Ottah v. Fiat (Fed. Cir. 2018)
On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Chikezie Ottah’s infringement claim against Fiat, Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford, and other auto manufacturers — holding it not infringed.
Acting pro se, Ottah alleged that his U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 (“book holder”) was being infringed by the back-up cameras installed on various vehicles. The problem for Ottah is that the Federal Circuit previously ruled that the patent claim language (“removable attachment”) coupled with prosecution history statements meant that the claims only covered attachments removable by hand — all of the accused devices required specialized tools for removal.
Even after liberally construing the pleadings (for pro se benefit), the court found no plausible claim based upon the patent — as such the dismissal with prejudice was proper.
Detachable or undetachable cameras of any kind are desirable anywhere that anybody or any machine might want to view or detect something.
Feel free to cite this. I’m a cameraman. Also it’s been true since the invention of the camera.
Of course if a venue-based activity or a reminder event is involved, that’s totally different.
When do machines want?
When do machines want?
Eat your cereal, Billy.
Who is Billy?
Why would Billy be eating cereal?
When do machines want?
What do machines want?
Have these machines made up their minds as to what they want and when they want it? Do such sentient machines even exist? Would not the requirement for actual sentience be in play in order for your (assumed and implicit) use of any type of Mental Steps doctrine to even apply?
Please use those short, direct English sentences that you are always on about – for others – to convey that “oh so serious” point of yours.
Why would Billy be eating cereal?
It keeps his mouf busy.
Sounds like good advice that you yourself should follow then.
(typical offshoot of the Accuse Others meme….)
Please use those short, direct English sentences that you are always on about
Go eff yourself and your ridiculous strawmen.
How’s that?
LOL – those short direct English sentences should be on point.
Did I really need to remind you of that?
(further, what “strawman” do you think that I have presented here? Or was that the limits of your reach into the ad hominem script of yours?)
actual sentience
ROTFLMAO
Not sure why that would cause you to chuckle, let alone laugh.
Are you even aware of the patent doctrine of Mental Steps?
And not much to lose if your life is devoid of meaning and everywhere you look you see people who you believe “stole your idea”.
Some fee shifting would be appropriate in these cases to keep the cwazy at bay. We all end up paying for this.
(meant to be a response to Ned’s comment 1)
At times, one really have to scratch one’s head to figure out how anybody who had “invented” a book holder for mobile devices such as wheelchairs whose sole distinction over the prior art was its removal attachment capability and structure can, with any credibility, argue that backup cameras on cars can infringe.
The mysterious answer: money
For pro se inventor suits, it is sometimes also a giant ego coupled with some degree of legal paranoia, even though most courts actually cut them a lot of slack, including not awarding sanctions.
One of the many benefits of the cult of the claim, whatever you can write becomes what is excluded.
the “cult of the claim”
otherwise known as the law as written by Congress…
Comments are closed.