Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- Chaim Gartenberg: New Apple Patent Application Suggests iPhones Could Warn Against Spam Calls One Day (Source: The Verge)
- Helen Knight: Prior Art Archive Aims to Improve Patent Process (Source: MIT)
- Jan Wolfe: U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Ruling that Canceled Teva Copaxone Patents (Source: Reuters)
- Tom Blackwell: Canada, U.S. in NAFTA ‘Stalemate’ Over American Demands to Boost Protection for Brand-Name Drugs: Industry (Source: Financial Post)
- Fred Lambert: Tesla Patent Application Illustrates New Type of Cable Easier to Manipulate by Robots in Move to Automate Production (Source: Electrek)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Stephen O’Neal: Why Mastercard’s Multi-Blockchain Might Be a New Step in the Patent Race (Source: Coin Telegraph)
- Stephen Key: How To Avoid Having A Worthless Patent (Source: Forbes)
- Prof. Timothy R. Holbrook: Extraterritoriality and Proximate Cause after WesternGeco (Source: SSRN)
- Erik Hovenkamp and Prof. Jorge Lemus: Proportional Restraints in Horizontal Patent Settlements (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
Of all the Malcolm-related nu ke jobs, this is an odd one in that Malcolm’s malfeasance was so much on display as to be an abject lesson in what not to do.
In and of itself, the deletion isn’t bad. But as can be seen on other threads today, this will not stop the over thirteen and a half years of Malcolm blight.
This MIT PR release “Prior Art Archive aims to improve patent process” sounds like it might be useful but gives no details at all on how this database or its searching tools will be organized, what it will include, who will be supporting it or its users, or why it will any better than PTO or Google-patents searching for published applications and patents?
All the databases in the world aren’t going to help if the Examiners and PTAB judges are ment@ lly incapable of putting the pieces together. As Dennis has observed,
… the PTAB is clearly wrong that “DWELL TIME” is an internet specific phenom. Apparently, none of these PTAB judges have worked in retail sales.
It’s even worse than that. These judges’ heads are buried so deeply in the silicon that it doesn’t even occur to them to check (much less how to check) into whether there is a meatspace analogue in the prior art (news flash: there always is because logic, advertising and sales existed for eons before Teh Internets — it’s true! You can look it up).
“whether there is a meatspace analogue in the prior art”
Unless of course, the patentee is sharing the scope of their innovation to be directed to NON-meat space items.**
The presence (or absence) of a “meatspace analague” may well have NO driving effect – exactly as has been shown on that “DWELL TIME” thread.
**reminded of the classic XKCD Task frame: link to xkcd.com
Comments are closed.