Sharon Barner returns to the practice of law
- Former Deputy Director of the USTPO has announced her return to the Foley & Lardner law firm in Chicago. Barner was chair of the Intellectual Property Department at Foley & Lardner before she left to work for the USPTO. While at the USPTO Barner was the driving force behind the 2010-2015 USPTO's Strategic Plan. [Link]
Carlson Marketing is suing MillerCoors
Carlson Marketing Worldwide is suing MillerCoors over its "Miller High Life Extras Loyalty Program." Carlson owns patent [6,039,244] which covers a "Method of building up a data bank containing customer data and/or for the organization of." At issue in the suit is the 1st claim of the patent which claims, "a method for motivating a customer to purchase a product or a service and for rewarding the customer for repeat purchases thereof, the method comprising the steps of…" [Link] If Carlson wins this suit they could potentially file suit against many more large companies for patent infringement.
Can Patent Attorneys and Agents use Groupon when seeking new clients?
- According to the Rule 5.4(a) of the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, "a lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer. Groupon makes money by keeping approximately half the money the person pays for the coupon. So maybe Rule 5.4(a) would rule out patent attorneys in some states, but what about patent agents? The state of Missouri does allow lawyers to use Groupon as a way of obtaining new clients. While other places like North Carolina does not allow lawyers to use Groupon [Link]. The question I pose is, "Would the USPTO allow agents and attorneys to use Groupon?"
European Parliament voted for a single patent law system
- European member states will soon operate under a single patent law system rather than rely on their individual patent law systems. While the single patent law system is voluntary, most European states joined the system. There appear to be at least 2 holdouts as Italy and Spain have decided not to join at this time. [Link] The benefits of this system over the current state of affairs will not be understood until the legislation is developed.
European member states will soon operate under a single patent law system rather than rely on their individual patent law systems. While the single patent law system is voluntary, most European states joined the system. There appear to be at least 2 holdouts as Italy and Spain have decided not to join at this time. Patent Jobs:
- King & Spalding is seeking a patent attorney with 2 years experience and a engineering background to work in its Houston or Atlanta office. [Link]
- Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck is searching for a patent attorney with 3-6 years experience. To work in its DC office. [Link]
- NXP is seeking an IP Monetization Specialist with an electrical engineering background to work in their San Jose location. [Link]
- Sheldon Mark & Anderson is in search of a patent attorney with 2-5 years experience in IP litigation. [Link]
- Klarquist Sparkman is seeking a patent associate or agent with 1-4 years experience. [Link]
Upcoming Events:
- Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property will hold its 6th Annual Symposium entitled "The Economics of Intellectual Property and Technology on March 4th in Chicago. The keynote speaker is Michael Fricklas, General Counsel of Viacom. [Link]
- The Toledo Intellectual Property Law Association (TIPLA) will be hosting its 2011 Spring Seminar, entitled "A Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Designs: The Overlap of Patent Design, Trade Dress, and Copyright Protection", on March 9th at the University of Toledo College of Law. Guest speakers include: Theresa Orr, Katrina Quicker, Christopher Weston, and William Bryner. [Link]
- The Columbus School of law will host its Dean William Robinson Intellectual Property Law Lecture Series on March 29. The series lecture will be presented by Professor Jeffrey Lefstin. [Link]
- The University of Houston Law Center's Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law will host a Symposium on June 4th in Sante Fe, New Mexico. The Symposium will focus on "Trademark: Today and Tomorrow". Presenters include: Ann Bartow, Barton Beebe, Greg Lastowka, Mark McKenna, and Rebecca Tushnet. [Link]
Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.
“That’s not true, of course, but also irrelevant.”
Whatever you say, Examiner Mooney.
Keep wanking.
The equivalancy of claimed alternatives has to be recognized by the prior art, not “implicitly admitted” from a hindsight review of the applicant’s disclosure.
That’s not true, of course, but also irrelevant.
Keep fluffin’, though.
“The equivalancy of claimed alternatives has to be recognized by the prior art, not “implicitly admitted” from a hindsight review of the applicant’s disclosure.”
“i got no problem” aiint got no recognition of KSR.
Even if the “implicitly admitted” is initially generated by a hindsight review of the applicant’s disclosure, KSR allows the person havign ordinary skill in the art (as through the eyes of the examiner) to put the jigsaw pieces together – there be some caveats O course.
Sorry Charlie – you be SOL.
“Second, the patentee implicitly admits the generic relationship in the specification, as I noted in my original post.”
You’re such an examiner. Or 6’s SPE.
The equivalancy of claimed alternatives has to be recognized by the prior art, not “implicitly admitted” from a hindsight review of the applicant’s disclosure.
Nice try though.
My offer still stands. File your request for reexam and if it’s granted, I’ll pay.
Still not readin the entire message, eh Sunshine? Come on up and smack me in my muzzle – give me a cite.
bwwwack, bwwack bwwack bwwwwwack !
Cue up the internet tough guy be otchers….
This is my first time i visit here. I found so many interesting stuff in your blog. I am looking forward some more information from your end, it’s really helpful for me. I will bookmark your site to check if you write more about in the future. Please keep up the good work.
pingaling Cepts Sunshine – ya only proved me right: I done say ya need prior art – and ya show ya need prior art.
I was referring to a false statement made about the prior art, pingaling. You really are a dense one, even for a hardcore patent fluffer.
Aint seen [a substantial new question of patentability] that would qualify
Of course you haven’t, pingaling. A patent fluffing puppy such as yourself wouldn’t admit seeing one if it slapped you in your perpetually yapping muzzle.
I just thought of somethin, Sunshine – your quote of the SNQ – sounds an awful lot like what Dim be pushin all the time – the different way bein that KSR crrp.
Cy,
Maybe Dim aint NAL after all – maybe Dim be Sunshine (on a cloudy day).
Cepts Sunshine – ya only proved me right: I done say ya need prior art – and ya show ya need prior art. I never done say that the prior art cant have this here substantial new question of patentability” attachment to it – even if ya be wrong about how that new question attach.
Ya be takin readin lessons from 6 again?
Ya do know what IC is, right? – You seem to forget addressing that part of my post in your hurry to throw out the put downs. Maybe Ned can learn ya (just checkin to see if Ned-O still be alive and readin).
And bys the way – statement by applicants – your premise – even misleadin ones are not substantial new questions of patentability” Aint seen one yet that would qualify – but hey, if ya got one, Iza willin to hear it. And of course see the cite to it (not that I dont trust ya, but I dont trust ya)
And keep the chuckles comin Sunshine.
link to uspto.gov
In a decision to order reexamination made on or after November 2, 2002, reliance on old art does not necessarily preclude the existence of a substantial new question of patentability that is based exclusively on that old art. See Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758, 1899-1906 (2002)…For example, a substantial new question of patentability may be based solely on old art where the old art is being presented/viewed in a new light, or in a different way, as compared with its use in the earlier * examination(s), in view of a material new argument or interpretation presented in the request.
When you and Frenchy get tired of grooming each other, pingaling, you can both ponder the above. Food for thought for two whiny puppies — and not a speck of cereal! LOL.
Not a non-sequitur, pingaling. Frenchy said that it was “weird” to state that one believes a technology was described in the prior art. Of course, that’s very silly.
I suspect you knew this, too, but you are just being your usual dxpshxt self.
The important thing is to keep fluffing those patents, pingaling.
“why would that not be sufficient to get a reexam ordered?”
Ya not even trying any more Sunshine.
Even I can observe the basis of reexam in law:
35 U.S.C. 301. Citation of prior art.
Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent.
It gotta be prior art, baby.
Inequitable Conduct – which you be describing just aint the same thing. You been dippin into Ned’s meds there boy?
“What about computers generally? Do you believe they existed prior to 1997?”
Non sequitur O the day award, once again. Way ta go Sunshine. Keep tilting my man.
US US 6,887,159 does not disclose the feature recited in claim 1 of US 7,806,329 that caused the examiner to allow the claim.
End of story.
Only if you are a tiresome sophist or an Examiner that has become tired of your sophistry. The fact is that 6,887,159 discloses quite a bit more different kinds of data and notes that “statistics can be generated.”
The distinction you are attempting to draw between “viewer” data and “viewed” data is superficial because (1) both types of data were collected in the past for the purpose of determining demographic preferences and (2) there is absolutely no distinction to be made between the two types of data except what you choose to call it.
You might be the sort of person who believes that you could get an improvement patent over this one filed today where you throw in a “limitation” about collecting data regarding the user’s hair color. And who knows you might actually succeed! That doesn’t mean that the USPTO isn’t inept or that such a claim is legally non-obvious. It means only that, as inventors go, you are rather lowly and pitiful.
Where’s your evidence that the initially claimed features of US 7,806,329 “are part of an art-recognized genus”?
First I have to know: are you joking? As of the priority date, there was no relevant technological distinction to be made between information about what is being viewed and information about who is doing the viewing. Collecting both types of information was easily within the grasp of the skilled artisan. See, e.g., 6,887,159 and many other references.
Second, the patentee implicitly admits the generic relationship in the specification, as I noted in my original post. “User profile” and “item/product profile” data are not distinguished in any meaningful way referring only to *both* profiles each time the item/product profile is mentioned. This is perfectly understandable, of course, because two data types are the most relevant types to collect when one is monitoring what a viewer is watching, i.e., who is the viewer and what are they watching.
Third, Nielsen among others collected such data as far back as the 1950s.
Fourth, the premise of your statement bears little relationship to the claims at issue. The reason being that the prior art in this case certainly does describe collect both data about products and viewers of products, and describes collecting such data for statistical purposes. That’s ancient history. See, e.g., Nielsen.
“Please explain.”
I don’t need to. US 6,887,159 does not disclose the feature recited in claim 1 of US 7,806,329 that caused the examiner to allow the claim.
End of story.
Good luck “proving” either of those scenarios.
So your position is that as of 1997 technology did not exist which would allow one to compile demographic statistics using collected data about the preferences of a group of viewers?
That would seem to contradict everything taught in 6,887,159, among others. Please explain.
“Not true, particularly when the issue is obviousness and A and B are part of an art-recognized genus.”
Where’s your evidence that the initially claimed features of US 7,806,329 “are part of an art-recognized genus”?
“Really? Explain why and cite the relevant law.”
US 6,887,159 does not show the feature of claim 1 of US 7,806,39 that the examiner acknowledged wasn’t shown by the art of record. Combining US 6,887,159 with Ma, or Ma and Bushmitch, etc. is not going to provide the invention of claim 1 of US 7,806,329. You’re welcome to try though.
“In particular, and purely hypothetically, if I proved that a particular statement made by an Applicant before the USPTO was false and that the statement was relied on by the Examiner to obtain grant, why would that not be sufficient to get a reexam ordered?”
Good luck “proving” either of those scenarios.
If a claim recites “…A or B…” and the prior art shows A, but not B, and the claim is amended to delete A, and leave B, the claim is allowable.
Not true, particularly when the issue is obviousness and A and B are part of an art-recognized genus.
This is how I know you are a patent agent practicing in one of the lesser-skilled art units.
Your “analysis” is not even enough to get a reexam of US 7,806,329 ordered
Really? Explain why and cite the relevant law.
In particular, and purely hypothetically, if I proved that a particular statement made by an Applicant before the USPTO was false and that the statement was relied on by the Examiner to obtain grant, why would that not be sufficient to get a reexam ordered?
Your “analysis” is not even enough to get a reexam of US 7,806,329 ordered, let alone invalidate it.
Keep wanking.
Major Issues said I don’t have any “beliefs” about it.
Really? Your behavior suggests otherwise. But certain types of people do have amazing abilities to ignore (or pretend to ignore) any information that conflicts with their “worldview.” So, yes, I suppose it’s possible to not have an opinion as to whether anyone wrote about redeeming proofs of purchase prior to 1997, just like it’s possible to not have an opinion as to whether humans walked on the moon or whether Barack Obama is plotting with Saudi Arabia to turn the world into a communist dictatorship.
I think it’s pretty weird that you do have “beliefs” about it
Your concern is noted. What about computers generally? Do you believe they existed prior to 1997?
“My gob, but yr writin is about as pizzpoor as dat othah fluffahs.”
Hey Sunshine, for you, flattery will get ya nowhere – but thanks for tryin.
“That’s more than a bit weird, don’t you think?”
Charge of the Windmill (lightning) Brigade !
If ya aint chargin after windmills, ya just gotta be weird, or a patent fluffer or egads – both.
Let me break it down for you again because you seem to be having a really difficult time with this “technology.”
In the prior art, it was well-known that one could collect all kinds of data based on what a person did on a computer-monitored network. For example, in U.S. 6,887,159, all kinds of statistics can be generated from data associated with people playing various games on a network. There is absolutely no reason why one would expect that one kind of available data could be compiled and analyzed and another kind of available data could *not* be collected and analyzed. None. Nada. And certainly the ‘329 patent contributes nothing to solving such a problem, even if such a problem existed.
As I noted, what is perfectly clear to anyone (except those trying not to understand) is that the applicants of the ‘329 patent very reasonably made no distinction between “product profile data” and “user profile” data in their specification, and in fact virtually ignored the former type of data until the prior art (e.g., Ma) crushed their initial claim set. From that point on, it was just an exercise in kicking dust and the usual computer-related Examiner cave-in.
I’ll return to my previous observation: “Applicants argued that the references cited by the PTO (teaching the updating of a user profile based on skipped promo items) “do not allow” for functionality such as “learning from viewer’s reaction to the item how that item is perceived by different demographics.”
This is simply ridiculous. Of course such functionality was “allowed”. *Any* statistical data you want to imagine can be compiled from available data, and people have been associating viewer reaction to promotional items with “different demographics” since the dawn of commerce.
You’re so obviously an examiner.
In fact, I’m obviously not an Examiner. But you’re obviously a patent agent who’s success depends on certain art units at the USPTO remaining poorly managed.
I don’t have any “beliefs” about it. I think it’s pretty weird that you do have “beliefs” about it.
I Got Major Problems You claimed U.S. 6,887,159 showed the feature recited in claim 1 of U.S. 7,806,329. But it doesn’t.
Which feature are you referring to, mushmouth? My gob, but yr writin is about as pizzpoor as dat othah fluffahs.
Who cares if a method of redeeming proofs of purchase for a reward were described in writing prior to 1997?
Apparently you do because you seem unwilling to discuss your beliefs about it. That’s more than a bit weird, don’t you think? Maybe it’s one of the Patent Fluffers Commandments.
I see you’re a summa cum laude graduate of the George Will School of Sophistry.
Who cares if a method of redeeming proofs of purchase for a reward were described in writing prior to 1997? If there is such a method described in writing, get behind your keyboard and clack out your request for reexam.
I did address your “analysis.” You claimed U.S. 6,887,159 showed the feature recited in claim 1 of U.S. 7,806,329. But it doesn’t.
Here’s some more of your “analysis” of U.S. 7,806,329:
“The distinction credited with being patentable is that updating a profile ‘corresponding to the promotional item’ was somehow deemed to be non-obvious, while updating a ‘user’ profile in the identical context was deemed obvious. This, of course, makes no sense at all.
Note also that the criticality of this distinction between ‘user profile’ and ‘promo item profile’ is completely absent from the specification. Indeed, the term ‘user profile’ appears over 40 times. The term ‘profile corresponding to the promotional item’ appears only in the abstract and once in the Summary section, each time followed by reference to a viewer profile, e.g., ‘profile corresponding to the promotional item or a viewer…'”
You’re so obviously an examiner.
As I noted, claim 1 of the application that issued as U.S. 7,806,329, initially recited “updating a profile corresponding to a promotional item OR a profile of a viewer of the promotional item based on whether or not the promotional item was skipped.” So the claim recited updating a profile corresponding to A or B depending on some circumstance (i.e. whether the promotional item was skipped). The Ma reference clearly showed updating a profile corresponding to B (i.e. the profile corresponding to the user), but did not disclose updating the profile corresponding to A. So after the first OA the applicant deleted the feature of updating the profile corresponding to B, to leave only updating the profile corresponding to A. The secondary reference (Bushmitch) the examiner provided in the second OA didn’t disclose updating the profile corresponding to A. AND NEITHER DOES THE “EVIDENCE” (i.e. U.S. 6,887,159) THAT YOU CITED.
Fail. Again.
BTW, there is no requirement that a “distinction” recited in a claim be “critical” as you apparently were taught over there at the PTO. If a claim recites “…A or B…” and the prior art shows A, but not B, and the claim is amended to delete A, and leave B, the claim is allowable. And the reason that the updating the profile of the promotional item was “deemed to be non-obvious” was because THE PRIOR ART DIDN’T DISCLOSE THE FEATURE.
So should I check the Official Gazzette to see when you’re gonna file your request for reexam of U.S. 7,806,329 by submitting U.S. 6,887,159 as presenting a SNQ, or are you chicken?
As ping so eloquently said,bwwwack, bwwack bwwack bwwwwwack.
By the way, don’t forget to answer this question for me (simple yes or no):
Is your position that nobody has described in writing a method of redeeming proofs of purchase for a reward prior to 1997?
Thanks.
Uh, Frenchy, you need to address *my* analysis, not the PTO’s analysis.
“You’re right, and I am.”
You must be living in a cardboard box on the salary you’re earning.
Here’s a link to one of your world famous analysis. You got yourself all into a tizzy over U.S. Patent 7,806,329. Here’s a link to your devastating commentary. And your challenge to anybody to refute it.
link to patentlyo.com
“Let me know if you disagree with the facts, the analysis, or the conclusion, and please state your reasons why. I’m looking forward to your insights. Which is to say I predict you will have precisely none.”
So the initial claims of this patent (US 7,806,329) that you’ve “invalidated” with your tremendous skills recite updating a profile corresponding to a promotional item OR a profile of a viewer of the promotional item based on whether or not the promotional item was skipped.
In the first non-final OA (10/6/08), the examiner applied the Ma reference as a 102. The examiner cited paragraph [0025] of the Ma reference as allegedly disclosing this feature.
Applicant responded (3/6/09) by amending claim 1 to delete the feature of updating the profile of a viewer of the promotional item (i.e. deleted “or a viewer of the promotional item”) and argued that Ma did not in fact disclose updating a profile corresponding to a promotional item based on whether the promotional item was skipped. See pages 8-9 of the 3/6/09 response, in particular the first full paragraph on page 9.
In the second non-final OA (7/6/09), the examiner conceded that Ma failed to disclose the amended feature (i.e. updating a profile corresponding to a promotional item based on whether it was skipped) (see middle of page 3 of the 7/6/09 OA), but cited the Bushmitch reference as allegedly disclosing the missing feature, but clearly stated on page 4 of the OA that Bushmitch discloses updating the user’s profile.
Applicant responded (10/17/06) that Bushmitch didn’t disclose the feature acknowledged to be lacking in Ma, and cited to paragraph [0029] of Bushmitch on page 8 of the response in support of their argument that Bushmitch didn’t disclose the claimed feature.
In the final OA (4/8/10), the examiner agreed with Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 and stated so in a reasons for allowance for claim 1(see page 5, paragraph number 11, of the final OA).
So what we have here is a garden variety prosecution. Examiner cites some art, Applicant amends, examiner finds some secondary reference, mischaracterizes what is discloses, gets called out on it, agrees with Applicant, and withdraws rejection.
Now let’s move on to your smoking gun evidence of US 6,887,159. Here’s claim 1 of that patent:
1. A platform for matching users of a gaming application, comprising: a memory that stores profile information for a plurality of users of a gaming application, the profile information comprising wagering parameters of the plurality of users; and a processor coupled to the memory that matches a first user against a second user in a competition associated with the execution of the gaming application, based at least in part upon the wagering parameters of the profile information and selection criteria.
US 6,887,159 is directed to a system that stores the profiles of users of a gaming system to match up users. Doesn’t disclose the feature of claim 1 of US 7,806,329 argued by the patentee to be missing from the combination of Ma and Bushmitch, and agreed to by the examiner.
Fail.
Care to try again?
Here’s a proposal for you: file a 3rd party request for reexam of US 7,806,329 submitting your US 6,887,159 as presenting a SNQ. If the request is granted, I’ll reimburse you for the fee.
How ’bout it?
If you could actually invalidate all of these patents, you’d be making a living doing so
You’re right, and I am.
Any internet wanker can declare any and/or all elements of a claim to be “old and well known” without any evidence.
I agree. But if you’ve been paying attention you’ll note that I routinely do provide evidence in my analysis. Roughly half the time, the evidence is right there in the background of the specification.
each element of the claim was so old and well know that noboby ever bothered to write it down somewhere.
You’re slurring your words, but an interesting admission nonetheless. Is your position that nobody has described in writing a method of redeeming proofs of purchase for a reward prior to 1997? Please let me know if that is your position.
“Do you need me to walk you through the claims, element by element?”
I don’t need anything from you. I’ve seen your analytical skills. I’m not impressed. Any internet wanker can declare any and/or all elements of a claim to be “old and well known” without any evidence. You do it on a daily basis. But I’ve never seen a patent actually invalidated on anonymous internet allegations that each element of the claim was so old and well know that noboby ever bothered to write it down somewhere.
If you could actually invalidate all of these patents, you’d be making a living doing so, instead of endlessly twaddling around here.
So keep yapping. And wanking. It apparently sustains you.
From the guy who, once a patent issues, and after reading nothing more than the title, reflexively pronounces it “facially invalid”
Except that’s not at all what happened, Frenchy. Do you need me to walk you through the claims, element by element? You seem to be wanting that pretty badly.
Biscuits made from the rye fields next to the windmills.
Yummy.
“Of course you’re not ‘impressed’ because once a patent issues the only thing left for you to do is to fluff it endlessly and yap at anyone who dares to question its validity. You’re an obedient little puppy. Would you like a biscuit?”
From the guy who, once a patent issues, and after reading nothing more than the title, reflexively pronounces it “facially invalid” and yaps endlessly at anybody who dares to question its invalidity.
Keep your biscuit. You need it more.
I’ve seen the level of “analysis” you’re capable of. I’m not impressed.
Of course you’re not “impressed” because once a patent issues the only thing left for you to do is to fluff it endlessly and yap at anyone who dares to question its validity. You’re an obedient little puppy. Would you like a biscuit?
“let me know if you need me to walk you through the claim elements.”
I’ve seen the level of “analysis” you’re capable of. I’m not impressed. Neither is anybody else.
Keep wanking.
got a big problem says Instead of trashing the examiners that issue these patents, why don’t you file a re-exam and provide them with the evidence they need to invalidate these patents?
LOLOLOLOLOL. Why don’t you just admit that the patent claims are cxrxp, or explain to us all why they aren’t, Mr. Fluffernutter? Do I need to walk you through the elements of the claim, Fluffernutter? Let me know. I’m happy to do so.
If the Examiners are lacking evidence necessary to keep claims such as this from issuing, than the USPTO should shut down the art unit until they get their sxhxt together.
Again, let me know if you need me to walk you through the claim elements.
The only thing the EU Council and Parliament have “signed up” to is not to wait for the two spoilers anymore. Which is not entirely surprising, considering that various proposals have been debated for the last 40 years.
The EU Commission still has to table a definitive proposal in March, and the EU Council (minus Italy and Spain) and Parliament will still have the chance to debate it, amend it beyond any recognition, and sign up to it.
BTW, do you believe that your Congressmen read, never mind understand, each and every bill they vote on?
“European member states will soon operate under a single patent law system rather than rely on their individual patent law systems. While the single patent law system is voluntary, most European states joined the system. There appear to be at least 2 holdouts as Italy and Spain have decided not to join at this time. [Link] The benefits of this system over the current state of affairs will not be understood until the legislation is developed. ”
So, in other words, it went something like this . . . “okay everyone, sign up over here.” “What are we signing up for?” “We’ll tell you after everyone signs up!” And the Europeans still can’t understand why they are in the mess(es) they are in.
If being a patent fluffer means that I expect a little bit more than the typical Mooney “It’s facially invalid crxp” analysis before I’ll accept that a patent is invalid, them I’m a proud patent fluffer.
Instead of trashing the examiners that issue these patents, why don’t you file a re-exam and provide them with the evidence they need to invalidate these patents? Given so many crxp patents being issued by the PTO, in your estimation, it should be a booming business for you. There are so many potential accused infringers out there I’m sure you could convince at least some of them to invalidate these patents with your tremendous skills.
In the meantime, keep wanking.
There is something more substantial than bruised pride involved. Italians and Spaniards, apply for disproportionately few patents (respectively only 4% and 1% of European patents issued). As a result, the translation of EP patents into Spanish, currently compulsory to validate EP patents in Spain, accounts for over three-quarters of all utility patent business of Spanish IP firms. The numbers in Italy are possibly not much different. Since Spain and Italy are nevertheless comparatively big markets, and issued EP patents thus frequently validated there, this represents nonetheless quite a nice wedge of money for something involving very little actual work (the translations are usually outsourced to free-lance translators, with the firm taking a very substantial cut).
Unsurprisingly, the Italian and Spanish IP firms earning the most out of the patent translation racket have been strenuously lobbying their governments to block any EU arrangement that would end it…
“Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.”
Having trouble seeing the “in the name of” or even “for” here.
If indeed these are “criminal cases” can the ND Ohio court even pass judgment on the constitutionality? Federal Courts being as they are of limited jurisdiction, this court’s very ruling raises questions about its propriety of handling the case as a civil case as it has.
There will be some serious cans of whoop @$$ opened here.
Interesting how a law meant to protect against the wiles of Big Business is celebrated at its passing, rather than mourned.
I would suggest then, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and all value and presumption of marking be immediately stricken as equally unconstitutional, as it was the same Congress that passed both laws, and the laws are intertwined.
Plus given the fact that Section 292 is not an actual Qui Tam action (no matter how many courts make this mistake – it is still a mistake in law a crtical facotr – “the Executive Branch lacks sufficient control over litigation in
which the United States is the real party in interest fails the actual reading of the 292 section which explicitly omits naming the United States as the real party in interest), I doubt that the witch is quite dead yet.
But possibly most interesting:
“Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“What is the technological background (BWAHAHA…”
That’s right. Heck, even Mooney could do that job…
Ding, dong, false marking’s dead!
False marking’s dead!
False marking’s dead!
Ding, dong, false marking statute’s dead!
N. D. Ohio said
False marking’s dead!
False marking’s dead!
Three cheers! False marking statute’s dead!
“Former Deputy Director of the USTPO has announced her return to the Foley & Lardner law firm in Chicago.”
I guess the govt salary wasn’t quite cutting it for her.
Sockie Sockpuppet: What I do know is that patentees don’t have to provide a “compelling case of validity” unless the PTO actually makes a prima facie case of unpatentability.
That’s nice, Sockie. Of course, I’m not demanding that the patentees provide such an explanation (I’m sure they are busy figuring out what dust they are going to kick up in response to the defendant’s reasonable and compelling arguments that the patent is total piece of cxrxp).
Instead, I’m just asking patent fluffers such as yourself to step up and explain in a reasonable and coherent manner how a computerized method of redeeming proofs of purchase for a reward could possibly be a valid patent claim in view of all the non-computerized prior art methods of redeeming proofs of purchase for a reward, further in view of the fact that the mere computerization of such ancient methods is prima facie obvious.
Were people suggesting that old methods of promoting purchases could not be computerized in 1997? That’s certainly not how I remember it. But maybe you were born yesterday. That would explain a lot.
Let’s say Miller, at roughly zero cost, causes all codes to be printed in pairs so no codes are unique)
Thereby defeating the entire purpose of the system, because when the user goes on the internet to enter his code, the computer at the receiving end can’t tell what transaction it refers to.
If you’re going to design around those claims, “unique” isn’t the place to do it.
Carlson’s independent claim states that the code is “unique”…pretty easy for Miller to work around that. Let’s say Miller, at roughly zero cost, causes all codes to be printed in pairs so no codes are unique)…when the lawsuit reaches court and infringement for the period up to that change is confirmed, how would damages be calculated?
Same ta you, you inernet tough guy be otcher.
All wind – no wonder you love windmill huntin.
“You must be new around here, sockie.”
IDK about that. What I do know is that patentees don’t have to provide a “compelling case of validity” unless the PTO actually makes a prima facie case of unpatentability.
And once they’ve done that, I’m pretty sure they’re under no obligation to internet circle jerkers and wankers like you.
Well, once you provide a compelling case of invalidity of those claims, I’m sure somebody will oblige your request.
You must be new around here, sockie.
“I’d love to hear a compelling defense of the validity of these claims, or perhaps an explanation as to why the issuance of such claims does not reflect poorly on the USPTO’s ability to do its duty.”
Well, once you provide a compelling case of invalidity of those claims, I’m sure somebody will oblige your request. Until then, the only compelling case that needs to be made is called the presumption of validity.
Right on cue, although I didn’t expect the tiny leather jacket.
“Except I’m not sure that he/she is the worst.”
Translation: bwwwack, bwwack bwwack bwwwwwack !
Cue up the internet tough guy be otchers….
Why don’t you give the examiner a call, Malcolm. You can go in for a personal interview and tell him he’s the worst examiner in history.
Except I’m not sure that he/she is the worst. That title might belong to the Examiner who worked on the method of identifying a bird using a POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN. Those claims flew out the door of the PTO earlier this year.
I’d love to hear a compelling defense of the validity of these claims, or perhaps an explanation as to why the issuance of such claims does not reflect poorly on the USPTO’s ability to do its duty. Cue up the patent fluffers!
“There’s little doubt in my mind that the worst USPTO Examiners in history worked (still work?) in the advertising/bizpromotion art units. What is the technological background (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!) required for such a job? And why?”
The examiner who issued US 6,039,244 is still around. See, for example, US 7,861,921 issued January 4, 2011. First action allowance. To my main man Ralph Jocke, who is right up there with Mr. Boundy in kick-assedness. Sweet 717 days of PTA too.
Why don’t you give the examiner a call, Malcolm. You can go in for a personal interview and tell him he’s the worst examiner in history.
Or are you chicken?
There was a similar patent making the rounds about ten years ago that was a method of promoting sales with a “lottery” type reward program that was old as the hills except instead of comparing your packaged “hidden code” to a number on a sheet held by your grocer or mailing it the company, you went to the Internet and the comparison was performed by a POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN.
There’s little doubt in my mind that the worst USPTO Examiners in history worked (still work?) in the advertising/bizpromotion art units. What is the technological background (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!) required for such a job? And why?
RE: Carlson Marketing v. MillerCoors
1. The claim requires that “the code remains invisible to the customer until after the customer purchased the product.”
2. As you might expect, the only place “invisible” appears in the patent is in the claim.
3. The spec says “A code 22 is printed onto the inner side of the cover part 20a of the product package 21 and is not visible when the package 21 is closed.” It also talks about a code 25 on the receipt: “the code 25 does not have to be hidden on the record 23.”
4. The complaint says Miller uses a “unique concealed code found inside the pachages.”
5. The spec doesn’t use the term “concealed.”
6. Question; So what does “invisible”, “not visible”, “hidden”, and “concealed” legally mean? Answer: $1,000,000 in legal fees to both the plaintiff and defense attorneys to answer that question.
Disclaimer – I only spend about five minutes on this and have never been a million dollar legal baby.
Ok people, say it together with me: Puh-leez! Claim 1 of the Carlson patent is a classic case of, “A known method of doing business, but doing it over the internet.” For example, airline frequent flyer programs were around years before the 1997 filing date. They just didn’t necessarily enable you to check the status online until the late 1990’s. If this claim is valid I’ll eat my shorts.
“The question I pose is, ‘Would the USPTO allow agents and attorneys to use Groupon?'”
The more appropriate question is whether there is anything in the PTO rules that would PROHIBIT agents/attorneys to use Groupon. I don’t think there is.
there is no link to the Carlson Marketing patent suit
No coincidence that the two hold-outs are Italy and Spain. It is specially hard for them. Big countries both, but not big enough to secure it, that Euro-patents will issue in their language. In patents, they feel hard done by, compared with UK, Germany and France for because, when it comes to EU trademark registrations, Italian and Spanish are Office languages, along with French, German and English.
They will come around to the idea though, when their bruised pride has healed. After all, who nowadays reads cutting edge science and engineering publications in anything but English, and the text that counts, for defining the scope of protection of EPO patents, is the language of their prosecution at the EPO.
The other Member States are smaller, and they know they are too small to hold out for their own language.
Comments are closed.