Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?m=201102
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:17:52+00:00

Document:
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Global Tech v. SEB this past week. You can listen to the oral argument here: [Listen].
The Federal Circuit decision is available here: [Read].
One of the interesting cases that might be appealed to the Federal Circuit soon is Specialty House of Creation, Inc. v. Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, 10-CV-371-GKF-TLW (N. D. Okla. Jan. 27, 2011). The case concerns whether an American Indian tribe can be sued for patent infringement if it has not consented to be sued. The judge in the Quapaw case ruled in favor of the tribe and its assertion of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The district court cited an earlier district court case concerning patent infringement, Home Bingo Network v. Multimedia Games, Inc., 2005 WL 2098056 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005), and a second circuit copyright case Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 204 F.3d 343, 357-58 (2nd Cir. 2000).
Interestingly, the district court cited Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Tech., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998) for the proposition that “[a]s a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” Id. The oral argument at the Supreme Court was argued by Federal Circuit nominee Edward DuMont. You can listen to that oral argument here: [Listen][Read].
Sovereign immunity from patent infringement is an economically powerful asset. As Indian nations seek to provide good jobs for their tribe members, it will be interesting to see if any attempt is made to rely on this asset and how it might be done.
You can read the Quapaw decision here: [Read].
The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted the confirmation hearing for Mr. Jimmie V. Reyna this past week. You can watch the video of the hearing below. Mr. Reyna is introduced at about the 30:30 minute mark along with other nominees. The questioning of Mr. Reyna begins at about the 52 minute mark.
Mr. Reyna is a specialist in international trade issues. Given this focus, he was asked specifically whether he would also be able to adjudicate whistle blower cases (the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over federal whistle blower cases and has heard 219 cases in its history ruling only 3 times in favor of the whistle blower according to Senator Grassley).
Mr. Reyna was not asked any questions about patent law during the hearing.
The Honorable Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, testified before the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property last Friday. You can watch the video of the hearing below. Chief Judge Michel makes his opening statement at about the 34 minute mark of the video with subsequent questioning by the subcommittee members.
The House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet will hold a hearing this Friday on “Crossing the Finish Line on Patent Reform – What Can and Should be Done.” I was pleased to see that the Honorable Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be testifying. David Simon, the Chief Patent Counsel for Intel, and Carl Horton, the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for General Electric, will also be testifying.
The committee hearing is scheduled for 10:30 AM Eastern time/8:30 AM Mountain time. More information is available at this link: [LINK].
In a recent non-patent case at the Federal Circuit that concerned the interpretation of government agency regulations, Chattler v. U.S., 2010-1066 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2011), Judge Dyk had some pointed words for the Department of Justice [Listen]. In the end, however, the majority including Judge Dyk ruled in favor of the United States.
200*200 HARPER, for the Plaintiff.
E.I. LEE, and P.B. KEY, contra.
202*202 The question certified to this Court, by the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia, and upon which the opinion of this Court is required, is, whether, after the expiration of the original patent granted to Oliver Evans, a general right to use his discovery was not so vested in the public as to require and justify such a construction of the act passed in January, 1808, entitled “an act for the relief of Oliver Evans” as to exempt from either treble or single damages, the use, subsequent to the passage of the said act, of the machinery therein mentioned, which was erected subsequent to the expiration of the original patent and previous to the passage of the said act.
The act, upon the construction of which the judges of the Circuit Court, were opposed in opinion, directs a patent to be granted, in the form prescribed by law, to Oliver Evans for 14 years, for the full and exclusive right of making, constructing, using, and vending to be used, his invention, discovery and improvements in the art of manufacturing flour and meal, and in the several machines which he has discovered, invented, improved, and applied to that purpose.
The language of this last proviso is so precise, and so entirely free from all ambiguity, that it is difficult for any course of reasoning to shed light upon its meaning. It protects against any claim for damages which Evans might make, those who may have used his improvements, or who may have erected them for use, prior to the issuing of his patent under this law. The protection is limited to acts done prior to another act thereafter to be performed, to wit, the issuing of the patent. To extend it, by construction to acts which might be done subsequent to the issuing of the patent, would be to make, not to interpret the law.
The PTO’s proposed new rules for Track I Expedited Examination were published in the Federal Register today. You can view them here: [Link].
Comments are due by March 7, 2011.
You are currently browsing the 717 Madison Place blog archives for February, 2011.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.