Source: http://jiplp.blogspot.co.uk/2011_07_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 16:40:38
Document Index: 114526746

Matched Legal Cases: ['§251', '§251', '§251', '§1402', '§251', '§251']

the defendants/respondents either by themselves, agents, privies, contractors, surrogates or any other person or persons claiming through them, are restrained from continuing the process of considering proposals of tendering/bidding for, producing, procuring, supplying, selling, leasing, alienating, applying or otherwise using the Direct Data Capture Machines, laptops and/or any other equipment ancillary to, or associated with the process and application of the said machines/equipment about to be supplied or being supplied by the 4th–6th defendants/ respondents to the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents for the registration of voters and/or compilation, production and use of a Voters’ Register for the 2011 general elections or any other elections whatsoever, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed before this Court.On 13 December 2010, the defendants made substantive representations in seeking to discharge the order, relying on the following grounds:
From time to time, this weblog will publish a list of reviews in the pipeline together with their reviewer, so that readers can gain an idea as to what books will shortly be reviewed and, if necessary, defer their decision to purchase a book until they have had a chance to read the review. JIPLP will endeavour to expedite the publication of reviews, making full use of the journal's Advance Access facility and by publishing a greater number of reviews on this blog.
employer-employee confidentiality
As befits a journal such as JIPLP, which has an inherent interest in all matters pertaining to intellectual property infringement and enforcement, plagiarism and the proper acknowledgement of both authors and sources are matters of no merely idle concern. JIPLP's membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is therefore a natural consequence of its interest. What does COPE do, and how does it do it? Here's some information from the Committee itself:
"As your journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we would like to welcome you and take this opportunity to explain a little more about COPE, the benefits of membership and the features of our website. COPE was founded in 1997 by a group of journal editors concerned about publication misconduct, e.g. plagiarism, redundant publication, fraudulent data, unethical research, breaches of confidentiality, etc. Originally a loose gathering of a few individuals, COPE is now a registered charity with over 6000 members across all disciplines. Membership in COPE sends a signal to authors and reviewers that your journal upholds the highest ethical standards, that you intend to follow COPE’s Code of Conduct and that you will take appropriate action in cases of possible misconduct. Benefits of membership include:
• Publication ethics audit tool.The COPE Forum meets every three months in London, UK and is open to members and appropriate guests. Members are invited to submit cases in advance, which are anonymised before circulation. Cases are then discussed during the Forum, with advice given on appropriate action. Members are asked to provide feedback about their cases at subsequent meetings. All cases submitted to the Forum (suitably anonymised and without any information about the submitting journal) are entered into the database, which may be helpful in answering queries about cases similar to those that have been discussed before and will also form a useful research tool".Membership of COPE does not preclude readers and authors from letting us know if they read or see anything untoward in our pages.So if you see anything that looks wrong, please let us know as soon as possible.
The Respondents undertake not to use AFFINAGE, INFINITI, AFFINAGE INFINITI, or AFFINAGE SALON PROFESSIONAL as a sign in connection with the importation, marketing, sale or manufacture in Australia of hair care products including hair colours and dyes.In January 2011, the Australian company's solicitor undertook a Google search for ‘Affinage’ and noticed ‘Affinage Salon Professional’ at the website www.affinage.com. Entering the website, the solicitor accessed a landing page in which ‘Affinage’ appeared as a type banner with ‘Salon Professional’ as an added smaller subscript. The page included a ‘country box’. Above the box was the statement ‘Select Australia for information on Australia and Asian Pacific countries’. When the solicitor selected Australia in the country box, he was taken to a page headed ‘ASP’. Under the ‘Profile’ tab was the following statement:
In 1996 [IHC UK] conceived, created and launched the premium hair care brand AFFINAGE. Originated as line of hair colour, the AFFINAGE brand grew rapidly to include [reference to other types of product] … Now we are introducing our exciting new hair care brand, ASP, to the Australian and Asian markets. Having already signed distribution agreements with a number of companies we look forward to fantastic success in 2011.Under the heading ‘World Class, Worldwide’, the following statement was made:
Today our products are sold in over 50 countries—across Europe, Africa, the United States, South America and the Asia Pacific. Our brands are marketed globally by {IHC UK} and through its associated companies in the USA and Australia. Global distribution is achieved through a worldwide network of wholesalers and specialist distributors.At the bottom of the page was a map of the world in which the UK was indicated as the ‘Worldwide HQ’ of ASP, ‘ASP USA’ was designated in the USA, and ‘ASP Australia’ was designated on the Australian continent.
In summary, the use of a trade mark on the internet, uploaded on a website outside of Australia, without more, is not use by a website proprietor of the mark in each jurisdiction is downloaded. However, … if there is evidence that the use was specifically intended to be made in, or directed or targeted at, a particular jurisdiction then there is likely to be a use in that jurisdiction when the mark is downloaded. Of course, once the website intends to make and makes a specific use of the mark in relation to a particular person or persons in a jurisdiction there will be little difficulty in concluding that the website proprietor has used the mark in that jurisdiction.In the present case, there was little doubt that the website was directed at Australian consumers, given the Australia-specific website that was accessed by selecting ‘Australia’ in the country box.
The nature of the defect is that the error specified in the oath filed 9/24/2007 is not an error correctible by a reissue. The Applicant has not specified an error that broadens or narrows the scope of the claims of issued patent 6093991. The original claim 1 remains in the current reissue application, therefore the broadest scope of the patent remains the same.This rejection was made final, and Tanaka appealed to the US Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in determining that the presentation of a narrower claim in a reissue application that still contains all of the original patent claims does not present the type of error correctible by reissue under 35 U.S.C. §251?The Board found the examiner did not err, and that under its analysis of the statute, ‘the presentation of a narrower claim in a reissue application that still contains all of the original patent claims is not an error correctible by reissue under 35 U.S.C. §251’.
As such, the CCPA's tacit approval in a footnote that it is proper to seek narrower claims in a reissue as a hedge against the possible invalidity of the original claims is a voluntary opinion made by the court which falls outside the holding of the court in Handel and which was made without argument or full consideration of the point after briefing by the parties. In other words, this statement in footnote 2 of Handel is dictum.Tanaka I also discussed Hewlett-Packard Co. v Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 882 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1989), which Tanaka I recognized ‘noted’ that ‘[a]lthough neither “more” nor “less” in the sense of scope of the claims, the practice of allowing reissue for the purpose of including narrower claims as a hedge against the possible invalidation of a broad claim has been tacitly approved, at least in dicta, in our precedent’. Nonetheless, Tanaka I concluded that ‘the court in Hewlett-Packard did not squarely address the issue before us in the present appeal’.
The court in Muller did not address, even in dicta, the issue of whether the failure to present narrower claims is an error correctible under §251 “by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent.” Rather, the court's holding in Muller was limited to a holding that the Board erred in determining that the patentee made a deliberate renunciation of subject matter during prosecution of the original patent. Id. (declining to reach the question of whether a deliberate non-election of species can be remedied by reissue).Finally, Tanaka I turned to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §1402, which the Board concluded interprets section 251 as not allowing ‘for a reissue application in which the only error specified to support reissue is the failure to include one or more claims that is/are narrower than at least one of the existing patent claims(s) without an allegation that one or more of the broader patent claims(s) is/are too broad together with an amendment to such claim(s)’. The Board noted that ‘[s]ince July 2008, the 5,000+ USPTO examiners have applied the above stated MPEP reissue policy to determine proper and improper grounds for filing reissue applications’. Thus the Board on its own interpreted section 251 to ‘disallow[s] reissue applications that simply add narrow claims to the reissue patent when no assertion of inoperativeness or invalidity for the reasons set forth in §251 can be made by the patentee.’
Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue. 35 USC §251, quoted in In re Tanaka, No. 2010-1262, 2011 US App. LEXIS 7739, at *6–7 (Fed. Cir. 15 Apr 2011) (emphases supplied by the court) (Tanaka II).On appeal, Judge Linn, writing for the majority in Tanaka II, found against the PTO, concluding ‘that the Board's determination is contrary to longstanding precedent of this court and flies counter to principles of stare decisis’. Tanaka II recognized that section 251 ‘imposes two requirements for properly invoking the reissue process’:
The ‘defective, inoperative, or invalid patent’ must have arisen ‘through error without deceptive intent’.Tanaka II found ‘[t]here is no dispute in this case that any defect arose without deceptive intent’.
patent reissue procedure,
Although we are only one week into July, the August 2011 issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice is already available to subscribers online. You can check the contents of this issue here. Non-subscribers are reminded that they can purchase access to JIPLP features on a pay-as-you-access basis. The editorial for this issue focuses on the vast international muddle which is design protection and asks what can be done about it. It reads as follows:
Design protection: back to the drawing board? "The great design conundrum