Be careful what you wish for: broad claims found invalid In another case making a return trip to the Federal Circuit, the court held that under its broad claim construction decided in the first appeal, the asserted claims were invalid in two patents as not enabled and in two more as anticipated. In order to secure a finding of infringement, the patentee, Liebel-Flarsheim, argued for […] Continue Reading →
Obviousness: A Primer by the Federal Circuit In a case before the Federal Circuit, the district court's holding that a patent was valid and enforceable was rejected, not only because the Federal Circuit found the holding incorrect, but also because the holding reflected a serious misconception regarding the proper burden of proof each party bears in patent litigation. The Federal Circuit set […] Continue Reading →
FTC charges various invention promotion companies with contempt The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed contempt charges against several companies and individuals who had been found to be swindling inventors under the guise of providing so-called “invention promotion services.” In 1998, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered an order preventing these individuals and companies from fraudulenty promoting: the […] Continue Reading →
Inequitable Conduct Found in False Statements and Deception In a case before the Federal Circuit, the District Court’s conclusion that Cantor’s patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct was affirmed. The matter before the Court involved a patent for a method and system for trading financial instruments. Specifically, Cantor developed a system that would automate the trading process and avoid the use of […] Continue Reading →
Leo Stoller v. Google: the final chapter? Over at the TTABlog, John Welch has a report about what appears to be the final chapter in notorious “intellectual property entrepreneur” Leo Stoller’s fight with Google over the rights to the Google trademark. Mr. Stoller, through his various entities, had both opposed Google’s application to register the Google mark and also filed for registration […] Continue Reading →
Equivalent not tangentially related to amendment, doctrine of equivalents unavailable In a case coming before the Federal Circuit for the second time, the court reversed a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because of prosecution history estoppel. The court rejected the patentee's argument that the amendment was only tangentially related to the equivalent, thus the Festo presumption of surrender of equivalents was not […] Continue Reading →
Seventh Circuit issues a stinker of an opinion in copyright case The Seventh Circuit succinctly sums up the field of commerce of its decision today in JCW Investments, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc.: Somewhat to our surprise, it turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls, and it is quite lucrative. The case presents some interesting issues, such as whether the copyright in such […] Continue Reading →
Decision to accept later filing date due to omitted items not correctable via reissue When you make a conscious choice between alternatives during prosecution, the Federal Circuit says you’re stuck with it. That’s the message from In re Serenkin, where the court held that an inventor could not, through reissue, claim priority to his provisional filing. Serenkin had filed a PCT application just before the one-year anniversary of his […] Continue Reading →
USPTO to cease emailing full trademark office actions (updated 4/27) In an effort to simplify transmittal of trademark office actions, the USPTO today announced that it will soon stop emailing trademark office actions to applicants. Instead, emails will be sent containing a link to the office action in the TDR (Trademark Document Retrieval) system. This will avoid the problems of large attachments requiring multiple emails […] Continue Reading →
First patent issues from USPTO’s accelerated examination program On Tuesday, Brother, the company best known for printers and copiers, received the first patent issued based on an application filed under the USPTO’s accelerated examination program. The patent, number 7,188,939, relates to ink cartridges, and resulted from an application filed on September 29, 2006, just over a month after the accelerated examination procedure became […] Continue Reading →