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 →
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 →
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 →
Federal Circuit Addresses Claim Differentiation The Federal Circuit further clarified the doctrine of claim differentiation in Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC. Andersen Corp. owns a number of patent relating to composite materials made from a mixture of polymer and wood fiber as well as patents that relate to structural parts made from those composite materials. Fiber Composites manufactures and […] Continue Reading →
USPTO rescinds partial waiver of restriction requirements for nucleotide inventions In a news release yesterday, the USPTO has rescinded its partial waiver of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.141 and 1.475 et seq. Under the former policy, a “reasonable number” of nucleotide inventions, typically up to ten, would be considered in a single application without a restriction requirement or issues regarding unity of invention. […] Continue Reading →
USPTO to institute pilot project to allow public comments on pending applications The Washington Post today provided more detail about a pilot program previously mentioned in this post. Under the program, the USPTO would post pending patent applications that have become accessible to the public (such as after they have been published). Members of the public would then be able to comment on the applications, and even […] Continue Reading →
USPTO Director Jon Dudas talks patent reform Over at ZDnet there is very good coverage of a recent speech about patent reform by USPTO director Jon Dudas. Mr. Dudas spoke at the Tech Policy Summit on the issue of whether the patent system was hurting innovation. Mr. Dudas stated that the biggest problem leading to bad quality patents is the obviousness requirement, […] Continue Reading →
Comparison of Commercial Products not the vehicle to analyze equivalence In a second appearance before the Federal Circuit, AquaTex again appealed a decision of the District Court that Techniche Solutions’ Cooling Apparel did not infringe their U.S. Patent No. 6,371,977 for a protective multi-layered liquid retaining composition. The Federal Circuit had previously affirmed the lower court’s finding of no literal infringement while remanding the case […] Continue Reading →
Roundup of media coverage of Microsoft v. AT&T oral arguments, more to come for Microsoft? Now that the oral arguments before the Supreme Court have passed, various media outlets have had the opportunity to weigh in on the arguments and offer their predictions as to how the case will come out. A sampling of this media coverage is below: Seattle Post Intelligencer USA Today Boston Globe Houston Chronicle Forbes Los […] Continue Reading →
Interesting tidbits from today’s oral argument in “Microsoft v. AT&T” A few interesting exchanges took place in today’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Microsoft v. AT&T case. Click to read these portions of the arguments.The first related to jurisdiction. The parties had entered into a “high/low” settlement before the arguments, which essentially means that they have settled the case, but depending on […] Continue Reading →