a certain stage of development.
Simmering beneath the surface of California's financial crisis is the possibility that the state's $3 billion stem cell agency [CIRM] could become a victim, waylaid as state leaders look for more ways to cut state spending.
Lawmakers and others are discussing the likelihood of a continued suspension of sales of state bonds, which are the lifeblood of the $3 billion California stem cell agency. Without the funds from the bonds, the agency has no cash for its ambitious grant programs.
CAFC: "Apotex’s conduct in this case is particularly egregious"
One has to wonder "why" Apotex filed a cross-appeal in the case Aventis v. Apotex.
unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
lidity. TypeRight, 374 F.3d at 1157.
F.3d 1151, 1156-57 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
moved to dismiss the cross-appeal.
lished rules.” Bailey, 292 F.3d at 1362.
Google will have access to existing translations held by the European Patent Office, the company said in a statement, and will provide its translation technology without charge on the patent office’s website. Google’s program will translate patents to and from Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Russian as well as the 28 languages recognized by the European Union, it said.
Rainer Osterwalder, a spokesman for the patent office in Munich, said the translation tool “does not replace a translation where it is required by the law” and cannot be used for applying for a European patent.
Google Inc. and the European Patent Office Thursday [24 March 2011] signed a long-term agreement to provide free access and translations to 70 million patents registered with the EPO through the patent office's website.
involving that patent in that venue.
The mandamus petition in Verizon was granted. Case moved.
the Eastern District involving the patent and technology.
reason to support denial of transfer.
One of its most controversial provisions is a "first to file" rule, which would grant patent rights to whoever gets to the Patent Office first - terminating the existing "first to invent" practice, which honors applicants who can document that they were first to conceive an idea or technology.
A related provision imposes new risks for entrepreneurs who explore business partners, prototypes and investors during the 12 months that precede an application, a "grace period" during which current law offers some protection that would not exist under the reform proposal. The proposal could force start-ups to race to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with a flood of premature and poor-quality applications - even as patent examiners remain heavily overburdened, with a backlog of more than 1.2 million patent applications awaiting resolution at the start of this year.
"Patent reform is going to drive the PTO's backlog through the roof," predicts David Boundy, a Boston-based patent attorney who has worked with start-ups and venture capitalists.
An argument has been made, most recently by David Kappos, that we are already effectively a "first to file" country, because there are few patent interferences taking place. This ignores Rule 131, wherein a piece of art published BEFORE the filing date can be eliminated from consideration by "swearing behind" to the invention date. In a first to file regime, this cannot be done.
To put this in perspective, a steadily prolific patent prosecutor may draft and prosecute 800 or so patent applications in a twenty-year career. During her entire career, we would expect her to file fewer than one Rule 131 declaration that directly leads to an issued patent.
I myself have filed more than one Rule 131 declaration. The most recent did NOT cause the application to be granted BUT the application was granted for other reasons. Keep in mind, to be successful with a 131 declaration, one has to have well-documented evidence, early in time, showing the presence of all claim elements, as written later in time. In a situation with an evolving invention, this can be difficult. Further, there is an interesting time trap involved when one tries to overcome an obviousness rejection, involving art published at different times.
As a general observation, I find that arguments suggesting patent policy decisions be made based on the "low frequency" of certain events to be less than persuasive. Yes, small entity inventors usually lose interferences, and yes most patent prosecutions don't involve declarations under Rule 131. If you change to "first to file," they will lose 100% of the time. Do we abandon the patent system because 90%+ of issued patents never make money and never change the world?
In the past, the US has granted priority to the person who comes up with an idea, and who diligently pursues it. Chester Carlson advanced xerography because of his persistence, and the reality that no one else believed in it. In some alternative universe, with published applications and first to file, he might have been buried. Wilbur Wright literally was buried by the patent litigations. Further, imagine an alternative universe wherein the Wrights hadn't filed their application early in 1903 (before the flight in Dec. 1903), and Curtiss persuaded the court that Langley's Aerodrome had flown. The currently proposed rules would produce the "wrong" outcome.
**As an aside, some of the "ex post" patent arguments evoke current discussion of Charles Barkley.
What Are the Provisions of the Proposed "First-Inventor-to-File" System in S. 23?
Although Google has some interesting patents, it has failed to build a portfolio sufficient to go head-to-head with others in the mobile industry.
IPBiz: what, no traction for the Google Doodle patent?
Filing claims with provisional patent applications?
In a post on 16 Sept 2005 titled Including Claims in Provisional Patent Applications?, Patently-O suggested including claims in provisionals was advisable because of the CAFC decision in Phillips v. AWH. The thinking here is that terms in a claim have to be defined, and one doesn't know what to define until the words in the claim are written.
Many people, myself included, draft claims before drafting the specification of a patent application. For me, this exercise allows me to completely define the invention in the claims, then draft the specification and figures to match. I make sure that every limitation included in the claims is discussed in the spec and shown on the drawings.
This serves two purposes. The first is that it creates a thorough and enabling disclosure. The second purpose is that it only includes enough information to support the claims. There is usually no need to disclose extra material, which would otherwise be a trade secret.
However, I never include claims when I file a provisional application. I do this because only bad things can happen: prosecution history estoppel Festo-style may come to haunt you. There is no upside.
IPBiz makes a query: can there be prosecution history estoppel based on something termed a "claim" in a provisional? As Bill Clinton might say, it depends on what you mean by the word "claim."
We all know that claims are not required in provisional patent applications.
35 USC 111 (b) [Provisional application] states in (2): CLAIM.-A claim, as required by the second through fifth paragraphs of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.
So a claim is not required, but if one puts something called a "claim" in a provisional application, is it a claim for purposes of establishing estoppel? Very likely not.
35 USC 111 (b)(1)(a) is about "a specification as prescribed by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title."
37 CFR 1.75, which applies to nonprovisionals, states the specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.
There is no statute or rule saying there must be a a claim in a provisional particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery. The specification required by 35 USC 111 (b)(1)(a) must support claims in the later-filed nonprovisional. If there is material in the specification broader in scope than later filed claims, or even irrelevant to later filed claims, who cares?
Factors influencing the decision to file a provisional application; the issue of claims in a provisional . As a legal matter, there has never been a case on this topic. If there were, the likely conclusion would be: there is no estoppel created by amending from a "claim" in a provisional application, because there is no such thing as a claim defining the subject matter of an invention in a provisional patent application.
Introduced into U.S. law in 1995, provisional applications offer applicants a lower filing fee and an additional twelve months beyond the grace period in which to determine whether to file a regular non-provisional application for a patent. n133 Provisional applications also protect an applicant's right to file in other countries as long as the provisional application is filed before the invention is disclosed to the public. n134 The provisional application is not examined by the USPTO and simply lapses after twelve months, with no further effect unless a regular non-provisional application is filed before that time. Provisional applications are attractive to TTOs precisely because of the embryonic nature of most university inventions. Funding and staffing are perpetual problems for most university TTOs, and provisional applications provide benefits in both areas. For a university, the filing fee for a provisional application is $ 100, while com-bined filing, search, and examination fees of $ 500 are required for non-provisional patent applications. n135 Moreover, since the provisional application will not be examined, TTOs may choose to spend less time and money on the drafting of the provisional application based on an understanding that in a year's time, many will lapse because the covered tech-nology ultimately will not justify the cost of filing a further non-provisional application.
Although the USPTO does not report the number of provisional applications filed by type of entity in its statistical reports, the AUTM now provides provisional application filing data in its annual survey. n136 According to the survey, in fiscal year 2004, of the 8286 new U.S. utility applications filed by U.S. universities, hospitals, and research institutes, 75% were provisional applications. n137 Conversely, the USPTO reports that provisional application filings for fiscal year 2004 only accounted for approximately 30% of total utility application filings across all applicants. n138 This suggests that universities may indeed rely much more heavily on provisional applications than other types of patent applicants.
footnote 81: Provisional applications offer applicants a lower filing fee and an additional twelve months beyond the grace period in which to determine whether to file a regular nonprovisional application for a patent. Provisional applications also protect an applicant's right to file in other countries as long as the provisional is filed before the invention is disclosed to the public. Also, the provisional application is not examined by the USPTO, will simply lapse after twelve months, and will have no further effect unless a regular nonprovisional application is filed in time. Provisional applications are attractive to TTOs precisely because of the embryonic nature of most university inventions.
from the conclusion, on first inventor to file ["FITF"]: As discussed above, a move by the United States to a FITF system will likely have negative ramifications for small entity inventors. Delaying a move to FITF until it can be used to facilitate the adoption of a one-year grace period in other countries will allow the United States to make the bitter pill of the race to the patent office considerably easier for many researchers and entrepreneurs to swallow by providing them with something very useful in return. The adage "haste makes waste" surely applies here: a hasty move to FITF may waste our best hope for obtaining from other countries the grace period that is so critical for small entity innovation, academic discourse, and prompt dissemination of information.
But citing copyright, antitrust and other concerns, Judge Denny Chin said that the settlement went too far. He said it would have granted Google a “de facto monopoly” and the right to profit from books without the permission of copyright owners.
The decision comes as regulators in this country and in Europe scrutinize Google’s supremacy in the search business. The judge’s thinking, laid out in a 48-page filing, echoed many of the antitrust arguments made by the Department of Justice when it criticized the deal a year ago.
Google vowed on Tuesday to continue digitizing books, only a portion of which are affected by the settlement, which would have allowed Google to sell access to millions of out-of-print books to consumers and libraries.
On March 22, 2011, US 7,912,915, titled Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site , issued to Sergey Brin of Google. The underlying application, 09/843,923 , was filed April 30, 2001.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising: instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, where the instructions for creating the special event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images; instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page; instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special event based on the user selection.
Today, many operators of web sites on the Internet use animated images, such as animated Graphic Interchange Format (GIF) images, in web pages to make the web pages more dynamic and visually appealing to users. The philosophy is that if the web pages are visually appealing, then the users will visit the web site often.
There are disadvantages, however, to using animated images. For example, if a user visits a site regularly, the user quickly begins to ignore the animated images. In other words, although animated images can make web pages more appealing to users initially, they typically do not entice the users to return to the web page.
With many web sites, it would be desirable to have users access the web site frequently. Online businesses, for example, would benefit from having users (i.e., customers) return to their web site on a regular basis. Additionally, web sites that display advertisements can obtain more revenue from their advertisers if users regularly visit the web sites.
As a result, there exists a need for mechanisms that entice users to return to a web site on a regular basis.
A method for conversion of acetolactate to dihydroxy-isovalerate comprising: a) providing a microbial host cell comprising a genetic construct encoding a polypeptide having ketol-acid reductoisomerase specific activity greater than 1.1 .mu.moles/min/mg wherein the genetic construct encoding a polypeptide having ketol-acid reductoisomerase activity is isolated from Pseudomonas or Vibrio; and b) contacting the host cell of (a) with acetolactate wherein 2,3-dihydroxy-isovalerate is produced; wherein the ketol-acid reductoisomerase specific activity greater than 1.1 .mu.moles/min/mg is based on purified protein as measured by: A) NADPH consumption assay, run under the following conditions: i) pH of 7.5; ii) a temperature of 22.5.degree. C.; and iii) a reaction buffer comprising a) 100 mM potassium-HEPES; b) 10 mM MgCl.sub.2; c) 2.25 mM (R,S)-acetolactate; and d) 200 .mu.M NADPH; and B) purified protein concentration as determined by absorbance at 280 nanometers.
Butamax has accused the biofuels company Gevo of infringing claims of its first patent, US 7,851,188.
remand on claim construction issues.
Yes, IPBiz covered this case in 2005.
more available real estate properties.
Appellee’s Br. 32 (quoting On Demand Mach. Corp. v.
Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
does not have any such limitations. We agree.
’576 and the ’576 claims do not recite selecting an area.
does not clearly disavow selecting an existing area.
boundaries does not require defining the boundaries.
be entered by this create and update procedure.

References: § 1746
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.