Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- Habiba Tahir: Audit Giant Intuit Gains Patent for Bitcoin Transactions over Text Messages (Source: CCN)
- Marie Huillet: Microsoft’s Two New Patent Applications Fuse Blockchain Tech With Trusted Computing Techniques (Source: Coin Telegraph)
- Dennis Green: Walmart Filed a Patent Application for Virtual Stores, and It Could be the Next Front in Its Battle with Amazon (Source: Business Insider)
- Martin Macias Jr: Blackberry Patent War Mostly Survives Attack by Facebook, Snapchat (Source: Courthouse News Service)
- Mayank Parmar: Microsoft Patent Applications an Interesting Dual-Screen Device with Focus on Scanning and OS Navigation (Source: Windows Latest)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Atty. Alex Moss: The Supreme Court Should Say No to Patents That Take Old Ideas Away from the Public (Source: Electric Frontier Foundation)
- Celeste Tien-hsin Wang: Is Intellectual Property ‘Disrupted’ by the Algorithm That Feeds You Information in an Era of Fake News? (Source: SSRN)
- Gianna Cresto: A Design of its Own: How to Protect the Fashion Industry (Source: SSRN)
- Shekh Abdullah-Al-Musa Ahmed: Critical Review of Intellectual Property of Its Issue and Challenge (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
I think MM sounds a lot like Trump tweets.
That observation was made L O N G ago.
See link to patentlyo.com
Thanks PiKa – many horses left there at the well.
Atty. Alex Moss: >>>According to the court, the description didn’t qualify as material that could invalidate the patent being challenged because it did not appear in the “claims”—the section specifying the legal boundaries of the applicant’s rights – but rather in the section of the patent application describing the nature and operation of the applicant’s work. Ariosa v. Illumina
I haven’t read Ariosa v. Illumina, but I’d wager this is at best a misrepresentation of the holding.
Yes, the quoted “because it did not appear in the “claims”” is not correct. The decision is about saying content in a provisional application specification is not prior art as of its filing date if it is not later claimed in the formal application published or patented claiming priority benefit from the provisional. Claiming content is not the same as having content “appear” in a claim.
Yeah, I am kind of thinking that Ariosa v. Illumina is wrong now that I take a look at it.
Actually, this is an odd one. I missed this one.
Yes, of recent certs, Ariosa v. Illumina really does deserve a trip to the Sup. Ct. wood shed.
I’d have to agree. This one is just weird and almost impossible to police.
Comments are closed.