In 1977 Ed Headrick patented this basket-target for disc (Frisbee) golf. (U.S. Patent 4,039,189) (PDF). After the patent had expired, Headrick’s company (DGA) sued Champion Disc for trade dress infringement. The district court threw out the case, finding that the patented design was functional and thus could not retain trade dress protection. The holding was affirmed by Disc Golf Assoc., Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998).
In addition to this patent, “Steady” Ed invented the modern Frisbee and the game of disc golf! Before he died in 2002, he made this remark.
“I felt the Frisbee had some kind of a spirit involved. It’s not just like playing catch with a ball. It’s the beautiful flight.”
Find courses in your area. (Unfortunately for me, there are no courses in the city of Chicago).
Robert Barham and David Joynt are making good on their patented heat tolerant broccoli. Their innovation may revolutionize the broccoli business. (U.S. Patent 6,294,715).
Broccoli grows best in temperatures between 40 degrees and 70 degrees. Joynt and Barham said their variety holds up into the high 90s, tolerating heat spikes of up to 112 degrees. AP.
The patentees have apparently made available to the public without restriction a deposit of at least 2500 seeds of the patented broccoli 393-2-19 with the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), Rockville, Md. 20852 which has been assigned ATCC number 203533.
The USPTO has begun to hold regular on line “chat” sessions where independent inventors can ask questions. Sample Q&A:
Independent Inventor: In a utility patent, are you only granted protection for your claims?
USPTO Expert: Claims define your legal protection.
Independent Inventor: Is there such a thing as a Business Method Patent?
USPTO Expert: It is a utility patent. Utility patent applications may be filed for business methods. For additional information go here
Independent Inventor: Can applicants call in a speak with the examiner directly?
USPTO Expert: Yes, this is called an “interview” and is generally conducted after the first Office action has been mailed. Please see MPEP 713 for a detailed explanation of interview practice look here.
After losing a summary judgment in an infringement suit, Linear mounted this appeal based on claim construction and other errors. The technology at suit related to voltage regulators designed to provide constant voltage output from a fluctuating input. (U.S. Patent 5,481,178).
Because the district court erred in construing the “circuit,” “vary the duty cycle,” and “simultaneously off” claim limitations of the ’178 patent, we vacate the judgment of non-infringement and remand for further consideration. We further vacate the district court’s summary judgment of no contributory infringement or inducement of the current reversal method claims of the ’178 patent, because genuine issues of material fact have been raised concerning Maxim’s contributory infringement or inducement. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion on Maxim’s cross-appeal in denying Maxim’s motion for summary judgment that Vinsant was a joint inventor of the ’178 patent, we affirm.
The appellate panel held that the district court had improperly found that the term “circuit” was a means-plus-function limitation and that the district court had failed to apply the “rebuttable presumption that § 112 6 does not apply.”
We hold that because the term “circuit” is used in each of the disputed limitations of claims 1, 44, 55, and 57 of the ’178 patent with a recitation of the respective circuit’s operation in sufficient detail to suggest structure to persons of ordinary skill in the art, the “circuit” and “circuitry” limitations of such claims are not means-plus-function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 6. The district court’s holding to the contrary was an error of law.
The appellate panel also found error in the district court’s exclusion of PWM circuits from other means language in the claims.
Linear cites technical textbooks and electronic parts catalogs indicating that PWM circuits are well-known circuit structures to persons of skill in the art. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in excluding PWM circuits.
According to reports, Acacia has sued several cable and satellite providers for infringing its patents relating to streaming video with compression. (E.g., U.S. Patent 5,132,992).
Acacia is seeking licensing fees of $1.25 per home per year for cable subscribers to video-on-demand services; $1 per home per year for digital cable subscribers and 50 cents per home per year for analog cable subscribers.
Link. Acacia already has ongoing suits with dozens of porn website providers alleging infringement of the same patents. More recently, EFF has identified Acacia’s patents in its list of “problem” patents.
ZD Net is reporting that Nokia has obtained a licensing agreement from NTP for use of patents that allegedly cover RIM’s BlackBerry device. BlackBerry enabled Nokia devices should be available in the U.S. “in two to three months.”
The patent infringement case between RIM and NTP is ongoing. The Federal Circuit recently heard oral arguments in an appeal of the district court’s patent infringement finding. A ruling is expected within the next several weeks. Read more about the lawsuit here.
Although the terms of the agreement have not been made public, the license gives Nokia two big advantages. First, it allows Nokia to hedge its bets against the outcome of the RIM lawsuit. Second, and perhaps more important, Nokia is setting itself up to get a “first-mover” advantage over other carriers.
“There is a reasonable likelihood that they might not get all the patents thrown out,” said patent lawyer Brad Hulbert of McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff LLP in Chicago. “It’s better to pay now than pay more later.” (Bloomberg)
A common patent question is whether products should be marked with any relevant patent number. The simple answer is that marking provides “constructive notice” to infringers and may allow a patentee to collect greater damages in an infringement suit.
According to the marking statute:
In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice.
LegalStar is offering its electronic patent filing software free until Labor Day 2004 (normally $50 per filing). I have not used their software yet, but am planning to try soon. The USPTO also offers EFS software here.
There are two reasons why I am convinced that electronic filing will be standard operating procedure for the majority of new filings within the next 18 months. First, it is likely that electronically filed applications will be given a hefty discount on filing fees. Second, attorneys will appreciate the peace of mind that comes with the immediate confirmation of filing.
It is difficult to predict whether practitioners will end up using USPTO’s filing software or that of a company like LegalStar. Any software company will need a compelling argument to show that its software is better than the USPTO’s free version. In the long run, electronic filing software will likely be tied to prosecution docketing programs and sold as a bundle.
In an appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) for a pending patent application, the Court affirmed the Board’s rejection of Simpson’s claims as anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,161,442 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). (The application involved technology for cutting cardboard.) Although not explicitly described in the prior art, the Court found anticipation because the reference was “inherently ‘capable’ of performing the functions claimed by Simpson.”
In an infringement suit involving phosphorous fertilizer, the Federal Circuit panel vacated a preliminary injunction against Defendant Actagro because Actagro raised “a substantial question as to the validity of the ‘200 patent.” (U.S. Patent 5,514,200).
Given the evidence offered by Actagro, which on its face suggests that the SSP reference is a concentrated phosphorus fertilizer as contemplated by the claims, we find that Actagro has raised a substantial question as to the validity of the ‘200 patent. For that reason, we must conclude that the first prerequisite for entry of a preliminary injunction is lacking.
In order to qualify for our ten most-wanted list, a patent must be software or Internet-related and there must be a good reason to suspect that the patent claims are invalid. We’re especially interested in patents that target tools of free expression, such as streaming media, blogging tools, and voice over IP (VoIP) technology. Most importantly, the patent-holder must be aggressively enforcing its patent and suing (or threatening to sue) alleged infringers. We’re particularly interested in cases where the patent-holder is trying to force small businesses, individuals, nonprofits, and consumers to pay licensing fees. Deadline to enter is June 23.
The 10 best (worst) patents will be selected for reexamination proceedings
IPCentral has an ongoing discussion of the nonobviousness requirement of patentability. They quote one of my favorite law school professors (John Duffy).
[T]he Supreme Court … has not heard a case involving the nonobviousness doctrine in more than a quarter century. I recently gave a presentation at a patent reform conference in which I gave reasons why this drought may end very soon. Many people are not satisfied with the state of the law concerning nonobviousness.
Specifically, many are arguing that nonobviousness is taken much too lightly by the Federal Circuit.
In this trade secret case, the appellate panel held that Watson had no legal standing to sue Heinz for allegedly stealing his “trap cap” design for squeeze bottles of ketchup. Watson had filed for bankruptcy and not listed any trade secrets as assets. The court found that any property rights in the trade secret passed to the bankruptcy estate and no longer belong to Watson.
After a hung jury could not decide the issue of infringement, the judge granted a JMOL of infringement as to some claims and noninfringement/invalidity as to others. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further findings.
We agree with Quicksilver’s contention that the district court’s reliance on claim differentiation was legal error. Claim differentiation is a judicial doctrine that cannot be used to override statute.
The Federal Circuit (J. Rader) affirmed the jury verdict of indirect infringement and breach of contract, and affirmed the district court’s award of over $8 million in damages to Metabolite (including damages for willfulness).
As expected, the appellate court ruled that the same claim construction should be used for damage calculations as is used for infringement and validity analysis.
This court declines the invitation to apply a different claim construction for computation of damages than for infringement liability.
Additionally, the court refused to vacate the willfullness damages even though the district court did not examine any of the Read factors in its decision.
That the district court did not explicitly set forth its rationale for awarding Metabolite enhanced damages based on LabCorp’s willful indirect infringement is not fatal to its decision…. The district court’s failure to discuss the Read factors, although contrary to this court’s strong preference for the enumerated bases underlying its decision, in this case was at most harmless error.
Finally, the Appellate Panel held that no justification for a permanent injunction is required once infringement is found.
[T]he district court properly granted the injunction because LabCorp was found to infringe. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[A]n injunction should issue once infringement has been established unless there is a sufficient reason for denying it.”).
In a consumer class action for alleged anticompetitive conduct in connection with patents on computer memory chip technology, the California State Court held that the complaint was demurrable because the Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent matters.
Appellant argued that ambiguity in the written description and prosecution history warranted a special meaning for several contested terms. The court disagreed:
Where, as here, the written description and prosecution history are ambiguous as to whether the patentee used the claim terms inconsistent with their ordinary and customary meanings, it is the ordinary and customary meanings that the terms obtain.
The CAFC is expected to hear oral arguments today in the patent infringement case against RIM, the maker of the BlackBerry. The district court issued an injunction against RIM and awarded over $50 million in damages to NTP. The injunction was stayed awaiting the results of the appeal.
NTP’s patents are directed toward an “electronic mail system with RF communications to mobile processors.” (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,436,960).
