Source: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/11/index.html
Timestamp: 2013-12-08 20:59:44
Document Index: 197384768

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 161', '§ 101', '§ 161', '§ 171', '§ 161', '§ 101', '§ 171', '§ 101']

Mitt Romeny’s primary business experience comes from heading Bain Capital, the Boston based private equity venture fund. Its not surprising then that Romney believes in a “strong U.S. patent system.” In a letter, Romney announced three initial patent office reforms: Ensure that the Undersecretary of Commerce and Director of the PTO will be a distinguished U.S. patent lawyer with many years of experience.
Barack Obama: I know that it is essential we have a system that produces timely, high-quality patents. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a “gold-plated” patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, I will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration. Other candidates have been silent on patent issues. Posted on Nov 29, 2007 at 03:35 PM | Permalink
Elbex Video v. Sensormatic Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2007)
Elbex sued Sensormatic for infringement of its patent covering a remote-controllable CCTV system. The district court (Judge Owen, Southern District of New York) granted summary judgment of non-infringement based on prosecution disclaimer of a portion of the scope of the claimed “receiving means.” Prosecution Disclaimer: During prosecution, the applicant had described the invention as having a “monitor” that receives a coded signal. The claims, however, refer to a seemingly broader “receiving means.” Based on the prosecution statements, the district court found a disclaimer of scope: “[T]he district court found that the inventor limited the “receiving means” that receives the first code signal to a “monitor”… Implicit in its determination is a finding that the inventor clearly and unmistakably surrendered any claim scope between the “receiving means” that receives first code signals as expressly recited in the claims, and a “monitor” that receives first code signals.”On appeal, Judge Moore (with Judge Dyk) couldn’t find the “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer. “First, the statement in the prosecution history is unsupported by even a shred of evidence from the specification…. Second, read in isolation, the statement in the prosecution history could be argued to be a disclaimer. When the prosecution history as a whole is considered, the inventor’s response to the PTO is not as clear…. [Third, the] prosecution statement if taken [as a literal disclaimer] would result in an inoperable system.”This change in claim construction allowed for a reversal-in-part. District Court Judge Cote sat by designation on the panel found the disclaimer clear and unambiguous and would have affirmed. (Judge Cote is also from the S.D.N.Y.)
Notes: Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc) (“Prosecution history is relevant to the construction of a claim written in means-plus-function form.”). Posted on Nov 29, 2007 at 05:06 AM | Permalink
I’ve enjoyed reading Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine for the past few months and met up with Joff Wild (Editor) and Gavin Stewart (Publisher) at the recent Ocean Tomo auction in Chicago. IAM’s focus is on monetizing and managing intellectual property on a global scale. Or, in their words, “how IP can be best managed and exploited in order to increase company profits, drive shareholder value and obtain increased leverage in the capital markets.” The magazine has a bent toward strong IP rights – but its real focus is on how business and finance interplay with intellectual property.
Posted on Nov 28, 2007 at 03:57 PM | Permalink
The ABA Journal has released a new site for finding law related legal blogs: Blawg 100. They have included Patently-O and Patently-O Jobs in their top 100 list. Thanks! The Journal is also holding a popularity contest — you can vote for Patently-O as the best ‘substantive blog.’ The Journal has also compiled a major list of over 100 IP related blogs. Links: Vote for Patently-O on the Substance
Posted on Nov 28, 2007 at 11:54 AM | Permalink
Tafas v. Dudas: Court refuses to allow discovery and orders summary judgment briefs due by December 20, 2007. [PLI BLOG]
Posted on Nov 27, 2007 at 03:37 PM | Permalink
Briefs: Quanta v. LGE On Certiorari
Posted on Nov 27, 2007 at 03:11 PM | Permalink
The Supreme Court appears to have answered this query in Footnote 5 of its 2001 opinion in J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred.[2] In that case, the Court held once again that the patentable subject matters scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is “extremely broad” and that the scope for utility patents certainly includes plants despite the existence of § 161 “plant patents.” In Footnote 5, the Court briefly compares § 101 utility patents with § 161 plant patents and § 171 design patents. “Patents issued under § 161 are referred to as ‘plant patents,’ which are distinguished from § 101 utility patents and § 171 design patents.”[3] The implication from the Court’s comparison is that design patents are not subject to the requirements of § 101 (despite the lack of any statutory exceptions). Thus, a patented design must be “new, original[, ] ornamental [and] an article of manufacture.” However, the design need not be useful. [1] In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998). [2] J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l., 534 <?xml:namespace prefix ="" st1 />U.S. 124 (2001)
Posted on Nov 27, 2007 at 01:07 PM in Articles and Publications, Design Patent | Permalink
An Ugly Stepsister: CAFC Accepts En Banc Design Patent Case Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, Inc. (Fed. Cir. en Banc 2007)
In the appeal, the Federal Circuit (Judge Moore) held that a combination of known elements may serve as a point of novelty – but only if the combination represents a “non-trivial advance over the prior art.”[6] Here, the court found the combination trivial. The Egyptian Goddess panel opinion helps clarify the recent Lawman Armor opinion. In Lawman Armor, the court held (at least) that the “overall appearance” of a design cannot serve as a “point of novelty.”[7] Picking up on some incongruence, Judge Dyk dissented from the Egyptian Goddess majority. Judge Dyk argued instead that the “non-trivial advance” requirement is antithetic to the notion of “points of novelty” in the same way that it would be odd to include a nonobviousness element within the requirements for novelty under 35 USC 102. En Banc: Now, the Federal Circuit has agreed to re-hear the case en banc. In all likelihood, the case will be at least vacated with the point of (non-trivial) novelty test being returned to a straight novelty requirement.