tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.comments2023-06-05T04:00:40.550-05:00Patent Infringement BlogDocket Navigatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15089550314183492408noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-633339123427234512014-03-31T04:54:33.567-05:002014-03-31T04:54:33.567-05:00It's hard to find knowledgeable people on this...It's hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but you sound like you know what you're talking about! ThanksSales Negotiation Traininghttp://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/3-Research-Backed-Reasons-Sales-Negotiations-Can-Be-Scary/6358797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-26055291523847884252014-03-06T01:35:12.003-06:002014-03-06T01:35:12.003-06:00
This is really a thing to consider, thank you ver...<br />This is really a thing to consider, thank you very much regarding writing about this subject. . !<br />Best Computer Caseshttp://www.innovativecases.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-69116987798232452192013-08-26T08:25:43.454-05:002013-08-26T08:25:43.454-05:00This is gorgeous!This is gorgeous!Thanhhttp://besttreadmillforhomes.us/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-49956319403259335952013-05-28T23:40:16.417-05:002013-05-28T23:40:16.417-05:00Intellectual property rights are no different from...Intellectual property rights are no different from other types of marital property, whether it be owning a restaurant together or any other type of business. One the wife is joined, I assume the judge will allow the plaintiff to refile as the dismissal was surely without prejudice.Nickhttp://www.familylawrights.net/divorce/division-of-property-in-divorce/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-42044953670297417392012-06-20T13:44:13.387-05:002012-06-20T13:44:13.387-05:00http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/2...http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/20/d-c-court-ruling-makes-life-tougher-for-patent-trolls/Docket Navigatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15089550314183492408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-66933425843393407122012-03-19T00:34:33.432-05:002012-03-19T00:34:33.432-05:00The AIA's change to joinder standards has prov...The AIA's change to joinder standards has proven to be a welcome development. There have already been several instances of this change hindering the operation of <a href="http://www.aminn.org/patent-legislation" rel="nofollow">patent</a> trolls (which was, of course, the intent). While the AIA is far from ideal, at least it contains a few winning provisions.patent litigationhttp://www.generalpatent.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-84707568884073698842012-01-09T12:07:17.172-06:002012-01-09T12:07:17.172-06:00Wow, has anyone ever heard of an ethical wall? The...Wow, has anyone ever heard of an ethical wall? There is a serious problem if a trial presentation professional doesn't know better, or worse yet, doesn't care.<br /><br />Ted Brooks, Trial Consultant<br />Litigation-Tech LLC<br />http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/Ted Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10432420287694829102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-88917931457681383192011-07-04T20:49:49.211-05:002011-07-04T20:49:49.211-05:00I'm glad the court ruled this way. Though no o...I'm glad the court ruled this way. Though no one is fond of false marking <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkQELhZeDYQ" rel="nofollow">patent trolls</a>, nevertheless I don't believe that doing away with the false marking statute is the way to go. False marking has the potential to harm innovation, and I think it's entirely appropriate to enforce the statute. The main difficulty now lies with potentially-exorbitant damage awards to qui tam plaintiffs (and Uncle Sam). I've never been convinced by the unconstitutionality argument; it's the damages issue that really needs to be addressed.patent litigationhttp://www.GeneralPatent.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-187233926157816552011-04-22T12:15:03.870-05:002011-04-22T12:15:03.870-05:00Maybe it's because he's been the subject o...Maybe it's because he's been the subject of several writs of mandamus because of his lawless rulings on the subject? Just a guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-69018154409868463712011-04-22T09:40:31.019-05:002011-04-22T09:40:31.019-05:00One good reason might be the fact that so many com...One good reason might be the fact that so many companies incorporate in DE and have a real good corporate connection there. The same CANNOT be said about East Texas.<br /><br />There's also some statistical bias here given the numbers.<br /><br />Finally, it's always been a misconception that you can't get out of East Texas. IN fact, trolls know you can so they have been suing East Texas companies among the ranks of defendants just because.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-32743410696673169322011-02-10T00:02:02.696-06:002011-02-10T00:02:02.696-06:00Here is a similar story
Scientific research publ...Here is a similar story<br /><br /> Scientific research publications do not, as a rule, disclose the existence of patent rights associated with the subject matter of the publication. Disclosure of patents and patent applications is typically required only when they constitute a competing financial interest that could bias authors in reporting their results and compromise their objectivity.1 However, there are other reasons to require patent disclosure in scientific literature.Copyright Attorneyhttp://www.internationalpatentservice.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-36366343141959088572010-12-14T13:45:54.718-06:002010-12-14T13:45:54.718-06:00If more defendants succeed in venue transfers in f...If more defendants succeed in venue transfers in false marking <a href="http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/patent-suits" rel="nofollow">patent litigation</a> (as in the <i>Simonian v. Hunter Fan Co.</i> case), that in itself might serve as a deterrent to the false marking bounty hunting that we all dread. It would also be interesting if HR 6352, or some other such bill, passed requiring a plaintiff to prove a competitive injury resulting from false marking. However, it doesn't look like any patent reform will pass this year (again). No surprise there.patent litigationhttp://www.GeneralPatent.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-69846820423448983152010-11-29T18:51:43.683-06:002010-11-29T18:51:43.683-06:00Congrats on placing in the top 50! This site truly...Congrats on placing in the top 50! This site truly is one of the bright lights in the <a href="http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/patent-suits" rel="nofollow">patent litigation</a> blogosphere.patent litigationhttp://www.GeneralPatent.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-54816986220738213592010-09-03T08:55:17.779-05:002010-09-03T08:55:17.779-05:00The Federal Circuit's remand can be viewed as ...The Federal Circuit's remand can be viewed as implicitly ruling that Rule 9(b) applies to false marking claims. The court stated:<br /><br />“We remand for the court to address the merits of the case, including Brooks Brothers’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ‘on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim to relief because it fails to allege an ‘intent to deceive’ the public—a critical element of a section 292 claim—with sufficient specificity to meet the heightened pleading requirements for claims of fraud imposed by’ Rule 9(b).”<br />Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., Inc., __ F.3d __, __, 2010 WL 3397419, *6 (Fed. Cir. 2010)Bob Matthewshttp://www.MatthewsPatentLaw.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-82105129793378237862010-08-31T14:08:02.519-05:002010-08-31T14:08:02.519-05:00Point is now moot as Stauffer came down today and ...Point is now moot as Stauffer came down today and the Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal for lack of standing.Bob Matthewshttp://www.MatthewsPatentLaw.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-87433423874925230772010-08-24T13:58:14.790-05:002010-08-24T13:58:14.790-05:00A good opinion to read to better understand SiRF a...A good opinion to read to better understand SiRF and issues of joint/divided infringement.Bob Matthewshttp://www.MatthewsPatentLaw.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-30217780029979310012010-07-07T08:07:08.128-05:002010-07-07T08:07:08.128-05:00I feel like the plaintiff makes a compelling and w...I feel like the plaintiff makes a compelling and well-reasoned case for better transparency from the USPTO and "markers" on expirations. Clearly false marks injure the public and ambiguity in the expiration definitely hampers competitors ability to innovate without fear of infringement.PriorSmarthttp://news.priorsmart.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-59422585377726553422010-04-07T16:32:43.240-05:002010-04-07T16:32:43.240-05:00Or, the Judge has seen from experience that the re...Or, the Judge has seen from experience that the reexamination process broken. Everyone knows that the PTO has never seen a request for reexam that they didn't like, which in many cases results in nothing more than years of delay in the PTO's prosecution carousel. Put another way, just about any trivial or old question is a "substantial new question". A district court is in a much better position to weigh evidence and dispose of unworthy patents at summary judgment. The reexamination group doesn't have the legal or technical resources to handle the tough technical questions, or the close legal calls.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802845044236202227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-17022855369494233902010-04-07T08:16:22.414-05:002010-04-07T08:16:22.414-05:00Suppose this Judge likes his work so much that con...Suppose this Judge likes his work so much that construing patent claims, which have a 64% chance of being changed on reexam, is not too much to ask.Thomasonhttp://leethomason.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-6402646096019744332010-03-15T20:20:52.373-05:002010-03-15T20:20:52.373-05:00From The 271 Patent Blog: "Google, Yahoo! Ski...From The 271 Patent Blog: "Google, Yahoo! Skirt Divided Infringement Claim Based on Data Provided "By the User" http://271patent.blogspot.com/2010/03/google-yahoo-skirt-divided-infringement.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-41756407897623205942010-02-12T12:39:28.864-06:002010-02-12T12:39:28.864-06:00RMorin,
Thanks for the comment and question. We...RMorin, <br /><br />Thanks for the comment and question. We have not independently reviewed the prosecution history and the court’s decision is not entirely clear on the issue. However, it appears that the prior art device was not listed in the IDS. Sabasta argued that its application contained a description of functional elements that included all relevant aspects of the undisclosed prior art (i.e., that the prior art had been disclosed in all but name) but the court rejected that argument. If you’d like to see the court’s decision please send an email to trial@docketnavigator.com and we’ll send you a copy. <br /><br />By the way, Docket Report subscribers receive these decisions via email every day with free links to the underlying documents. You can sign up for a free 2-week trial by clicking the link at the top of this page.Docket Navigatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15089550314183492408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-10511080639516094132010-02-12T11:24:38.648-06:002010-02-12T11:24:38.648-06:00Interesting case. It's unclear from the descr...Interesting case. It's unclear from the description whether Plaintiff cited the reference at all (e.g., buried in an IDS). Was this a case of Plaintiff burying but citing the reference or a case of Plaintiff completely failing to cite the reference anywhere? Thanks -RMRMorinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-82360255672400715842010-01-13T16:10:21.902-06:002010-01-13T16:10:21.902-06:00"validity must be proved by [plaintiff]...&qu..."validity must be proved by [plaintiff]..."<br /><br />Ummm... is there no presumption of validity in ND IL?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-22193679642242240522010-01-13T10:19:31.205-06:002010-01-13T10:19:31.205-06:00Why counterclaim for declarations of non-infringem...Why counterclaim for declarations of non-infringement and invalidity?<br /><br />Because the court could agree to dismiss plaintiff's infringement claim, if so requested, which would then wholly preclude [absent a declaratory relief counterclaim] the defendant from litigating whether the asserted patent is valid and/or infringed.<br /><br />Because the defendant can assert facts in the counterclaim that plaintiff must admit or deny -- which could identify additional topics for discovery and could be used to tee up a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.Daniel Ballard, Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03173838265543158040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4743013068754088651.post-81825154829119687682009-07-31T07:12:16.268-05:002009-07-31T07:12:16.268-05:00So, --insignificant post solution activity-- (disp...So, --insignificant post solution activity-- (displaying) DOES make something patentable after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com