Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 86

  • Supreme Court Petitions Pending:
    • FTC v. Rambus: Duties of a patent holder in standard setting negotiations. (To be discussed in more detail this week.)
    • Apotex Corp. v. AstraZeneca AB: This case involves a burden of proof. Should an accused product be found non-infringing if the accused demonstrates that it merely practiced the prior art. Non-infringement is proven by a preponderance of the evidence rather than clear and convincing evidence.
    • MuniAuction v. Thomson Corp.: Challenges the Federal Circuit’s single actor requirement for patent infringement.
    • Forest Labs. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical: Whether DJ jurisdiction can exist after the patentee has granted an ANDA applicant a covenant not to sue.
    • Burandt v. Dudas: When is a failure to pay “unavoidable”
    • Apotex v. Roche: Is there any meat in the reverse doctrine of equivalents.
    • Energizer v. ITC: How should a court conduct claim construction?
    • 800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Securities: De novo review of claim construction.

  • New Patent Law Jobs:

  • Leonard Hope is giving up blogging and is looking for a buyer for his domain patentprosecutionblog.com. Let me know if you restart the site.

9 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 86

  1. “someone buys the domain and then loads it up with browser hijackers”

    I wonder to what degree the existence of business method patents spurred the development of that innovation and others like it.

  2. “You can give it to Dennis and he can just use it to direct people here.”

    At present that actually probably would be a good use of the domain. This blog is tha awesomes for patent prosecution.

    btw MM, one form of “abuse” is when someone buys the domain and then loads it up with browser hijackers and etc.

    WARNING THIS SITE IS NOT SAFE TO DL FROM. YOU MAY VIEW IT SAFELY.

    http://www.shareza.com

    Note that the real nonvirus Shareza can actually be found at the sourceforge.net. This is but one example of many.

  3. “I don’t want the domain to be picked up by a cybersquatter and abused.”

    What is “abused”? Aren’t you squatting on it right now?

    Just give it away to someone you trust. You can give it to Dennis and he can just use it to direct people here.

  4. To set the record straight here, I am not being greedy or being a jerk as suggested by Mr. Mooney above. Rather, I am simply trying to find a good home for this domain before it goes abandoned later this year. I don’t want the domain to be picked up by a cybersquatter and abused.

  5. MM said:
    “‘Leonard Hope is giving up blogging and is looking for a buyer for his domain patentprosecutionblog.com.’

    I’ll buy it for one dollar with the promise that I won’t call Leonard out for being a greedy jirk. Did he ‘invent’ that domain name? Did he add value to it?”

    You seem to know enough about the law to realize that ownership/registration of a domain has nothing to do with patent law, invention, or adding value. It’s governed by trademark law, where such considerations are irrelevant. Basically a case of race to the prize, and uninterrupted use thereafter. Which is obviously why he wants to sell the domain, otherwise it would be abandoned and its value to him lost. No foul here.

  6. “Apotex v. Roche: Is there any meat in the reverse doctrine of equivalents.”

    No. This has been another edition of …

  7. “Leonard Hope is giving up blogging and is looking for a buyer for his domain patentprosecutionblog.com. ”

    I’ll buy it for one dollar with the promise that I won’t call Leonard out for being a greedy jirk. Did he “invent” that domain name? Did he add value to it?

  8. “Apotex Corp. v. AstraZeneca AB: This case involves a burden of proof. Should an accused product be found non-infringing if the accused demonstrates that it merely practiced the prior art.”

    Um, isn’t this a validity issue? If I infringe, then your patent is invalid. If I don’t infringe, then I don’t infringe.

Comments are closed.