Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2016/06/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:02:39+00:00

Document:
A baby crib, comprising: a horizontal support platform; a base structure disposed below and physically supporting the horizontal support platform; a plurality of vertical surfaces connected to the horizontal support platform and arranged to form a contained area at least 50 cm above the horizontal support platform; a first sensor physically integrated with the horizontal support platform; and a second sensor physically integrated with at least one of the plurality of vertical surfaces.
together and that the first short spine must be removable.
in the first round of litigation. See B & B Hardware, Inc.
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).
the ground to the top of the console. See ’311 patent, col.
does not allow a conclusion that one can be the other.
Side panel has property X.
Therefore, some side panels are spines.
Bascom won a vacating of an order from ND Texas.
arrangement of known, conventional pieces.
filtering features specific to each end user.
commerce, with no balancing benefit.
Plunkett was a DuPont chemist working with gases in the late 1930s when an experiment unexpectedly produced a mysterious white powder. The slippery stuff turned out to have multiple military applications ... and even helped in making the first atomic bomb.
In 1945, DuPont trademarked its miraculous discovery, mercifully shortening its chemical name (Poly-tetra-flouro-ethylene) to the more user-friendly name: Teflon.
[Plunkett] died in 1994, just shy of his 84th birthday. But his name lives on in the form of DuPont's annual Plunkett Award.
Plunkett's US Patent 2,230,654 (filed July 1, 1939; granted Feb. 4, 1941) was assigned to Kinetic Chemicals, a joint venture between DuPont and General Motors.
The moment of nature was from Tallulah Gorge State Park in Georgia.
earlier application’s filing date, not its own filing date.
determinations in the federal courts, e.g., Fed. R.
Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–38 (Fed. Cir.
2008); Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2006); In re Sullivan, 362 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
2004); see also Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345, 1352–53 (Fed.
Cir. 2009), vacated, 328 F. App’x 658 (Fed. Cir. 2009); id.
at 1365 (Bryson, J., concurring).
The term "rulemaking" appears four times in the dissent of Judge Newman.
The Supreme Court had no trouble with the USPTO utilizing the BRI standard.
U. S. C. §706(2)(A). I therefore join the Court’s opinion in full.
In inter partes review,however, the broadest reasonable construction standard may help protect certain public interests, but there is no absolute right to amend any challenged patent claims.This, Cuozzo says, is unfair to the patent holder.
The process however, is not as unfair as Cuozzo suggests. The patent holder may, at least once in the process,make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, amend or narrow the claim.§316(d) (2012 ed.). This opportunity to amend, together with the fact that the original application process may have presented several additional opportunities to amend the patent, means that use of the broadest reasonable construction standard is, as a general matter, not unfair to the patent holder in any obvious way.
Cuozzo adds that, as of June 30, 2015, only 5 out of 86 motions to amend have been granted. Brief for Petitioner 30; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 30 (noting that a sixth motion had been granted by the time of oral argument in this case).But these numbers may reflect the fact that no amendment could save the inventions at issue, i.e., that the patent should have never issued at all.
To the extent Cuozzo’s statistical argument takes aim at the manner in which the Patent Office has exercised its authority, that question is not before us. Indeed, in this particular case, the agency determined that Cuozzo’s proposed amendment “enlarge[d],” rather than narrowed,the challenged claims. App. to Pet. for Cert. 165a–166a; see §316(d)(3). Cuozzo does not contend that the decision not to allow its amendment is “arbitrary” or “capricious,” or “otherwise [un]lawful.” 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(a).
Second, Cuozzo says that the use of the broadest reasonable construction standard in inter partes review,together with use of an ordinary meaning standard in district court, may produce inconsistent results and cause added confusion. A district court may find a patent claim to be valid, and the agency may later cancel that claim in its own review. We recognize that that is so. This possibility, however, has long been present in our patent system, which provides different tracks—one in the Patent Office and one in the courts—for the review and adjudication of patent claims. As we have explained above, inter partes review imposes a different burden of proof on the challenger. These different evidentiary burdens mean that the possibility of inconsistent results is inherent to Congress’ regulatory design. Cf. One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S. 232, 235–238 (1972) (per curiam).
And we cannot find unreasonable the Patent Office’s decision to prefer a degree of inconsistency in the standards used between the courts and the agency,rather than among agency proceedings. See 77 Fed. Reg.48697–48698.
Cuozzo was supported by several industry groups and companies, which urged the justices to take the case.
One friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case on behalf of 3M Co, Caterpillar Inc, Eli Lilly and Co and Qualcomm Inc said the patent office reviews and litigation in district court needed to be streamlined for the "proper functioning of the patent system as a whole."
The Supreme Court acknowledged the Patent Office rules differ from those in court, but said the agency had taken a reasonable approach.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the court’s opinion, said the Patent Office approach “helps to protect the public” by preventing individuals and companies from claiming overly broad patents.
According to recent government data, trials completed so far in front of a Patent Office board have resulted in the cancellation of some or all of a patent more than 80% of the time.
Lee Cowan, not Charles Osgood, hosted Sunday Morning for June 19, 2016.
June 19th, 1931, 85 years ago today ... the day the door opened to a whole new world of technology.
For that was the day the Stanley Works company installed the world's first automatic doors at Wilcox's Pier Restaurant in West Haven, Connecticut.
Placed between the kitchen and the dining room, the doors sprang open the moment a photoelectric eye detected a person's approach.
"Through the invention," wrote the Hartford Courant, "there is no longer need for waitresses to kick open doors or use their hands for anything other than carrying in the trays."
On Nov. 23, 1931, Raymond submitted an application for his “apparatus for operating doors” with the U.S. Patent Office. Three years later, a patent for the world’s first pneumatic operator with photo-electric, or light beam, controls was published (No. 1978093A).
Novelty, as well as the practical value of The Stanley Works “Magic Door,” appealed to progressive business people of this era, particularly owners of retail stores. The first installation was at Wilcox Pier Restaurant in West Haven, Conn. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology also had the door operator installed on the institute’s iconic entrance hall in Cambridge, Mass. This door operator is still in place and running today, more than 80 years later.
Anthony Mason did a "fathers day" story on photographer William Eggleston and his daughter, textile designer Andra Eggleston.
Some of the father's designs have been incorporated into fabrics produced by the daughter. Mason commented that he could not see the repeat unit in the fabric.
Seth Doane talked with Richard Gere, beginning with "Time out of mind," and getting into refugees at Sant Egidio and Lampadusa.
Gere's 94 year old father was mentioned. The Pope Francis/Lesbos refugee matter was discussed, with one of the "adopted" refugees interviewed.
Rocca asked, "The man who's wearing carefully-chosen socks is sending a message that says what?"
"That he pays attention to detail," Vagrani replied. "You naturally will start to think of that person a little bit different. You start to almost see an insight into his personality."
"Maybe that person's a bit creative, an out-of-the-box thinker?"
"Yes. And this is what gives the man an opportunity to quietly express himself."
an allusion to William Lee who invented the first stocking frame knitting machine in 1589.
Anna Werner interviewed actor Tim Daly, brother of Tyne Daly.
Luke Burbank did a piece on BeardedVillains, a group that got started on InstaGram.
The "moment of nature" evoked a Fathers Day theme: Monument Valley, located near the Utah-Arizona border, and was a familiar setting for John Ford, one of the Founding Fathers of the Hollywood Western. One of the access points is Kayenta, AZ.
GrafTech’s argument suffers from two flaws.
First, GrafTech’s argument asks us to reweigh the evidence, which we may not do under the substantial evidence standard of review. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that, under the substantial evidence standard of review, “[t]his court does not reweigh evidence on appeal, but rather determines whether substantial evidence supports the [PTAB’s] fact findings”); Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 224 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Even if we might have found some of the facts differently, or even if we might have drawn some inferences from the facts differently, . . . that is not the role of an appellate court.”).
Second, the record does not support GrafTech’s argument. During cross-examination, Mr. Bagot testified that he worked extensively with graphite and that his education in Britain is equivalent to a bachelor’s degree in science engineering in the United States. J.A.-1796, at 2579–80. Mr. Bagot also testified that he possesses over five years of experience in thermal management and electronics and that he has worked with flexible graphite sheets for over five years. J.A.-1796, at 2581–82. These are the qualifications that GrafTech alleged an individual should possess to qualify as an expert. See GrafTech I, 2015 WL 1385390, at *5. Thus, substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s decision to rely upon Mr. Bagot’s testimony.
In In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, the Supreme Court is considering whether the PTAB “may construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than their plain and ordinary meaning.” Brief for Petitioner at *II, In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC (No. 15-446), 2016 WL 737452 (Feb. 22, 2016). Even if the Supreme Court finds that the PTAB should construe terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning, that holding would not change our conclusion in this case because GrafTech’s proffered construction improperly would impose an extraneous limitation on the disputed claims, as discussed below.
specification “includes both the written description and the claims” of the patent in question. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1320 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If a specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition to a claim term, and the PTAB relies upon evidence extrinsic to the specification to construe a claim, “[w]e review [the] underlying factual determinations concerning extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence and the ultimate construction of the claim de novo.” In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted), cert. granted sub nom., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (2016).
The CAFC made short work of "In re Zhang."
We conclude that the Board’s findings on obviousness, including that Doi does not teach away from using the non-coated yarn of Weinle, are supported by substantial evidence. While a prior art reference may indicate that a particular combination is undesirable for its own purposes, the reference can nevertheless teach that combination if it remains suitable for the claimed invention. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he teaching of [a reference] is not limited to the specific invention disclosed.”). Though using the non-coated yarn of Weinle to make the knitted fabric of Doi may eliminate the advantage in hand feel provided by Doi’s coated yarn, “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Moreover, the claims of the ’047 application are not limited to fabrics that are soft to the touch. Rather, they only require a knitted fabric made of two yarns, one that is non-coated with a lower relative melting point that is heat-bonded to itself “at a percentage of . . . crossover points.” J.A. 189. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that the prior art teaches the claim elements and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the non-coated yarn of Weinle to make the heat-bonded fabric thermally bonded at the crossover points as disclosed in Doi. Mr. Zhang does not make additional arguments regarding the rejection of claim 6. We thus affirm the Board’s rejection of claims 1–13 for obviousness. Because we affirm the rejection of all pending claims under § 103(a), we decline to reach the rejection under § 112, paragraph 1. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Mr. Zhang was represented by Mr. Wang, of Millington NJ.
The Register slams the Financial Times over patents: "Maybe the FT's editor needs to get his story straight."
But The Register relies on James Bessen!
In a post titled THE MOST UNLIKELY PITCHERS TO CLINCH A WORLD SERIES , Paul Sullivan discusses Bud Daley in game five of the 1961 World Series.
As a few footnotes, Daley went from the Kansas City Athletics to the Yankees AFTER Finley took over (and was traded for a "goat" of the 1960 World Series, Art Ditmar), and Daley had a losing record (8-9; 17 games started (5th most on the team); 7 complete games;) for the 1961 regular season Yankees. Bob Turley, the hero of the 1958 World Series, was the only other pitcher on the 1961 Yankees with a losing record (3-5). Bill Stafford was the only Yankee starter with an ERA under 3.00. Had the Yankees not won game five, Stafford likely would have started game 6; the Yankees had won game 3 (which Stafford started) only by a score of 3-2 (on a Maris home run, one of only two hits for Maris in the 1961 Series).
The Yankees at game five were hurting: Mantle and Berra were not in the lineup, and Ford had been hurt. Daley's effort was major.
titled How plagiarism brings about job openings .
As one point, one recalls the confirmed plagiarism of Joe Biden in Syracuse Law School, which did not impede Mr. Biden from a very successful later career. SO, if we are looking for poster children for "plagiarist makes good," Biden beats Musick.
BUT, as a second point, the simplistic interpretation by Mr. O'Neill of a line in "The Last Tycoon" may be questioned.
Maybe Fitzgerald was saying we’d be better off if we took a little time for character development, for figuring out who we are, before we race to the finish line. That explanation seems to make a lot more sense than the more common interpretation of the line.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote, in his notes on The Last Tycoon, that “there are no second acts in American lives,” which in common usage has come to mean something like, “There are no second chances.” If anything, both Fitzgerald’s writing and his life show us that there are infinite chances, endless do-overs, that the American mind has no choice but to forge ahead, trying, trying again. There’s probably scholarship to contradict me, but I think Fitzgerald was getting at something more like the idea that there are no true endings — but rather, that what’s wrapped up with a bow is only waiting to come undone; our stories are constantly unfolding, scene after scene.
LBE (whose father knew Fitzgerald) believes this more nuanced version of the words "second acts" is the correct take.
As a separate issue, when one attributes to Fitzgerald a line taken out of context, from a novel Fitzgerald never completed, is one committing a form of inverse plagiarism, incorrectly attributing to someone a meaning not intended BECAUSE it is taken out of context?
incorrectly on a resume an actual enhancement from C to B, as one being from F to B, which effectively embellished the accomplishment on the resume. This sort of thing also goes back to Biden, who may or may not have plagiarized a story from Neil Kinnock but who incorrectly adopted the facts of the Kinnock story as his own.
In such cases, obfuscation about plagiarism can "cover up" a deeper problem.
the copyright case involving Led Zeppelin.
The suit is brought by the trustee of the estate of deceased guitarist and composer Randy Wolfe of the band Spirit, a rock band formed in 1967 in Los Angeles, and claims that the iconic opening riff of Stairway was lifted from the song "Taurus," performed at a 1970 concert in Britain that Mr. Plant allegedly attended.
"Taurus" would have been created before the Copyright Act of 1976 and would fall under the copyright law of 1909 (which does not have an explicit fair use provision).
The defendants deny these allegations, arguing that Wolfe was a writer for hire and that the chord progression was too commonplace to copyright.
When Plant and Page explain the song’s origins in court next month, their lawyers have asked the judge to forbid any argument that the rockers’ memories may be flawed due to “adverse effects of drinking or drug use in the 1960s or later,” Bloomberg reports.
prior art reference DE 297 15 490 U1 (“Caterpillar”) (J.A.
131–44) and U.S. Patent No. 4,283,866 (“Ogawa”) (J.A.
of the prior art as a whole.”).
1981). See also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed.
480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Caterpillar does not expressly teach away from Ogawa.
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Supreme Court favored patentees Stryker and Halo Electronics in June 13's decision on punitive damages in patent cases. The Supreme Court found that the standard of the CAFC was too rigid and that trial judges should have more leeway.
In one, medical-device maker Stryker Corp. convinced a jury that subsidiaries of rival Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc. willfully infringed its patents on hand-held devices used to clean wounds. Jurors awarded Stryker $70 million for lost profits. The presiding judge, citing testimony that Zimmer deliberately copied Stryker’s devices, then tripled the damages award.
Stryker lost the enhanced award at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled Zimmer shouldn’t have to pay the extra money because its legal defenses, while unsuccessful, weren’t unreasonable or entirely baseless.
The Supreme Court said that ruling was incorrect.
In a second case, Halo Electronics Inc., which makes components used in computers and other devices, obtained $1.5 million in infringement damages from Pulse Electronics Corp., but failed to persuade the Federal Circuit that enhanced damages were merited.
There is a controversy, in part about plagiarism, surrounding the proposed appointment of Anthony Hamlet as Pittsburgh schools superintendent.
Hamlet, a former Palm Beach administrator, is set to replace outgoing Superintendent Linda Lane on July 1. The district has been paying Hamlet $808 per day since June 1 as he participates in “transition activities,” in accordance with an agreement with the school district.
“This is obviously fluid; we'll deal with issues as they arise,” said district Solicitor Ira Weiss, who called the emergency, closed-door meeting — which included all nine board members, the district's special counsel and district spokeswoman Ebony Pugh.
questions have arisen about a sentence describing his “educational philosophy” that appears to have been taken verbatim from a 2015 Washington Post article without attribution.
An act of plagiarism could be considered an act of immorality — though it's a somewhat gray area of the education code that could be open to interpretation and hinges on facts specific to each case, said Richard Stewart, a Cumberland County attorney and past president of the Pennsylvania School Solicitors' Association.
Hamlet's resume clearly reveals on which side of that equation he falls. The former Florida educator stated he raised two schools' state grades from “F” to “C”; boosted one high school's graduation rate by 13 percentage points; and had direct supervision of 20 schools in his final job with the school district. The Palm Beach Post reported those claims appeared to be embellishments or exaggerations.
Hamlet on Monday vehemently denied embellishing his resume. “You will see fully there are no discrepancies whatsoever,” he told reporters.
On Tuesday, he acknowledged one of the schools whose state grades he reportedly raised did not have an “F.” But he insisted the other school grade went from F to “C,” information that differs from Florida state records.
The cover story titled Remembering the Titanic of Shark Attacks has a New Jersey theme, relating to shark attacks that happened near Matawan 100 years ago.
James Corden does carpool karaoke for Broadway stars.
Moment of Nature. Yellowstone National Park.
to review the patentability of ComplementSoft’s U.S.
Invents Act. I stated these concerns in Synopsys, Inc., v.
appeal, bringing “more certainty in litigation.” 157 Cong.
Senate consideration of S. 23) (emphasis added).
This contravenes a primary purpose of the AIA.
The Yankees and "first base"
Yikes. That makes four legitimate first baseman the Yankees have lost this season, a string of injuries perhaps unlike anything else in the big league for one position.
"You don't see this," Girardi said Thursday (9 June 2016). "People ask about depth—you're usually not four deep, five deep at first base. You might have kids in A-ball, as you go down, but it's hard, but we gotta find a way to overcome it."
Flash back to the Yankees of 1925. The Yankees entered play on June 2, 1925 with a 15–26 win-loss record, good for seventh (of eight) in the American League. Lou Gehrig replaced Wally Pipp. The Yankees went on to finish seventh in the American League.
Wally Pipp is remembered as the guy who preceded Lou Gehrig, who missed one game, and never started at first base for the Yankees again. In fact, Pipp was the first Yankee to lead the American League in home runs (did it twice in fact; 1916, 1917).
And as to a trademark issue, Pipp was a member of what was FIRST called "murderers' row," which preceded the one of the 1927 Yankees.
EPO blocks access to IPKat blog!
Is the CAFC decision in RUCKUS WIRELESS a gamechanger?
Tony Dutra in the post THE PATENT SPECIFICATION IS THE NAME OF THE GAME NOW argues for a change in focus in "what is important" in the patent application based on the CAFC decision in RUCKUS WIRELESS.
HOWEVER, it is worth reading the dissent of Leonard P. Stark, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
path” -- was found to include wireless communications.
one point in the case.
and “link term,” we affirm.
between an “alias” or “alias term” and a plurality of files.
alternative name or label.” Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
textual expression, and (2) whether an “alias” is a hyperlink.
Constr. Order at 17–18 (citing ’276 patent col. 12 l. 55).
patent col. 5 ll. 62–64 (emphasis added).
file.” Id. col. 38 ll. 65–67, col. 40 ll. 1–3 (emphasis added).
history.” Fenner, 778 F.3d at 1327.
Is the journal SCIENCE correct on the employment of scientists?
The May 20, 2016 issue of the journal Science has a story entitled " 'Employment Crisis' for New Ph.D.s is an illusion".
In a fixed-sample panel design, data are collected from the same set of individuals in each analysis year, with the sampled individuals here comprising about 5.6% of all Ph.D. recipients.
Mervis reported a sampling of 120,000.
Mervis points to a distinction between the federal government definition of unemployed (no job and looking) vs. the NSF/SED (merely no job). HOWEVER, Mervis does not point out that ANY paying job makes one "not unemployed" by federal standards.
This would include the spectrum from mowing grass through post-doc positions (the latter unmentioned in the Mervis article).
There's another reason why the official [unemployment] rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
What is interesting is that, in the exchange regarding the title, The Avengers, for entertainment services, there clearly had been an instance of actual confusion between my colleague and me about what entertainment program was being discussed. This Kat tried to find any instance where the production company of the television series ever sought to challenge Marvel Comics (or later, Disney, which bought Marvel Entertainment in 2009 with the intention of turning the comic series and related entertainment outlets into a movie franchise), or vice versa, but he could not. It seems that each was content to allow the other to make use of the same name, even in the face of actual confusion.
At one level, this apparent “live, and let live” situation may simply reflect the position that ultimately, whether or not to enforce one’s rights about confusion is a commercial matter for the parties concerned. “The Avengers” of the 1960’s has little commercial significance today and it is prized mainly for its cult and nostalgia value. As such, the confusion evinced by this Kat’s colleague has nothing to do about the commercial source of the two entertainment series; the 1960’s television series is simply irrelevant. For this Kat, his intention was clearly the 1960’s television series; in discussing The Avengers and Emma Peel, the 2012 movie never came to mind. As such, it would appear that the confusion was in communication rather than in the source of the respective entertainment series.
In the U.S., the primary issue is whether the similarity of the marks is likely to confuse customers about the source of the products. The customer does not need to know the name of the source (e.g., how many buyers of Entenmann's know the ultimate source is Bimbo Bakeries?), simply that there is a particular source.
With the Avengers issue, one has to identify the relevant customer body. Is it people who watch 1960s tv shows or more contemporary movies? Not likely much overlap there. And would any customer think the movies were made by the producers of the tv show?
As a general proposition, the revival of an old mark, years later, in a slightly different area is an interesting question.
In passing, cozi-tv is currently showing the Avengers tv show on broadcast television.
Since the Wright brothers were the pioneers of a new technology, they claimed that U.S. patent law gave them a sweeping monopoly over every possible design for airplanes, even ones they had not invented. The brothers did not care that Curtiss had actually built a better aircraft, or that his innovation for controlled flight was superior to their outmoded technology; because they were first, Curtiss had to cough up royalties for the privilege of flying.
Curtiss was hell-bent on fighting that absurd claim. What was the use of improving technology if someone else—in this case, the Wright brothers—got to profit from his own hard-won inventions? Today this same fight is being waged across the computer and software industries. In 1910 the battleground of intellectual property law was the sky.
Thanks to his prize money, the pioneering aviator prevailed in his legal fight against the Wright brothers. The original inventors of powered flight wasted too much of their energy on litigation instead of further innovation. Hard-charging inventors like Curtiss were poised to leave them far behind. And for one spectacular moment, he owned the skies.
As to Doran's text --The original inventors of powered flight --, the Wright's patent (and invention) was about three-dimensional control of flight, not about "powered flight." The embodiment of Curtiss (with ailerons) was deemed an equivalent of the Wright's invention of three-dimensional control, embodied with wing warping.
As to Doran's text -- the pioneering aviator prevailed in his legal fight against the Wright brothers -- , note the entry on Wikipedia -- In January 1914, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in favor of the Wrights against the Curtiss company, which continued to avoid penalties through legal tactics. --. The litigation died after Orville Wright sold his interests and the patent pool was created, but it cannot be said Curtiss prevailed.
Is anybody fact-checking at TIME?

References: § 27
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §706
 §316
 §706
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 103
 § 112
 v.

 v.