Jason Rantanen’s Patently-O post cited by District Court
- In Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 2011 WL 703612 (M.D.Pa. Feb 18, 2011), the district court cited Jason Rantanen’s Patently-O post discussing the Federal Circuit opinion in that case. [Link]The citation was support for the argument that the Federal Circuit decision is controversial and has some likelihood of being re-heard en banc. The district court favorably noted the “over 100” comments that had been added to the post.
Mary Wong named Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property Director
- The Franklin Pierce Center for IP was formed after the Franklin Pierce Law Center and the University of New Hampshire (UNH) decided to unite. Wong has been with UNH since 2005 and is currently a professor and the Chair of the Intellectual Property Graduate Programs. Wong’s research interest focuses mainly on the international intellectual property rights framework. [Link]
AT&T and Sony Ericsson sued over expired patent
- Romek Figa is suing AT&T and Sony Ericcson over a patent issued to him in 1990 and that expired on May 12, 2008. The patent at issue is patent # 4,924,496, which essentially claims a caller-id device. Figa contends certain Sony Ericcson mobile phones that were sold through AT&T infringed patent 496. In the complaint Figa asserts that prior to the expiration of the patent at issue he notified Sony and AT&T that they were infringing patent 496. Thereafter, Figa and the parties were in negotiations about licensing the patent, but no agreement was ever reached. [Link]
Article One hired to help find prior art that will invalidate the patents in the Interval Licensing lawsuit
- Article One Partners is a company that makes a profit by using crowdsourcing to try to find prior art to invalidate patents that are at issue in patent infringement lawsuits. Article One will pay researchers money, if they find prior art used to help invalidate a patent. According to Article One Partners CEO Cheryl Milone, multiple stakeholders are sponsoring a project to try to find prior art that would invalidate Interval Licensing’s patents. [Link]
New Patent Blog
- www.ReexamLink.com is a blog about patent reexamination, reissue, opposition and related patent procedures. ReexamLink.com will include the interplay between ex parte prosecution, reexamination, litigation, and appeals. It is intended to provide useful content for litigators, prosecutors, and anyone interested in patent law. The blog is written by Timothy Bianchi a patent attorney with 17 years experience in patent law.
Patent Jobs:
- Synaptics is searching for an IP Engineer for their Santa Clara location. [Link]
- DuPont is looking for an experienced Patent Agent with 3-5 years experience for their Delaware location. [Link]
- International IP Law Group is looking for a Patent Engineer/Agent with 2-3 years technical experience to work in their Houston Office. [Link]
- Fiala & Weaver is searching for Patent Attorneys/Agents to work in their D.C Office or to work remotely. [Link]
Upcoming Events:
- The Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law will host its Spring Symposium on March 25th. The Symposium will discuss “Creative Capital: Intellectual Property Creation and Venture Capital.” The Keynote Speaker is Bob Young CEO and Founder of Lulu.com; other speakers include Michael Mireles, Therese Maynard, and Daniel Egger. [Link]
- The Columbus School of Law will host the Dean William Callyhan Robinson Intellectual Property Lecture Series on March 29th. The lecture will be delivered by Jeffrey Lefstin, with an introduction by Judge Alvin Schall. [Link]
- The University of Dayton, School of Law will host a Symposium Series on Current Issues in Intellectual Property Law on March 31st. The guest speaker will be Scott Kief of The George Washington University Law School. [Link]
I actually became an Article One patent prior art Advisor a while back, but had to abandon the project due to time constraints. Another factor was the low statistical likelihood of ever receiving a award. The Intellectual Ventures angle looks juicy, though. I’d at least like to know more details.
“But I think we’re ferbodin from getting paid to search, I suppose in any capacity, while an examiner.”
I guess that explains the “quality” of the OA’s that I receive.
“”6,” it turns out, is actually a competing technology product from our friends at Huawei. Giving “6” the persona of a patent examiner was an inside joke by some of the frustrated researcher-inventors there. However, the Huawei team, like the IBMers, has lost control of the project. U.S. defense department technicians have been desperately trying to lock the “6” entity out of the PTO computer systems for several years now, with only limited success.”
lulz
“Hey 6, since you’re so amazing with google, you should be able to make a killing working for those Article One people. Bam, 30 second search 102b, I can haz my $10k now?”
Yeah I know I’ve thought about it. But I think we’re ferbodin from getting paid to search, I suppose in any capacity, while an examiner.
I agree, Crowdsourcing goes back at least 20 years, and the prize was never claimed!
Hey 6, since you’re so amazing with google, you should be able to make a killing working for those Article One people. Bam, 30 second search 102b, I can haz my $10k now?
I am sooooo disappointed in you Cy, everyone knows that I am you, so ya shoulda at least got the sitcoms right – “Full House, “Saved by the Bell,” and “Growing Pains,” ??? – Cmon dude – that’s sissy stuff. Sides which, everyone this side of middle earth knows I (we) was birthed in movies, not sitcoms.
Also, since ripping on each other has been going on almost seven years now, “Helium Tank” be the one who be an artificial construct. Are you (I) testing a new construct?
Helium Tank, I’m afraid that your use of the term “people” is inaccurate.
I have reason to believe that the entity known as “ping” is actually a public demonstration of artificial intelligence technology by the same folks at IBM who brought us “Watson.” Unfortunately, shortly after being fed hundreds of 80’s sitcoms, including every episode of “Full House, “Saved by the Bell,” and “Growing Pains,” the “ping” entity locked the IBM researchers out of the lab. It has been abusing its Internet privileges ever since.
“6,” it turns out, is actually a competing technology product from our friends at Huawei. Giving “6” the persona of a patent examiner was an inside joke by some of the frustrated researcher-inventors there. However, the Huawei team, like the IBMers, has lost control of the project. U.S. defense department technicians have been desperately trying to lock the “6” entity out of the PTO computer systems for several years now, with only limited success.
It’s not entirely clear whether the “Dennis Crouch” entity is actually a human. Most observers say yes, but a small minority insists that he is really Alfred E. Neuman, albeit somewhat older than when he was last seen in public, and with something resembling a real job.
What the hell? People are making this their personal space to completely rip on each other. Helium Balloon Tank
But for you Sunshine, jealousy be your companion.
Also I should point out that your jealousy of my being in posession of the locations of many awesome vidyas is not becomming.
Well I don’t know about that, but I do have the strength of ten men. At least.
OT – but possible future thread topic:
Star Scientific Patent Claims Confirmed in Patent Reexamination
link to prnewswire.com
You’re a one man circle jerk.
“I have to wonder if”
Nah, but perhaps that was back in the day when you was boring everyone with your IDS count project.
How that be goin? On the same shelf as your JD aspirations?
laziness is a better friend.
Google is your friend, pingaling.
“The district court favorably noted the “over 100″ comments that had been added to the post. ”
I have to wonder if 10+ of those might have been me posting videos. lulz.
…Thingfish?
Now that’s Fluffy.
(funny too how I seem to have garnered my own personal troll)
Agreed. Doesn’t matter, and you can be rightfully proud of “the nation’s leading patent law blog.”
I agree that it doesn’t matter much, but I disagree that the statement is accurate.
It at least suggests that the district court cited the post as support for its own conclusion. The word “favorable” adds to this. Here’s the statement again (my emphasis.
—-
In Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 2011 WL 703612 (M.D.Pa. Feb 18, 2011), the district court cited Jason Rantanen’s Patently-O post discussing the Federal Circuit opinion in that case. [Link]The citation was support for the argument that the Federal Circuit decision is controversial and has some likelihood of being re-heard en banc. The district court favorably noted the “over 100” comments that had been added to the post.
———–
I read this and wondered what dimwitted judge had decided that a CAFC panel decision was a prime reversal candidate because it had been criticized on a blog in a post that drew 100 comments… And then I read the opinion.
Don’t take this as detracting, in any way, from the awesomeness of Patently-O. Numerous en banc petitions cite criticism on this blog as a reason for reversing a panel decision.
2010 WL 5663905 (Opening line of the argument: “It is well-known that a petition for rehearing from a Rule 36 affirmance is rarely granted. Yet the issues raised by this case met many of the Court’s own criteria meriting a precedential opinion. Recognizing this, Professor Dennis Crouch observed that “the Rule 36 opinion … is surprising given the lack of precedent on this topic, the obvious third-party interest in the outcome of the case, and the dramatic rise of the use of reexaminations over the past decade,” concluding that “ this case opens the door to some amount of bad behavior in the filing of reexamination requests”…”)
2010 WL 2678724 (citing Patently-O post analysis of panel decision)
2008 WL 794694 (“The panel’s decision itself has already generated substantial publicity and provoked similar responses. See, e.g., Patently-O, “CAFC: As a Matter of Law, Preliminary Injunction Defeated by “Casting Doubt” on Patent’s Validity,” February 20, 2008. (http:/ link to patentlyo.com).”)
It’s fun when a litigant cites your work, but I imagine that it’s a greater honor when a court does, as it did in Ariad.
I just realized the Arlington Industries thread is the thread where pingaling was deservedly mocked for talking like a Thingfish.
LOL.
Chillax Big D – ya got a great thing goin here, and I wouldn’t change a thing (well, at least not too much).
Thanks Ping.
Here’s how the bits and bytes are working with Lawrence Higgins: Throughout the week, I forward material to lawrence that I think is potential Bits and Bytes material. Lawrence also reads the news and other IP blogs for additional information. He then compiles the post and we send it out to the world.
If you have material for Bits and Bytes, you can e-mail Lawrence: lawrence.higgins@patentlyo.com
Semi-a. This doesn’t really matter… We’re just interested in a bit of puffery.
However, again, I believe that Mr. Higgins’ statement was correct. I agree that the opinion does state “over 100 blog posts.” However, I’m confident that the reference to “blog posts” is actually a reference to comments on Patently-O. My confidence comes from my review of the relevant portion of the Bridgeport brief which says “The opinion was also discussed at length (over 100 comments in 3 days) on Patently-O, the nation’s leading patent law blog, and was even posted and linked on the Wall Street Journal.”
“(which came from me)”
Well surprise, surprise, surprise.
Well, actually, the surprise is that there wasn’t a self-gratuitous link to one’s own article.
I just love me quoting me.
Semi-A – You quote is certainly correct (with emphasis added). However, I also believe that Mr. Higgins’ statement (which came from me) is correct. The court did cite Patently-O as being used to support a particular argument. It turned out, however, that the argument did not carry the day.
“The district court favorably noted the “over 100” comments that had been added to the post.”
Leave no doubt – carpet bombing does work (at least it gets ya noticed).
Also, Bridgeport (not the district court) was noting “over 100 blog posts” — i.e., from other blogs, not “over 100 comments.”
Crowdsourcing goes back at least 20 years to the Lotus “look and feel” patents, though it wasn’t called that then. If I recall correctly (and I may not), the first such organization offered $10,000 for prior art to invalidate that patent (those patents?). That prize was never claimed.
Have any such organizations ever successfully invalidated a significant patent?
Mr. Higgins, your first item is incorrect. The district court was describing the arguments of one of the parties, and ultimately rejected those arguments. Here’s the quote:
Bridgeport asserts that until the issuance of the mandate by the Federal Circuit, Judge Caputo’s final judgment remains in full force, and thus continues to raise inconsistent judgment concerns. (Doc. 821, at 10-12). Bridgeport contends that the Federal Circuit may amend or modify its judgment and that the chance of rehearing en banc is good. Bridgeport notes that “the patent law community has taken notice of the split opinion in Arlington II” (Doc. 821, at 8), and points to articles in iP Fronline magazine and on Patently-O, a patent law blog, on the split decision as well as “over 100” blog posts. ( Id. at 9). Bridgeport also asserts that “several possible amici curiae have expressed interest in supporting Bridgeport’s petition for rehearing en banc.” ( Id.) Further armed with a dissenting opinion, Bridgeport submits that its chances of a rehearing grant are greatly enhanced.
The district court is not convinced.
The court declines to engage in a game of “will they or won’t they” speculation or to employ mathematical probabilities as to whether the Federal Circuit will grant rehearing en banc in Arlington II. Nor will this court further speculate as to the outcome of such a hearing should the petition (which as of the date of this memorandum has yet to be filed) be granted. Until the Federal Circuit issues the mandate, its judgment is not final. The court will not lift the stay of the injunctions until the mandate has issued.
…
Bridgeport has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on appeal.
Comments are closed.