Top Patent Law Stories of 2013 (Webinar)

MBHB’s Patent Docs (Donald Zuhn and Kevin Noonan) are putting on a timely session focusing on the Top Patent Law Stories of 2013. The session will be a live webinar via WebEx on January 21, 2014, 10 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. (central time).

For the past six years, the Patent Docs weblog has presented an annual, end-of-the-year review of the top stories in patent law. In this presentation, Patent Docs co-authors Donald Zuhn and Kevin Noonan will take a look back at the top patent stories of 2013, many of which will likely impact patent applicants and practitioners in the coming year.

The event is free, but participants must register in advance and need to register individually to receive CLE credit.

Links:

Note – MBHB is the exclusive sponsor of the Patently-O blog.

23 thoughts on “Top Patent Law Stories of 2013 (Webinar)

  1. Tottenham harus tampil lepas di Old Trafford ***Berita terbaru dan terkini bola Soccer dari Agen Bola Indo11 – Tottenham Hotspur akan dihadapkan pada laga tak mudah di hari pertama 2014 yakni melawan Manchester United di Old Trafford. Namun, Spurs diminta untuk tidak gentar.Agen Bola Indo11 Terpercaya – Sejak dikalahkan Liverpool 0-5 di White Hart Lane, yang kemudian membuat Andre Villas-Boas dipecat, Spurs meraih dua kemenangan dan satu hasil imbang. Berturut-turut, mereka menang 3-2 atas Southampton, imbang 1-1 dengan West Bromwich Albion, dan terakhir menang 3-0 atas Stoke City.”Saya pikir, kami harus menghadapi United seperti ketika menghadapi Stoke. Kami harus bermain lepas. Tentu saja United adalah tim yang lebih baik dari Stoke dan kami menghormati mereka. Tapi, kami masih bisa mendapatkan sesuatu dari laga tersebut. Satu-satunya yang harus kami takuti adalah para pemainnya. Para pendukungnya dan semua hal lainnya, kami harus melupakannya,” ujar gelandang Spurs, Christian Eriksen.Sumber http://indo11.com

  2. 6 has really lowered the commentside of this blog to a new level (any agreement out there?). Dennis, freespeech is one thing, but allowing someone with a particular agenda toanonymously attack an honorable individual using unrelated personal information,as 6 is doing here, is just wrong.

    1. Unrelated?He admits himself that he has a vision for patent lawl and is trying to implement it from the bench. Do we want unbiased judges or not? I mean that sounds pretty related. As to his religious beliefs, whether or not they are in fact unrelated or not is what I’m bringing up. You may assert that it is unrelated if you wish. I will relish the discussion. As to an “attack”, mmmm, idk about that. Perhaps you’d like to tell me what I’ve said is an attack on an honorable individual and I will voluntarily retract such since I mean no personal attack on the public figure Rader as a mere honorable person.

  3. “”Your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness,” Rader said. “I get wrapped up in these visions and overlook sometimes the details necessary to get at them. I need a lot of help in the details.”"Like … oh, I don’t know, the law. We all know you have a vision of a glorious future where everyone is suing everyone else over the new program functionality they dreamed up at their kitchen table but come on Rader. Let it go already. Come down from the clouds and observe reality for awhile.

  4. On CLS Rader says:”"I do not, nor would I presume, to have any ability to alter my colleagues’ well considered and deep views, so sometimes you just have to respect that there will be differences that can’t be resolved,” Rader told Reuters. “But I tried hard and I felt that I had failed.”"And the country breathed a sigh of relief.

  5. Turns out MBHB was involved in this story:link to reuters.com…Which just so happens to mention this bit:”[judge rader is] a practicing Mormon”Which explains sooooo much. The mistaking of beliefs for facts is so religious in nature. That alone explains a number of decisions he’s made. I have to say for a man like rader to get bamboozled by a con man like Joseph Smith is just, I don’t know what, disgusting, frightening, off-putting?

      1. I tolerate his “beliefs”. But that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t find there to be something off-putting about one of the most powerful men in the US government (especially the patent arm) having been taken in by a random convicted con man’s mutterings and the inevitable damage that will have done to his mind/thinking. Or that I shouldn’t be able to voice that concern. HE. WIELDS. POWER. His decisions, reasonable, unreasonable, sane, insane, and the reasons therefor must not be unquestionable. I mean no disrespect to him as a person. Perhaps I should clarify that part from in my comment above that I’m not talking about Rader as a man, but rather a POWERFUL man like Rader. And I’m quite sure that you do NWPA, as you are almost certainly similarly situated to Rader in this regard. The mistaking sincerely held beliefs for facts came up just the other day regarding you. You were the one who brought the phenomena to my attention.

        1. I’ve known lots of outstanding people who are exceedingly rational and intelligent while also belonging loyal members of faith communities. I’m no expert on Mormonism, but I expect there’s a wide range of actual beliefs in that community, just as there is in others.

          1. I’m not sure about how wide a variety there can be as there is only one book of mormon and they all follow that (which is why they’re called mormons). link to youtube.com…Just for your education. And as you say there are plenty of outstanding people exceedingly rational and intelligent in all aspects of their life saving only this aspect. Rader is no doubt one of those and I have much respect for him as a mere mortal man. As a Chief Judge I have to bring up issues of concern as may be affecting his judgement. When he starts telling us about his visions etc, and I’m noticing beliefs inserted as facts into cases I’m very much concerned.Edit:you may also enjoy this one as well. link to youtube.com

        2. 6, the problem I have with what you are saying is that it doesn’t appear to have any relationship to his views on patents. I would think that we could debate patent issues without disparaging someone’s religion.

          1. I wish that were so NWPA. Unfortunately these beliefs taint the rest of what folks “believe” and how they view their “beliefs”. They will literally regard their beliefs as fact. There’s a famous quote of an outstanding geologist who stated (paraphrasing) even if all the evidence pointed to an earth that was 4.5 billion years old he would still be a young earth creationist (that is he would regard the earth as 6000-4000 years old as a factual matter) because of his beliefs which are based on the teachings of his holy book. That is a quote from a man who is aware that he doesn’t even understand what a fact is and doesn’t care. I know a lot of christians. Trust me, my whole family is neck deep. And I see them struggle mightily to accept facts, even simple ones, plainly established by mountains of evidence, even in non-theological realms or realms related thereto (evolution, age of earth/universe) because they do not really understand what a fact is or are accepting what they believe as an incontrovertible fact. They confuse what they’ve come to believe with facts. This is no slight against rader, it’s what religion does to your thinking at a fundamental level. And, I’m more than a little ashamed to admit it, I suffered from this same “way of thinking” malady for many years and it is very hard to break free of. I can of course point to my upbringing by people suffering from the same and blame that upbringing but it isn’t really a good excuse. You subjectively think that you’re just objectively finding facts, and to all appearances you can fake it 90%+ of the time, and many others will follow along with you, but in some few instances your having adopted your beliefs as facts will peek through. It takes a monumental amount of will directed specifically at overcoming this to ever overcome this phenomena. In an a perhaps unrelated note, many examiners suffer from this and it causes no end of trouble in prosecution. Recently I observed a friend of mine emerge from it, and lickety split, his prosecutions have become much less contested and he allows many more cases. Nothing changed at all except he now understands that what he has come to believe is not necessarily a fact. If there is anyone who should be shouting from the rooftops to get rid of this thinking malady in patent practice it should be the prosecutors constantly whining about examiners taking completely unfounded positions. I can promise you that in the vast majority of those instances they’re not doing it because they really feel like taking an unreasonable official action. Their action is a result of their thinking.

            1. You are so screwed up it is not even funny.The CRP you post – and the ‘facts’ you repeatedly get wrong on these boards – even, no especially given your non-religion viewpoint only shows that your so-called taint of belief system has nothing to do with religion.All you accomplish here 6 is proving how low your intellect is. And yes, the First Amendment does provide you that right to speak and show what little you know.

            2. 6, religion is best keep out of the work place and law discussions. The reason is that it is faith based and not fact based. You may have some good points but they are best expressed on a philosophy board and not patent law board. Furthermore, consider yourself. What does it make you to say that CJ Rader’s view are not valid because of his religion? Why resort to such arguments. Present your factual based arguments regarding his patent law arguments. In that way, we can have civilized debates about patent law.

            3. “6, religion is best keep out of the work place and law discussions. The reason is that it is faith based and not fact based.”Yes, I know, and I agree, which is why I’d like to have Rader set aside his in his workplace and to have us ensure that such is appropriately done by him. I simply go further to say that just like keeping religion out of the workplace I believe also that the ways of thinking that go along with that religion must likewise be left out of the workplace, including Rader’s workplace. “You may have some good points but they are best expressed on a philosophy board and not patent law board.”I heartily agree except in so far as this results in real life implications in the patent system. Just like bush going to war because god told him to. That’s a real life event that happened as a result of his thinking. “What does it make you to say that CJ Rader’s view are not valid because of his religion?”I think you mean:”What makes you to say that CJ Rader’s view are not valid because of his religion?”I don’t say his “views” are not valid because of his religion. His “views” are 100% valid as “views” and validly held by him. I have merely asserted that his religion, and specifically the way of thinking underlying his faith in the first place, explains a lot about his decisions.I note also that there might be some confusion about the use of the term “views” here. I use it to mean his views about the patent system and its direction as a whole. Not his beliefs about certain assertions in a certain case. “” Why resort to such arguments. “Well to be clear, I didn’t. And I don’t. If I were to make an argument here based upon his religion impacting his way of thinking it would be that his decisions are:1. Improperly based upon his having imported his beliefs (not views of the situation/system as a whole) into the cases as facts. 2. Being improperly impacted by his views as a whole. It is the importation of beliefs as facts in court cases that most concerns me. And that just so happens to be something that occurs most often in religion. But likewise him having such views about the patent system as a whole, and 100x worse, having him admittedly brought them into his courtroom, is a problem. We need a non-biased judge sitting on the bench that will dispassionately decide the case based solely on facts and law, not views, beliefs and visions. All of which are blatantly present in his recent disputed cases and/or admitted by him just now in this article. Importation of beliefs as facts and him bringing his overall views with him into his court is the problem from the outset, not that his religion makes his views invalid. To be clear, he’s trying to implement his own vision. From the bench! For pete’s sake, he’s admitting it! I wonder if his comments on having a grand vision that he’s trying to implement are enough for someone to try to get him to recuse himself from their case? I likewise wonder if he could be retroactively recused from Alice and let the case resolve. Edit:Looks like retroactive recusal is a thing. link to bluehampshire.com…Hah, I just remembered this isn’t the first time that his “pro-patent” “views” of what the patent system ought to be got someone to be asking for his recusal. There was that bio case. I forget which one. “Present your factual based arguments regarding his patent law arguments. In that way, we can have civilized debates about patent law.”I don’t really want to present arguments at all. I simply provided the one above for jollies.

      1. I know, I know, religious beliefs are unquestionable in this country. A pity really that one cannot speak out about charlantry ruling at the highest echelons of one’s own government, and the inevitable results of that taking place. Bush sends us to war because god told him to. Rader finds nonexistent facts to be determinative of cases because he “believes” them. People in congress routinely want to stop abortions because: SOULS! It’s no wonder we have such nonsense going on while decent people like yourself PROTECT the very behavior that is causing the problem by making it socially unacceptable to even speak out against it. That said, apologies to judge rader if he’s reading. I know of that which you are involved in and how difficult, or even impossible, it is to extract ones self from it even if you want to.

        1. A pity really that one cannot speak out about charlantry ruling at the highest echelons of one’s own government, and the inevitable results of that taking place.That’s protected speech the last time I checked. You can speak out all you want and people regularly do. No guarantees about the audience reaction, though.

          1. Oh I know the government can’t stop me. It’s the audience and social norms that are a legacy from yesteryear that attempt to do so.

Comments are closed.