Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 48

  • Judy Jarecki-Black from Merial Limited has been named the “Best Chief IP Counsel” by 2008″ by Global Counsel Awards 2008. Glacéau was awarded the “Best IP Counsel Team.” [LINK]
  • Eastern District of Texas Settlement: SAP agrees to pay $83 million to i2 Technologies. [LINK] In what appears to be primarily a trade secret case, Oracle is seeking $1 billion in damages from SAP. (Oracle’s no-patent strategy may prove successful).
  • Shen Wei v. Ansell Health Care (N.D. Ill 2008) (Claim Construction Issue Preclusion): The patentee lost a claim construction argument in earlier litigation against another party. In this case, Judge Guzman held that the patentee could not re-argue the construction based on collateral estoppels / issue preclusion. [LINK]
  • BPAI Constitutionality Problem: Representative Berman has introduced H.R. 6362 to fix the BPAI judge appointment problem by returning the duty of appointment to the “Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”
  • No Double Secret Expedited Reexamination: In Reexamination No. 95/008,972 the PTO recently refused to give any preferential or speedy treatment of the reexamination despite pending litigation. [LINK]

6 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 48

  1. 6

    “The tortured English and the verbal redundancy…”

    You complain about tortured English, and then you deploy a Latin phrase, “vel non”, that likely can be safely omitted from every sentence in which it ever appears. Interesting.

  2. 4

    I don’t know Mooney, how does the file jacket smell? Remember, don’t open it and read it. That actually takes effort.

  3. 3

    “Best Chief IP Counsel”

    Give me a break. I wonder what it costs to be named “Best Chief IP Counsel?”

  4. 2

    I remember having to examine claims likes this. The tortured English and the verbal redundancy always suggested to me that some office clerk with an Associate’s Degree was practising her translating skills. Do any of us anticipate that a jury made up of mechanics, school teachers, government employees and retirees (those with neither the ability nor inclination to get out of jury duty) will be applying their personal experience to determine the success vel non of the litigation? Also, don’t forget that the law clerk who will be deciding under Markman what the claim means is the same law clerk that needed remedial English classes when he entered college. The jury would be out two days just trying to figure out what “the surface not the disposable examination glove” means.

  5. 1

    With respect to that Shen-Wei case, here’s a couple of the claims (USPN 6,953,582):

    1. A method of manufacturing an enhanced disposable glove, the method comprising the acts of: applying a preparation onto a surface of a fluid-impermeable disposable glove, the preparation including a skin-conditioning substance and a liquid carrier, wherein the skin-conditioning substance comprises a skin-moisturizing substance, the surface of the glove to face a hand during wearing of the glove on the hand, the surface hereinafter referred to as interior surface; and evaporating the liquid carrier from the preparation to form a dry dehydrated preparation attached to the interior surface of the glove, so that the dehydrated preparation contacts the hand during wearing of the glove on the hand.

    13. An article for protecting a hand, the article comprising: a disposable examination glove that is fluid-impermeable; and a coating on a surface of the disposable examination glove, the coating including a dry skin-moisturizing substance that had undergone dehydration, prior to becoming dry, while on the surface not the disposable examination glove,wherein, the coating contacts a hand during donning of the article onto the hand, and the coating absorbs moisture from perspiration when worn on the hand to form a moistened skin-moisturizing substance.

    The problem to be solved:

    “There is therefore a need for low cost disposable gloves that can apply moisturizing and therapeutic substances to the hands during the glove use without leaving a greasy feel or look to the skin, while at the same time, retain the characteristics and functions of conventional single layer gloves.”

    The allegedly non-obvious solution to this problem: put dehydrated aloe vera inside the glove. Given that the isolation of various active skin-protective substances from aloe is very old in the art (two seconds of searching found, e.g., USPN 4,851,224 and I respectfully submit that the USPTO database is probably one of the worst sources for aloe-related treatments published prior to the patent bubble), it’s difficult to imagine this patent being valid.

    Extraordinarly difficult.

    But maybe it’s just me being all biased and stuff.

Comments are closed.