Source: https://patentlyo.com/author/jonathan-hummel
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:13:52+00:00

Document:
#1. Paradigm: Intellectual Property as an Asset?
Some of the “problems” discussed are: “intention” (acquisition v. creation) recognition in accounting books; “valuation” citing the fluctuation in price of the Kodak portfolio; “markets” public/private, primary/secondary, and “identification” whereas registered patents are easily identifiable, trade secrets and some other forms of IP are not so discreetly identifiable.
Symantec and Trend Micro are fighting back against Intellectual Ventures. IV is asking for a combined $310 million from the companies for licensing a patent that cost IV $750,000 seven years ago. Symantec and Trend Micro are advancing a novel attack that basically says they shouldn’t have to pay such a large amount of money for a patent bought so “cheaply.” The two companies are asking a federal judge to bar IV from seeking such large licensing fees on the grounds that a patent acquired for so little couldn't possibly be worth so much.
-read the Reuters article here.
#3. Public Citizen Blog: What’s this Anonymous Firm Hiding?
Scott Michelman at Public Citizen posts about the Company Doe Case. In the fall of 2011, a company calling itself “Company Doe” sued the CPSC to keep a report about one of its products out of the database, and it also sought to litigate its case under seal and without revealing its name. Public Citizen, along with Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union (the publisher of Consumer Reports), objected to the seal. The consumer groups have appealed the sealing and pseudonymity rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit.
The case, Company Doe v. Public Citizen, is a first of its kind in several respects. First, it appears to be the first time a federal court has sealed the record in a civil case because of concern about a company’s reputation. Second, it appears to be the first time a court has allowed a company plaintiff to proceed under a fictitious name to protect its reputation.
Shamnad Basheer, Professor at India’s National University of Juridical Sciences writes for a the newly redesigned site SpicyIP. The website pushes for transparency in Indian IP law.
While noise canceling technology has been around for a years now, it seems new applications are always cropping up. Sonos has a new gadget in development that might make your house quieter than ever. Check out the product here.
Lance Whitney at C|Net reports that Apple has been granted a patent covering technology that monitors your location and then performs automation tasks. It is U.S. Patent No. 8,577,392.
Website for the event here.
o Attorneys from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office will provide an insider’s view of how design patents are handled.
o Two nationally known experts in design protection, Christopher V. Carani and Perry Saidman, will discuss design protection legal issues.
o Finally, the special damage provisions for Design Patents will be analyzed by a leading expert on patent damages.
The Keynote Speaker will be James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, and NGO dealing with issues involving Intellectual Property.
View the Program Flyer here.
In conjunction with 2013 ABA Mediation Week, the Ethical Dilemma for Cyberweek 2013 concerns a mediation that is conducted online. Students, let the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution’s Ethics Committee know your thoughts. The contest is limited to Students 18 years of age or older. Each participant is asked to submit an online analysis of the mediator’s performance, in 750 words or less, to Cyberweek Ethical Dilemma during Cyberweek, November 4 to November 8, 2013. Each submission will be read by two members of the Ethics Committee, scored, and the winning submission will receive $100.00 and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Section’s Just Resolutions eNewsletter. Read the full contest rules. Each participant will receive a certificate of participation upon submission of their analysis. Read the full hypothetical.
Patent Associate/Agent (Electrical) – Law Firm – Alexandria, Va.
The Alexandria office of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC has an immediate opening for an Electrical patent associate or agent with a minimum of 2 years of patent experience and a degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science.
Guntin & Gust is seeking highly skilled and productive Patent Attorneys or Patent Agents. As part of our team you will be working with a diverse group of clients ranging from sophisticated mid-sized corporations to Fortune 100 companies.
We work in the areas of electrical engineering, telecommunications, medical products, RF products, gaming products, nanotechnologies, and other fields.
Leading up Twitter’s IPO, market analysts are pointing to the relatively small number of patents held by the company as weakness. Jeff John Roberts, writing for GigaOM explains why Twitter’s slim patent portfolio might not be a weakness, but instead a sign of strength.
-read Bloomberg’s countervailing story here.
Dan O'Connor, writing at Patent Progress, interviewed Jorge Contreras to discuss his new paper, “Patent Pledges,” covering FRAND commitments and a call for a new paradigm in standards-setting. Mr. Contreras is a professor at the Washington College of Law at American University and a contributor at Patent Progress. His research focuses primarily on the effects of intellectual property structures on the dissemination and production of technological innovation, with a focus on basic scientific research and technical standards development.
Both Dennis Crouch here at Patently-O, and our friend Andrew Williams at PatentDocs, wrote about legislation proposed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va), namely the “Innovation Act.” The bill is squarely aimed at Patent Trolls and allows for parties to discover who the ultimate owner of the patent or exclusive right actually is, rather than a shell corporation.
#1. Patent Associate – Law Firm – Rockford, Ill.
–Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., is a full-service business-oriented law firm with offices in Chicago, Rockford, Denver, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Madison, and Waukesha with a national and international client base.
#2. Patent Attorney – Law Firm – Washington, D.C.
–Morris & Kamlay LLP, an IP specialty firm in DC with a relaxed and flexible work environment, is looking for an experienced patent prosecutor.
–Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick is seeking a Patent Attorney to work in its Melbourne, Australia, offices.
American Traffic Solutions (ATS) is suing B&W Sensors for patent infringement on a patent that covers, “technology using photography to simultaneously clock multiple vehicles on a single roadway.” Largely known for manufacturing controversial red-light cameras (see story in Missouri Appeals Court). ATS says B&W has misrepresented its speed-camera services to potential customers by falsely claiming that ATS could not offer them. ATS also complains that B&W has brought negative local attention to speed cameras, damaging the potential market for ATS in the St. Louis area.
Matt Levy, writing at Patent Progress, breaks down a letter sent last week by concerned NPEs. Last Friday, BSA (Business Software Alliance) and a number of companies sent a letter to Senate and House Judiciary Committee leadership. BSA puts forth the standard “hamper to innovation” argument against expanding covered from only those business method patents dealing with financial services to all business methods. The letter was delivered to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., (D-Mich.).Read the letter here.
Timothy B. Lee, writing for The Switch, at the Washington Post, reports that NPEs have a new, very formidable enemy: Martha Stewart. In July, Lodsys sent Stewart's media empire letters warning her that four of its iPad apps infringed LodSys's patent. Lodsys demanded $5,000 for each of the four apps to license the patents. Rather than simply pay the fee to make LodSys go away, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia filed suit in Wisconsin seeking declaration that it had not infringed.
The Guardian reports that a new police unit to tackle illegal downloads and counterfeit DVDs and CDs has carried out its first raids and arrested two men. The police intellectual property crime unit (PIPCU), which launched on Friday, is being run by City of London police and has government funding of £2.56m over two years.
Writing for PC Magazine, Stephanie Mlot, explains, "A digital tome would come embedded with a specific autograph page, or a 'hot spot' autograph widget area configured to receive autographs." Adding, "Don't expect to see this e-autograph system added to iBooks anytime soon. Find the patent here.
Join us at the University of Missouri, School of Law for a discussion of the current issues facing Intellectual Property practice. Hosted by the school’s Center for Dispute Resolution, the Symposium will feature Greg Gorder, co-found of Intellectual Ventures giving the Keynote Address.
IP Attorney – Law Firm – Lansing, Mich.
–Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C., an established Lansing Law Firm, has an opportunity for an experienced IP Attorney.
-Please send resume with cover letter to Thaddeus E. Morgan, 124 W. Allegan, Suite 1000, Lansing, MI 48933.
Technical Writer/Patent Agent – Law Firm – Charlotte, N.C.
–Additon, Higgins, Pendleton & Ashe, a boutique intellectual property law firm based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is seeking an experienced technical writer or patent agent to immediately join the firm. The candidate should also have a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science. Admission to practice before the USPTO is a plus.
-Please send your resume, writing samples, and cover letter to jobs@ahpapatent.com.
Jeff John Roberts, at GigaOM, reports on a deal released last Wednesday between patent behemoth Intellectual Ventures, and a maker of home thermostats, Nest Labs. While the details of the deal are not yet public, it seems likely that the deal included the sale of some patents and the licensing of others. It looks like Nest Labs is seeking refuge from the Honeywell litigation rainstorm beneath the Intellectual Ventures umbrella. Likely the deal gives Nest Labs some weapons to use against larger Honeywell in future litigation.
Wockhardt (BSE & NSE) and Avanir Pharmaceutifcals (AVNR) have reached an agreement, ending their litigation over marketing and selling of NEUDEXTA capsules. The settlement agreement grants Wockhardt the right to begin selling a generic version of NUEDEXTA on July 30, 2026, or earlier under certain circumstances.
Stuart Dredge, for The Guardian, reports that Ministry of Sound is suing Spotify for infringment. The dance music group, Ministry of Sound alleges that Spotify is infringing several copyrights because Spotify has failed to remove users playlists. Ministry of Sound argues that some playlists on the streaming music service mirror the group’s dance compilations. A major issue is the contribution of ordering and arranging the songs in a playlist. Spotify has the rights to stream all the tracks on the playlists in question, but the issue here is whether the compilation structure – the order of the songs – can be copyrighted.
Colleen Chien, Associate Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, will serve in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as senior advisor for intellectual property and innovation to Todd Park. Professor Chien has been published extensively on patent assertion entities (she coined the term), and the secondary market for patents.
#1. Google going for noise in eBooks.
Victoria Slind-Flor, at Bloomberg, reports that Google is seeking a patent covering what it calls “triggered sounds.” "Existing e-book readers don’t take 'full advantage' of their capabilities to immerse a reader, Google says. The technology covered by the patent would allow certain trigger points in the text to call forth prerecorded sounds related to the contents of the book.
Reports out of the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) carry news of the first steps in creating an interplanetary internet. Phil Larson and Mike Gazarik reported that on September 6, NASA launched the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission to study the thin atmosphere around the moon. However, the satellite will also be testing a new technology, the Laser Communications Relay Demonstration. This technology is supposed to allow much faster data transmission between objects in space and ground control on Earth.
“Resolving IP Disputes: Calling for an Alternative Paradigm,” hosted by the Center for Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri School of Law. The Keynote Address will be delivered by Greg Gorder, the founder and vice chairman of Intellectual Ventures.
The Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR) is a conference designed to provide intellectual property practitioners, jurists, legal academics and law students with a review of IP cases from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 Term, a preview of cases on the docket for the 2013 Term, and a discussion of cert. petitions to watch.
Register online for SCIPR 2013 by 12:00 pm (CST), September 23, 2013.
#1. IP Attorney (Electrical Engineering / Computer Sciences) – Law Firm – McLean, Va.
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. (RMSC), an Intellectual Property Law Firm (RMSC) located in prestigious Tysons Corner, Virginia seeks a Patent Attorney with 2-5 years experience having an electrical engineering or computer sciences degree.
#2. Patent Attorney / Patent Agent – Law Firm – Syracuse, N.Y.
Burr & Brown, a Syracuse, New York Law Firm seeks experienced patent attorneys or patent agents to handle foreign-based patent prosecution. Candidates must have substantial experience prosecuting cases before the USPTO.
Jennifer Bjorhus , of the Star Tribune reports that recently, the state of Minnesota reached a settlement agreement with MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, a Delaware corporation. If the state discovers that any Minnesota residents or companies actually paid MPHJ Technology money for either a license or an alleged infringement, MPHJ will have to pay a $50,000 civil penalty and refund all money. Swanson’s office said it’s not clear how many Minnesota companies were targeted but estimated it to be hundreds.
Gene Quinn, at IPWatchdog, reports that Apple and Samsung, interestingly enough, wound up on the same side of the argument. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Fed. Cir., August 23, 2013).The two tech giants are arguing back against a district court decision to allow some sensitive information to become publicly available. Both parties filed motions to seal certain writings, and district Judge Lucy Koh denied the motions. Appeals joined at the Federal Circuit, that court issued an order staying the unsealing of certain documents.
Christina Wilkie, at the Huffington Post, reports that Intellectual Ventures, the largest patent holding firm in the United States, is opening a lobbying office in the nation’s capital. This latest move for the Bellevue, Washington based patent holding firm will probably set a trend for other firms with similar business models. The recent outcry from the patent community and the general anxieties over firms with similar practices mean these companies are going on the offensive, trying to set the course for policy rather than react to it.
Reuven Cohen, for Forbes, reports that New Zealand has banned software patents. In a bill passed earlier today, the Government of New Zealand announced that software in the country will no longer be patentable. In taking the position, New Zealand joins many other nations. "For example, U.S. patent law excludes “abstract ideas”, and this has been used to refuse some patents involving software. In Europe, “computer programs as such” are excluded from patentability and European Patent Office policy is consequently that a program for a computer is not patentable if it does not have the potential to cause a “further technical effect” beyond the inherent technical interactions between hardware and software.”"
Steve Brachmann, writing for IPWatchdog, reports International Business Machines’ recent application for a patent on a “a system for collaborative shopping” whereby users can see what is in other people’s carts and interact via computers and smartphones. The rise of online shopping in the past decade is marked, and this idea represents another way to make the often singular online experience more social.
A Symposium focusing on "Resolving IP Disputes: Calling for an Alternative Paradigm." The symposium is sponsored by the MU School of Law's Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution as well as the Journal of Dispute Resolution (JDR).
Patent Prosecution Associate – Law Firm – Washington D.C.
- Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P. is seeking a Patent Prosecution Associate to join our Mechanical group.
- Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P. offers a competitive benefits package and an enjoyable work environment. Salary is commensurate with experience.
- Apply on-line by e-mailing your cover letter, resume and transcripts to: recruiting@wenderoth.com.
IP/Patent Attorney – Law Firm – New York, N.Y.
- Bruzga & Associates, a New York City boutique IP law firm seeks an associate patent attorney having an electrical engineering degree.
- This is an opportunity to hone your advocacy skills, have meaningful client interaction, and significantly contribute to the firm, rather than just being a “cog in the wheels” of a big firm.
Contact jon.hummel@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits & Bytes.
#1. Obama Grants Reprieve to Apple…and why it matters.
An ongoing story, the editors at Bloomberg report on the effects of President Obama’s granting a reprieve to Apple. ON August 1, Susan Decker and Peter Burrows reported that Apple was seeking a reprieve from President Obama to allow the company to continue selling versions of its iPhone4 and iPad2 in the United States. The reprieve was granted and Bloomberg reports that Samsumg’s market value dropped by over $1 billion.
Gene Quinn at IPWatchdog reports on the newest Justice. Justice Chen was formerly the Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property Law and Solicitor at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The crunchy confection beloved by chocolate enthusiasts around the world has a dicey future after the IPO ruled the bars distinctive shape could not be trademarked in the UK. James Tozer, reporting for the UK’s Daily Mail Online, explains that a real tricky legal situation arises becauset the distinctive KitKat design is already trademarked at the EU level.
Litigation Associate – Law Firm – Seattle, Wash.
Seed IP Law Group, one of the country's leading intellectual property law firms, is looking for a litigation associate with a minimum of two years of patent litigation experience and a degree in chemistry.
Patent Attorney – Law Firm – Portland, Ore.
Marger Johnson McCollom, P.C., a Portland, Oregon, full-service IP boutique, seeks a registered patent attorney with 2-5 years of patent prosecution experience in the electrical/computer/software technical areas.
#1. Victory in Sino-US IP Relations?
Grant Ross, at IDG News Service reports that Chinese officials have agreed to “crack down on software and other piracy” and to “take steps that state-owned organizations use legal software.” The specifics of what steps the Chinese Government will take are as of yet forthcoming, leading the US Chamber of Commerce to describe any “progress” as being “incremental.” Regardless, should the promises hold true, this may be an important step in the relationship between the two countries as DRM moves closer to the center of the media industry in the years to come.
Michael Flannelly at The Dividend Daily reports that on Friday, the District Court of Mannheim, Germany ruled against the medical giant when it held that Medtronic’s (NYSE: MDT) transcatheter heart valve technology infringes a patent owned by Edwards Lifesciences (NYSE: EW). Shares of Edwards were up 3.7 percent at $68.25 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange, while shares of Medtronic were down 1.4 percent at $53.01. In November, the US Court of Appeals decided similarly and awarded Edwards $74 million.
David Segal, at the New York Times sat down with Erich Spangenberg, owner of IPNav (a full service “Patent Monetization” firm) and talked about his work as a Troll. According to a recent report by RPX, a patent risk management provider, over the past 5 years, IPNav has sued over 1,600 companies, the most by any “entity” in the patent field.
#4. Washington Redskins QB, RG3 Hits Gets Blocked in Pursuit of Trademark.
Mandour & Associates, APC, reports a hiccup in Robert Griffin III’s bid to trademark his nickname, RG3. Griffin, the rising NFL star formed Thr3escompany, LLC in January 2012 to develop a label and start producing merchandise bearing his nickname, RG3. However, an Irivine, CA based motorcycle company, Research Group 3 asserts that Griffin is infringing their RG3 trademark used on merchandise.
Oliver Wainwright at The Guardian reports that in addition to the Olympic Torch raising IP eyebrows, the glowing duvets used in the Opening Ceremonies might have infringed somebody’s property rights. Rachel Wingfield claims to have invented a similar bed covering 10 years before the opening of the London Games.
Design Patent Associate – Law Firm – Washington, D.C.
NSIP LAWis a prospering boutique intellectual property law firm located in downtown Washington, D.C.
Director, Mechanical Engineering Team – Small Corporation – Alexandria, Va. or Southfield, Mich.
Landon IP Inc. is a leading provider of professional legal and business support services throughout the intellectual property (IP) lifecycle.
#1. House Bill Would Exempt USPTO from Sequestration.
Tony Dutra at Bloomberg BNA reports a Bill has been introduced into the House that would exempt the USPTO from government cuts forced by sequestration. The Bill, and an accompanying letter signed by several Silicon Valley Congressman urgers Congress to exempt the USPTO because that Office is funded solely by fees paid with the applications it receives. The USPTO stands to lose about $150 million in funding.
Venkat Balasubramani at Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog reports on two cases that seek to answer the question whether or not Facebook "friendships" are grounds for Judicial recusal. The two opinions are further evidence of the way the social networking site is affecting the law in very basic ways by defining or redefining relationships.
Michel-Adrien reports the redesign of the Law Library of Congress' Legal Blawg Archive. The LOC has been archiving these blogs for years. However, only certain blogs are archived, generally the most reputable blogs that are also tied to Law Schools and provide an academic style of information and legal analysis.
#4. New Digital Rights Management Technology (& the Fictitious Lillian Virginia Mountweazel).
James Bridle at The Observer reports that Germany's Fraunhofer Institute recently revealed that it is working on a new digital rights management system, entitled SiDiM. Regular DRM involves making changes to the code of the media. The proposed SiDiM, however, make literal changes to the content of the media. For example, the word "unhealthy" would automatically change to "not healthy" and thus distinguish a plagiarist's work from a licensed work. Indeed, there is precedence for this: the "Mountweazel" is a made-up word inserted into a dictionary to catch unwary plagiarists, which originates in the fictitious Lillian Virginia Mountweazel who first appeared in the New Columbia Encyclopedia of 1975.
Patent Search Attorney – Large Corporation – Evanston, Ill.
Cardinal Intellectual Property, an Intellectual Property Search and Services company, is seeking a Patent Search Attorney to work in its Evanston, Illinois office.
Patent Attorney / Agent – Law Firm – Fairfax, Va.
MG-IP Law, PLLC is accepting resumes for a Patent Attorney or Patent Agent with an electrical or computer science background and at least two years of experience. MG-IP is a growing top 40 IP firm located in the northern Virginia area and offers a flexible work environment.
President Obama today released information on planed executive orders and push for new legislation that will attempt to block companies from asserting their patents unless they are also manufacturing a product based upon the patented design. And at the same time, the President’s National Economic Council and Council of Economic Advisers released a report a report titled “Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation.” The report generally takes the viewpoint that Patent Assertion Entities are bad for the US Economy and makes the bold claim that, in the past year PAE’s have threatened “over 100,000 companies with patent infringement.” The bulk of the report that identifies the “problem” is based upon the work of professor Colleen Chien (Santa Clara); Jim Bessen & Mike Meurer (BU); Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Michele Boldrin (WUSTL) & David K. Levine (WUSTL).
Despite the unknowing hyperbole of the report, the suggested actions are, for the most, welcome and will benefit the patent system as a whole. In fact, this move to finally address the problem of predictability of patent scope and patent validity hits the sweet spot of where problems emerge in the system. Of course, the devil will be in the details of these approaches.
1. Knowing Who Owns the Patents: Through the PTO a new rule will require patent applicants and owners to regularly update ownership information with the “real party of interest” so that the assignment records are accurate complete.
2. Tightening Functional Claiming. The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field.
In my view, these two elements are sorely needed and will generally improve the patent system without actually limiting the ability of patent assertion entities to derive value from their innovations through patent assertion. In addition, the PTO will begin a number of outreach mechanisms intended to provide assistance to non-patent-insiders who receive patent demand letter.
Radio Systems Corp. v. Lalor (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Moore (majority author), Reyna, & Newman (in partial dissent)).
In a split decision, the Federal Circuit has affirmed that the judicial doctrine of equitable estoppel applies to block a patentee from alleging patent infringement following a five-year delay in pursuing charges. Writing in partial dissent, Judge Newman argued that estoppel should additionally apply to family members of the patent in question.
Prejudice: The alleged infringer will be materially prejudiced if the patentee is allowed to proceed with its claim.
As background, the patentee (Bumper Boy) sent a demand letter to Innotek back in 2005. The letter indicated that Innotek's "UltraSmart" dog collar infringed Bumper Boy's U.S. Patent No. 6,830,014. Innotek quickly responded with a letter claiming that the patent was invalid. Following that, there was no communication between the parties for 4 ½ years. In fact, Bumper Boy never again communicated with Innotek because that company was acquired by Radio Systems. Radio Systems continued to develop the UltraSmart and other dog collar product lines. Meanwhile, Bumper Boy filed a continuation application and obtained a second patent in 2007 (U.S. Patent No. 7,267,082) with a somewhat more focused claim scope. In 2009, Bumper Boy sent a demand letter to Radio Systems alleging infringement of both the old '014 patent and the new '082 patent.
Radio Systems then filed a declaratory judgment action and the district court awarded summary judgment for Radio Systems. The summary judgment ruling held the patentee equitably estopped from pursuing an infringement action against the UltraSmart products based on either the old or the new patent.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed-in-part – affirming that the patentee is estopped from suing the successor-in-interest (Radio Systems) on the old patent (subject of the 2005 letter exchange) but denying to extend the estoppel to the new family-member patent that was not mentioned in the letter and that had not issued at the time.
Judge Moore's language suggests that equitable estoppel could never apply to pending patent applications. She writes "quite simply, the '082 patent claims could not have been asserted against Innotek or Radio Systems until those claims issued." However, that interpretation of the decision is likely unduly expansive – especially since a patentee can collect back-damages for pre-issuance infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d). Thus, for instance, a patentee who sends a pre-issuance 154(d) notice of infringement and then waits to sue for four years following the issuance may well (in my estimation) fall within the realm of equitable estoppel. Of course, these are hypothetical facts that do not apply in the Radio Systems case. A second potential factor in the decision here is that the patentee added new matter to the second patent, but the majority appears to have disregarded that fact as immaterial since the asserted claims do not rely on new matter.
Judge Newman has previously provided an expansive view of equitable estoppel in her majority opinion in the case of Aspex Eyewear v. Clariti Eyewear (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Judge Rader dissenting). In the present caes, Judge Newman penned a quite short opinion that argued that the estoppel should be extended to the continuation application, although her analysis does not directly confront the majority's reasoning.
A second pressure point in the decision involves the corporate restructuring from Innotek to Radio Systems. The Federal Circuit has previously held that equitable estoppel can be claimed by successors-in-interest where privity has been established. Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 839 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1988). At some point, there may be a need to explore the privity element, but here that was not a real problem since Radio Systems (1) wholly owns Innotek, (2) is headed by the same individual as Innotek, (3) incorporated Innotek designs and products in its own product lines; and (4) exerts substantial control over Innotek. In my view, privity alone should be insufficient to transfer equitable estoppel rights to the new entity if the estoppel has not yet vested and if the patentee has no reasonable knowledge of the shift.
This decision provides some food-for-thought to patentees. On the one hand it places more pressure of having enforcement-through-litigation as a genuine and timely option during any license negotiations. On the other hand, the case also offers a roadmap for avoiding equitable estoppel problems with the use of continuation applications.
Patent versus Portfolio: The conceptual problem with this decision is one that we'll be struggling to deal with for years – and that is the distinctions between a single patent claim, a single patent, a family of patents, and a portfolio of loosely related patents. The law still largely focuses on single patent claims while business leaders are increasingly focused on a portfolio analysis. Equitable estoppel is largely related to reasonable reliance by business leaders and in that context it makes sense to apply the estoppel principles to a portfolio rather than single claims or single patents.
In addition to the estoppel decision, the lower court also found that the claims were not infringed by other Radio Systems products. In the appeal, the Radio Systems offered as an alternative ground for affirmance that the asserted patents were invalid. However, the Federal Circuit refused to hear that contention on technical grounds since the contention was raised in an opposition brief rather than as a cross-appeal. An invalidity holding is generally broader than a holding of equitable estoppel or non-infringement since those holdings are limited to the products or parties involved in the case. Invalidity on the other hand will apply to all future Radio Systems products as well as other would-be infringers and even current licensees. That change-in-scope creates a problem for Radio systems because of the ordinary rule that an appellee cannot request expansion of the lower court holding. Rather, a party unsatisfied with the scope of a lower court ruling must become an appellant by filing an appeal or cross-appeal.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that "[a]bsent a cross appeal, an appellee . . . may not attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights thereunder or of lessening the rights of his adversary." El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (1999). We have held that a judgment of invalidity is broader than a judgment of noninfringement. "[A] determination of infringement applies only to a specific accused product or process, whereas invalidity operates as a complete defense to infringement for any product, forever." Typeright Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, invalidity cannot be an alternative ground for affirming a judgment of noninfringment absent a cross-appeal.
While we acknowledge the inefficiency that may result from requiring cross-appeals in situations where the scope of a judgment would be enlarged, we are cabined by our jurisdiction and may not reach issues that are not properly before us. On remand, Radio Systems may pursue its invalidity defense in further proceedings, and, should there be additional rulings on invalidity by the district court, Radio Systems may pursue a proper appeal at that time. Because Radio Systems did not properly file a cross-appeal on the invalidity issue in this appeal, Bumper Boy's motion to strike Radio System' alternative grounds for affirmance is granted.
Just to be clear, it doesn't appear that Radio Systems failure to file a cross-appeal was a technical error. Rather, the company could not file an appeal arguing invalidity because the district court had not reached that issue yet.
Canadian IP Specialist Barry Sookman has written an analysis of the world’s “most popular intellectual property and technology law blogs” on his eponymous blog: http://www.barrysookman.com/.
The FTC has released Google from its antitrust investigation with a “wrist slap.” More from Wired; WashingtonPost; and WSJ. Regarding its industry-standard patents (largely inhereted from Motorola), Google promised again to license those patents in a manner that complies with its FRAND promise of “fair, reasonable and non-discrimantory” terms. Google also promised to commit to binding arbitration of license rates.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 154
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.