Patent Law Practice Center

Top 5 Patent 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) CAFC Blog: Revisiting Therasense, CAFC Finds That An Inventor’s Subjective Belief That Submission of Documents Was Unnecessary May Not be Sufficient to Avoid a Showing Of Intent to Deceive – This post discusses Aventis Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Hospira Inc. and Apotex Inc. and shares how the CAFC  found that the patents were invalid over withheld references, and unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

2) IP Watchdog: Beware Twitter’s New Patent Agreement Scheme – This post highlights and critiques Twitter’s announcement that  later this year it will implement what they are calling the “Innovators Patent Agreement,” which they claim will ensure that patents are only used for defensive purposes.

(more…)

IP Intensive Industries Support 40 Million Jobs, According to US Dept. of Commerce

Last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce released the report entitled, “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus,” which highlighted the connection between Intellectual Property intensive-industries along with job creation and its relation to the U.S. economy. The report by the Economics and Statistics Administration and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) identified 75 industries (from among 313, total) as IP-intensive.

The findings support a message President Obama and USPTO director David Kappos have been reiterating for some time: innovation is the key to economic growth within the United States. According to the USPTO, “The report not only estimates the contributions of these industries to the U.S. economy, but also gauges the ripple, or domino, effects they have on employment throughout the economy.”  The report specifically found that: (more…)

Google Attack on Computerized Menu Patent Among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of April 9, 2012

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

Last September, DietGoal Innovations sued a who’s-who of fast food companies (such as McDonalds and Burger King), plus Google, for infringement of a computerized menu patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,585,516 (see inter partes Request No. (1)).  Last week, it was Google that requested reexamination of the ‘516 patent. DietGoal’s patented menu comprises a user interface, a database of food objects organized into meals, and a picture menus, so “that a user can select [a meal] to meet customized eating goal.”

Avery Dennison requested reexamination of two 3M patents for retro-reflective sheeting (see inter partes Request Nos. (8) & (9)). 3M has sued Avery in Minnesota for infringement of those two patents, as well as two other similar patents.  Judge Michael Davis issued a claim construction order last month in that infringement action.

Finally, in what might be a first, the United States requested reexamination of a patent for neutralizing landmines (see inter partes Request No. (12)).  The inventor-owner of the patent is pursuing an infringement action against the U.S. in the Court of Claims.

(more…)

Dialogue Between the Bench and Bar

At the 6th Annual Patent Law Institute a few months ago, attendees bore witness to a panel discussion unlike any other. The panel, entitled, “Dialogue Between the Bench and Bar,” featured a lively discussion between Seth Waxman, former Solicitor General of the United States and currently Partner at Wilmer Hale, and Chief Judge Randall Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At issue was the mixing of the law and politics, and whether the act of  parties lobbying the White House in order to obtain a favorable amici brief from the Department of Justice was a dangerous ethical quandary.

The discussion was described as “lively, perhaps even explosive.” See for yourself below:

[vsw id=”4H–IoZJsSg&feature” source=”youtube” width=”425″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

The “6th Annual Patent Law Institute” is currently available for viewing on demand. The on demand program includes access to the Institute’s Course Handbook.

Top 5 Patent 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) IP Watchdog: Federal Circuit on Software Patents: Show Me the Algorithms – This post discusses the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc. and how the CAFC explained  the disclosure requirements for software patents that utilize means-plus-function claim language.

2) Patents Post-Grant: Different Thresholds for New Post Grant Proceedings – This post questions whether or not there is a significant enough difference between Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review to make an impact between grant rates. But the post does discuss the differentiating thresholds necessary for initiating the process of Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review.

3) Patently-O: The Impact of Mayo v. Prometheus: Three Weeks In – The decisions that have been released that rely on the Supreme Court opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus are highlighted and summarized in this post.

4) Patents4life: Aventis v. Hospira – How to Meet the Therasense Standards – This post discusses the Federal Circuit’s decision in Aventis v. Hospira, and how the inventors were found to have intentionally decided not to submit two material pieces of prior art to the PTO.

5) IP Kat: Patents and jurisdiction 2: Innovia v Frito-Lay – This post analyzes the question of which court Europeans can bring their patent related claims. The reason for this is, “because the same patents get litigated in jurisdictions outside the European Union too, and the effort of fighting to sue before the court of one’s choice often determines the outcome of the substantive proceedings too.”