Posts Tagged: "Authors"

As I’ve said before, no one could rightly accuse me of being biased against patents. But, as I also pointed out in this article on Judge Rader’s dissent in Media Technologies Licensing, LLC v. The Upper Deck Company, I don’t believe every patent is “bullet proof,” or to use Judge Plager’s phrase, that some patents aren’t built on “quicksand.” In fact, I agree with Judge Plager’s dissent in the denial of rehearing en banc in Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., issued May 26, 2010, which argues that the “definiteness” requirement in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C § 112 needs more “teeth” than Federal Circuit precedent appears to give it.

After first “threatening,” then being “silent” for over three years, the patentee in Aspex Eyewear was barred by the defense of equitable estoppel from getting any relief for patent infringement. What’s even worse, after the initial “threat” of infringement the patentee in Aspex Eyewear created this ticking estoppel time bomb by failing to mention (in follow up exchanges) the two patents for which suit was filed, while mentioning three other patents which were not involved in the suit that was filed.

If you ever thought of starting a patent software company, I have some good news for you. Unlike the general software markets for, say, antivirus or mp3 software, the legal software market is just not very saturated. A lot of the existing software for patent lawyers is outdated, ridiculously expensive, and frankly, not that good. There is definitely room for…

Last summer J.D. Salinger sued the author/publisher of the book entitled “60 Years Later Coming Through the Rye” for copyright infringement. Salinger claimed that the book was a sequel to his famous book entitled “Catcher in the Rye” and therefore it was an infringing derivative work. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that Salinger is likely to ultimately prevail in his lawsuit because the book is probably an infringing work which is not protected by the fair use exception to copyright infringement. However, the Second Circuit remanded because it held that the test used by the district court to decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction was no longer the proper test to use in light of the 2006 Supreme Court decision in eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388.

There are always trade-offs in design work. Design features often conflict. For example, a big heavy vehicle is usually safer but the gas mileage is lower. But one of the things I have learned in my years as a product developer is that decisions have consequences. The biggest consequence of making a decision in product development is that the field of all subsequent decisions is contracted. That is, you reduce your list of options. It seems that ideas condense from a gas to a solid. They start out in a nebulous intangible form and condense into a solid physical entity. So bottom line, postpone any decisions on how to do things, initially. Brainstorming is the first order of business.

It generally takes a lot longer and costs a lot more to get an idea licensed. New ideas are hard to sell. The capable companies are not interested because they are generating their own ideas. The not-so-capable companies might be interested but would probably drop the ball. Most workers at these companies just want to make it through the day. An unfinished product looks more like work than an opportunity. It is also risky. Employees are not compensated for risks but are punished for failure.

Unfortunately, the ACLU appears to have found an “ally” in Judge Sweet, who is the district court judge handling the AMP case. In my view, Judge Sweet has either been duped by the ACLU, or is more likely complicit in accepting the ACLU’s warped view of what these patents cover. That became evident when Judge Sweet denied the motions by Myriad and the USPTO to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Nothing in the appealed issues in Pressure Products (claim construction, denial of motion for JMOL, leave to amend answer) even remotely hints at or suggests the basis for this five judge panel. In fact, Pressure Products has all the markings of a fairly ordinary, garden variety patent infringement case. So why not the standard three judge panel? Not a word of explanation.

Coming as no surprise, a majority of the en banc Federal Circuit just ruled in Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly &Co. that there is there is a separate and distinct “written description” requirement in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Also not surprisingly, there were multiple concurring (and dissenting) opinions. Judge Lourie (writing the majority opinion) has now won the on-going debate that has raged between him and Judge Rader (who has strenuously argued there is no written description requirement separate and distinct from the “enablement” requirement) since the 1997 case of Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co.

The buzz continues about Lindsay Lohan’s suit against E*TRADE over its use of the name “Lindsay” to identify a “milkaholic” character in the latest in its ongoing series of talking-babies commercials. Not coincidentally, shortly before the Academy Awards broadcast—Army Sergeant Jeffrey S. Sarver brought suit in the District of New Jersey, alleging that the lead character of the film The Hurt Locker, which subsequently won the Best Picture Oscar, was a depiction of him, for which he was owed compensation.

In the case of Henryk Oleksy v. General Electric Company, et al (ILND 1-06-cv-01245), a settlement conference occurred recently. Quite a normal activity in patent litigation cases. But something about this particular entry caught our eye. Patent litigators were complimented for being civil by the district court. This is not something you typically see, but when there are these types of “feel good” moments they are worthy of being noted.

The recent dispute involving Lindsay Lohan and ETrade provides an opportunity for critically examining the right of publicity. One defense that ETrade could raise would be parody since it is common practice – and a strongly protected free speech right – to make fun of people. Nevertheless, courts have distinguished between simply making fun of someone and making fun of someone in order to sell a product.

In the end, Ajinomoto, and especially the ‘698 and ‘160 patents, were unable to outrun the “best mode” patentraptor. And like the sequels to Jurassic Park, there are likely to be future instances where this patentivour devours other U.S. patents, including those of foreign applicants who may even be ignorant of this patent monster. But ignorance of the “best mode” patentraptor is equivalent to not being aware that the bioengineered dinosaurs were multiplying in dangerous numbers in Jurassic Park. The message is now clear in the Ajinomoto case: be aware or be eaten by the “best mode” patentraptor.

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2010) (“SEB”) addresses a defendant’s liability for inducement as well as for direct infringement. It is significant in that it may expand the scope of infringement liability, particularly for foreign defendants, in multiple respects.  What follows is an Executive Summary of SEB…