Patent Law Practice Center

Top 5 Patent Law Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) FOSS Patents: Apple-Samsung Settlement Talks Apparently Ended Without an Agreement – This post discusses how Magistrate Judge Spero of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California entered a minute order for the second day of the Apple-Samsung settlement. The order is silent on the next steps of arbitration.

2) IP Spotlight: Internet Advertising Patent Saga Continues: Supreme Court Orders Federal Circuit to Reconsider Decision in Ultramercial v. Hulu – This post analyzes the decision in Ultramercial v. Hulu and how “the U.S. Supreme Court hinted that a recent decision covering patent-eligibility for medical testing methods is also relevant to Internet-based methods.” (more…)

Register Now for “Prior Art, Obviousness, and the America Invents Act in 2012”

Patent reform has arrived: what will be its impact on those touchstones of patentability, prior art and obviousness?  102 was already a complicated concept for patent practitioners, having undergone evolving interpretations in the PTO and CAFC.  How will the AIA now complicate matters further?  How does the concept of “prior art” and circumstance collide in the 21st century? How does prior art on the web impact the practice? What is truly enabled?

On June 4, 2012, PLI is hosting a seminar entitled, “Prior Art, Obviousness, and the America Invents Act in 2012.” This program will allow you to obtain an essential working understanding of this complicated statute, including recent re-interpretations, case law, and explore the statutory revisions.  Meanwhile, obviousness, the most common reason any application is rejected or patent held invalid, is changing as a result of KSR (already 5 years old). Explore 103 from inside and outside the PTO as both the CAFC and PTO try to shoehorn their past decisions into a KSR pigeonhole!

The program is geared to patent lawyers who have some familiarity with existing 35 USC Sections 102/103 and regularly work with the statute in either litigation or patent prosecution. The course will advance the knowledge of all attendees from their respective starting points and provide new insights into the statute, recent amendments, and case law. Seminar attendance includes course handbook and associated course materials. A downloadable course handbook will also be available several days prior to the program start for your review.

Don’t hesitate! Register for Prior Art, Obviousness, and the America Invents Act in 2012 here.

ITC Finds Kodak’s Digital Capture Patent Invalid

On May 21, 2012, the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Judge Thomas Pender issued a notice in the patent infringement battle brought by Eastman Kodak against Apple, Inc. and Research In Motion, Ltd. The decision noted that Apple and RIM infringed upon one of the claims in Kodak’s digital capture patent, but that Kodak’s patent was invalid because of the “obviousness” of claim 15 of the patent. As such, Apple and RIM did not violate 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1) with respect to Kodak’s patent.

(more…)

Facebook Attack on Wireless Ink Patent Among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of May 14, 2012

Here is our latest weekly installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor…

Last Monday, Facebook requested reexamination of Wireless Ink’s U.S. Patent 8,135,801 which claims a system for enhancing accessibility to data over a network (see inter partes Request No. (1)).  The ‘801 patent is the subject of an infringement action between the companies in New York.  Notably, Facebook has filed this reexamination request before answering Wireless’s complaint in court.  Facebook – like Apple and Google – has been quick to resort to reexamination when sued for infringement.  Wireless has also accused Facebook of infringing two other patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,599,983 and 7,908,342 – in unrelated infringement actions.

For the most part, foreign companies have been slow to use reexamination as a tool for attacking U.S. patents owned by competitors.  An exception is Chinese companies, who seem to be quick studies when it comes to reexamination.  For instance, last week Zhejiang Trimone and Fujian Hongan filed a request against a circuit interrupter patent owned by Leviton (see inter partesRequest No. (4)).

Reexamination was also requested by CBS Interactive and a series of other media companies for two more wireless messaging patents owned by Helferich Patent Licensing (see inter partes Request Nos. (3) & (7)).  See last week’s post for other Helferich reexaminations.

(more…)

Top 5 Patent Law Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) Patents Post-Grant: Update from the Central Reexamination Unit – This post reports on the Central Reexamination Unit’s update on the USPTO’s efforts to refine the patent reexamination process, and that the stream line proposals of 2011 are still being reviewed.

2) Patent Docs: USPTO Seeks Comments on New Sequence Listing Standard – This post summarizes the notice published by the USPTO in the Federal Register regarding  an international effort to revise the standard for Sequence Listing submissions. The post also shares how comments regarding the proposed standard can be submitted for review.

(more…)