Senate hearings on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 As noted previously, the Senate yesterday held hearings on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145). The witnesses were: Jon W. Dudas, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Bruce G. Bernstein, chief intellectual property and licensing officer, InterDigital Communications Corp. Mary Doyle, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, […] Continue Reading →
Thursday at the Federal Circuit: en banc arguments on the duty of care and waiver of privilege This Thursday, the Federal Circuit will sit en banc to hear oral argument in In re Seagate Technology LLC, a mandamus case regarding a district court's order to produce certain attorney-client privileged materials. (Update (6/7): the audio of the oral argument is now available online at this link.) Like in many patent cases, one of […] Continue Reading →
Senate to hold its first hearings on Patent Reform Act of 2007 While the House subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee) held hearings on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908, S. 1145) at the end of April, the Senate is just now getting into the act. On Wednesday, June 6 at 10:00 Eastern time, the full […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit finds disclosure not public use because invention not actually “used” In a decision today, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's finding of invalidity of two patents based on the public use bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). A product capable of embodying the claimed inventions was disclosed to several individuals, including potential investors, before the critical date of the patents. The court nevertheless found […] Continue Reading →
KSR at the USPTO: sea change? Over at The Fire of Genius, Joe Miller of Lewis & Clark Law School has compiled a list of cases citing KSR. As of today, there are 2 Federal Circuit decisions (blogged about here and here), 2 district court decisions [Update (6/2) there is now a third], and a whopping 31 Board of Patent Appeals […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, on-sale and public use bars, and DJ jurisdiction In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit vacated in part a district court's claim construction of a several terms as well as its decision to find no infringement of patents owned by Honeywell. The court did, however, affirm the district court's retention of jurisdiction over the several withdrawn claims and the decision that Honeywell's pre-critical […] Continue Reading →
Australia’s High Court weighs in on obviousness There is a good post over at the Patent Prospector about a decision by the High Court of Australia (the equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court) regarding the issue of obviousness in patent law. One notable passage: as a basic premise, obviousness and inventiveness are antitheses and the question is always "is the step taken […] Continue Reading →
Fourth Circuit affirms refusal of copyright registration: insufficient creativity The Fourth Circuit yesterday affirmed the denial of copyright registration to an individual who had adapted United States Census maps for use on his website. The only changes to the maps were the addition of colors, changing the typeface of the state abbreviations, and a change in layout for some of the state indications. The […] Continue Reading →
“Aspirina” descriptive of analgesic goods; denial of registration affirmed In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the TTAB that the term "ASPIRINA" is descriptive of analgesics, and therefore not subject to trademark protection in the United States absent a showing of secondary meaning. While the evidence of record was conflicting as to whether ASPIRINA was descriptive, given the deferential standard […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit affirms damage award to Monsanto against farmer who saved seed In the latest in a series of appeals to the Federal Circuit, the court affirmed a jury's award of damages to Monsanto for infringement of patents relating to glyphosate resistant plants. The defendant, a farmer, had saved seeds from his crops from one growing season to the next in violation of the terms of the […] Continue Reading →