Search Results for: 높은 적중율을 자랑하는 NCP-CI-Azure 100％시험패스 덤프 덤프는 Nutanix Certified Professional - Cloud Integration - Azure (NCP-CI-Azure v6.7) 시험패스의 조건 💙 《 www.itdumpskr.com 》의 무료 다운로드➤ NCP-CI-Azure ⮘페이지가 지금 열립니다NCP-CI-Azure시험덤프공부

Renew a Job Listing

Thank you for you deciding to renew your listing. If you haven’t already done so, please be sure to email us and let us know that you would like to renew. Your job posting is being reviewed and should go online within 24 hours of payment. The renewed posting is scheduled to run for 30 days.

To complete the job posting, please submit payment by clicking ‘Pay Now.’ Questions? Email us.

    Monthly Job Posting Renewal on Patently-O Jobs    
    Total Fee: $100.00

Note: Customers who are not satisfied with the look of the job posting will receive a full refund.

Hynix Fails to Beat Rambus on Collateral Estoppel Issue

Patent, Patent Cases 2005

Rambus Hynix Semiconductor v. Rambus (N.D. Cal. 2005).

In an earlier lawsuit against Infineon, a court dismissed Rambus’s patent claims in a bench statement that "I have concluded that [Infineon] has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, a spoilation that warrants dismissal of [the patent infringement case] as the only appropriate sanction after having considered the alternatives."  However, the case settled before the judge issued a written opinion.

Now, Hynix argues that Rambus should be collaterally estopped from re-asserting the spoilage issue.  The N.D. Cal. disagreed with Hynix, finding that the elements for a finding of collateral estoppel were not met.

In the 9th Circuit, a party asserting collateral estoppel must show four elements:

  1. Full and fair opportunity to litigate in the previous action;
  2. Issue was actually litigated in that action;
  3. Issue was lost in a final judgment; and
  4. The person against whom collateral estoppel is asserted in the present action is in privity with the party from the previous action.

Using these elements, the court found (i) that the issue of spoilage (unclean hands) is particular to each litigation and thus had not been litigated in the Infineon case; and (ii) that the Infineon court’s statements from the bench did not constitute a "final judgment" because they were not "sufficiently firm."

While there is no question that Judge Payne was sufficiently settled in his decision that he was willing to dismiss Rambus’s patent claims at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on spoliation, he never issued a reasoned opinion, either written or oral, explaining his ruling. Before Judge Payne could issue such a ruling, Infineon and Rambus settled the action between them, stipulating to a dismissal with prejudice.

Seemingly to protect against the CAFC’s veto power, the opinion noted that even if all the elements of collateral estoppel were met, the court would use its discretion to deny the motion because such offensive uses of collateral estoppel are disfavored.

Hynix’s motion to dismiss Rambus’s patent claims for unclean hands on the basis of collateral estoppel is denied.

Appeals Court Partially Reverses eBay Patent Case: Setting the Stage for a Permanent Injunction

Patent, Patent Cases 2005,

Patentlyo058

MercExchange v. eBay (Fed. Cir. 2005)

by Dennis Crouch

At the district court level, Thomas Woolston, creator of the MercExchange and Patently-O Reader, won a $35 million patent infringement suit against eBay for infringement of his patents covering live internet auctions.  On March 16, 2005, the Federal Circuit released its decision on appeal, reversing the decision in-part, but setting the stage for a permanent injunction against eBay.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit partially overturned the district court’s decision, finding that at least one of the MercExchange patents invalid but vacating the lower court’s ruling that another patent was invalid.

Perhaps most importantly, MercExchange challenged the district court’s refusal to issue a permanent injunction against eBay’s use of the invention.  The CAFC agreed with MercExchange, that the district court “did not provide any persuasive reason that this case is sufficiently exceptional to justify the denial of a permanent injunction.”  Specifically, the CAFC found that the fact that MercExchange expressed a willingness to license was not a valid reason for depriving it of the right to an injunction to which it would otherwise be entitled.

If the injunction gives the patentee additional leverage in licensing, that is a natural consequence of the right to exclude and not an inappropriate reward to a party that does not intend to compete in the marketplace with potential infringers. . . . We therefore see no reason to depart from the general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.

Of course, there is only a very small likelihood that eBay would allow its servers to be shut-down rather than settle the case.  In addition, it is unclear how an injunction would operate in this case, although it would most likely only alter e-bay’s ‘buy it now’ feature.

Finally, the appellate panel affirmed the portion of the judgment denying an award of enhanced damages or attorney fees for MercExchange.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED.

The MercExchange patents are also under reexamination at the Patent Office.  However, if the litigation concludes before the reexam is complete, there is some question as to whether the reexam can be used by eBay to re-open the case.  One issue stems from the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court held that the Judiciary, not the Executive Branch that determined the law.  In this case, the PTO (Executive Branch) would be telling the Judiciary to change its mind.

Links:

March 16, 2005 04:02 PM US Eastern Timezone

eBay Statement on U.S. Court of Appeals Ruling in MercExchange Case

SAN JOSE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–March 16, 2005–eBay (Nasdaq:EBAY) is pleased with today’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals that invalidates one of MercExchange’s patents, and as a result, throws out all the related damages. Looking forward, we believe that any injunction that might be issued by the District Court with respect to the other patent will not have an impact on our business because of changes we have made following the District Court’s original verdict. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is actively reexamining all of MercExchange’s patents, having found that substantial questions exist regarding the validity of MercExchange’s claims. The Patent and Trademark office has already initially rejected all of the claims of one of MercExchange’s patents. We are confident in our position against MercExchange and do not believe that these matters will have any impact on our business.

Patent Counsel – Large Corporation – Multiple Locations

, , , , , , ,

HP Inc.’s Patent Development Group is seeking a highly motivated patent attorney to join its legal team. In this role, Counsel will support the Patent Development Group's efforts to build and maintain a high quality patent portfolio that furthers the goals of HP's dynamic business. More specifically, the successful candidate will be responsible for personally drafting and prosecuting strategic, high quality patent applications, while supporting the department in a number of other activities critical for its success.

This unique opportunity will offer significant promotional and rotational opportunities. Successful candidates begin their careers in the Patent Development group and personally design their career path based on their goals and interests. Future roles can include patent portfolio management in Patent Development, rotations to IP Transactions & Counseling or IP Sales & Licensing, and Director or VP level leadership roles.

Key Responsibilities:

  • Drafting patent applications and office action responses.
  • Managing patent applications throughout the patent lifecycle by working directly with HP's inventor community, personally drafting and prosecuting high quality patent applications for strategically important inventions, and interacting with worldwide patent offices to secure valuable patent coverage
  • Actively participating in HP's invention disclosure review process to help ensure that HP's best inventions are identified and patented
  • Analyzing pending patent applications to determine their value to HP and to formulate a global filing strategy
  • Assisting patent portfolio managers with analysis of HP's patent portfolio, including preparation of claim charts
  • Collaborating with engineers in invention mining sessions, patent scrubs, and patent education sessions
  • Actively engaging in training, knowledge sharing, and other career development opportunities to hone technical and legal abilities and prepare for promotional or rotational opportunities
  • Participating from time to time as a member of a cross functional team to provide support in licensing, litigation, or other matters

Education And Experience Required:

  • A B.S. degree and/or advanced degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Physics, or Computer Science
  • A J.D. degree from an accredited university and admission to a state bar
    Admission to practice before the USPTO
  • 1 to 7 years of experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications
    Strong academic credentials
  • Preference for candidates who have personally drafted at least 10 patent applications
  • Ability to work with clients in a team-oriented partnership to help them arrive at elegant solutions to their problems
  • Flexibility to accept new and different challenges in a fast paced, high-tech environment
  • Ability to communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing
  • A positive attitude, creative spirit, passion for IP law, and strong motivation to excel

Contact
To apply, please visit this website: https://h30631.www3.hp.com/job/boise/patent-counsel/3544/9503540. Please attach a resume, cover letter, and a recent writing sample, such as a published patent application and/or published Office Action response.

Additional Info
Employer Type: Large Corporation
Job Location: Houston, Texas; Vancouver, Washington; or Boise, Idaho

Patent Attorney / Patent Agent – Small Law Firm – Telecommute

, , , , ,

DiBerardino McGovern IP Group (DMIP Group) is seeking a Patent Attorney or Patent Agent with 1-3 years of experience to join our team. The position will involve all aspects of patent prosecution and counseling, including a substantial amount of patent application drafting. We offer a competitive salary, flexible working hours, a 401k plan, a friendly work environment, and a reasonable billable hours goal of 1,400 hours per year. DMIP Group is a virtual law firm, and we offer the opportunity to work remotely from any location in the United States.

Strong academic credentials and a degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science or Engineering, or Physics are required. Applicants with a graduate degree and academic or professional experience with electronics or optical systems are preferred. Attorneys must be a member of the Bar of the state in which they plan to work.

Applicants must have a strong work ethic and a desire to be part of a virtual law practice, be professional and proactive, have strong writing skills and be detail oriented, and able to manage multiple deadlines and set priorities. In line with being a virtual law practice in which client confidentiality is a requirement, each applicant must have a dedicated work space that is closed off from the rest of the building in which the applicant works. High-speed internet service must be provided to the work space.

DMIP Group is dedicated to patent prosecution and counseling. We provide our clients with high quality legal services typically associated with larger firms in the personalized atmosphere of a small boutique that offers responsiveness and reasonable rates.

Contact
To apply, please email hr@dmipgroup.com.

Additional Info
Employer Type: Law Firm
Job Location: Telecommute