News
-
USPTO Opposition Trial Rules Adopt Interference Procedures
2/16/2012
As expected, the USPTO has adopted Interference Procedures in the Rules for Practice for Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
-
PTAB & Post Grant Proceedings Detailed by USPTO
2/10/2012
In advance of the printing in the Federal Register later this week, the USPTO has released its proposed rules for the contested case provisions, i.e., inter partes review, post grant review, the transitional program for covered business methods, and derivation.
-
Reexaminations under AIA (Patent Reform Act)
1/19/2012
The new legislation enacted Fall of 2011 provides new rules for Reexamination proceedings. As of late January 2012, the USPTO has not set out its new rules that follow the new legislation. This article outlines the Reexamination language of the AIA.
-
Supplemental Examination of Patents
1/02/2012
After of September 16, 2012, patent owners will be able to ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “to consider, reconsider or correct” information that was not considered (or was inadequately considered) during a prior prosecution. And the courts will be barred from holding a patent unenforceable based on information that was considered during a supplemental examination (and any resulting USPTO-ordered reexamination). This may be a welcome substitute for expensive Reissue or Reexamination procedures, but does not bar these procedures in subsequent actions.
-
Russia Admitted to WTO
12/21/2011
This is significant news from the perspective of Russian entrepreneurs wanting to reach out to the world, and also the world reaching back. Russia was admitted last week to the World Trade Organization after some 18 years of agonizing negotiations--the longest such talks, according to a French newspaper, that have ever attended an application by a country for membership in an international organization. The WTO decision is expected to bring Russia significant economic benefits--estimated by some at an additional percentage point of GDP growth in the years to come. At such, the move represents a significant victory for the Putin government at a time it's under unprecedented domestic political pressure.
-
Federal Circuit Holds Defendant's State of Incorporation (Delaware) Improper Venue
12/04/2011
This from Patently-O, it is a wonder what would not constitute an abuse of discretion in patent cases under this ruling.
-
Diverting Health Care Funds
12/01/2011
In cash-strapped Washington, President Obama’s $1 trillion health care law is presenting a tempting target for lawmakers seeking funds for other projects, as Congress last week raided the health care piggy bank for the third time in less than a year.
-
French official: Europe must defend privacy rights
11/21/2011
French and American companies continue to struggle over privacy laws, striving to strike a balance between security and privacy. Observation: On the flip side, personal and behavior data legally gathered will be even more valuable. Moreover, IP that protects innovations in this area will be valuable investments.
-
Rambus Loses after extensive jury deliberations.
11/17/2011
Rambus Gets Nothing in Suit Against Rivals Cynthia Foster All Articles The RecorderNovember 16, 2011 Print Share Email Reprints & Permissions Post a Comment SAN FRANCISCO — Nine jurors agreed that semiconductor-makers Hynix and Micron didn't conspire to force Sunnyvale-based technology licensing company Rambus out of the high-speed computer memory business. Rambus had asked for $3.85 billion. After deliberating for almost two months, the San Francisco jury rejected all of Rambus Inc.'s claims Wednesday morning. "We're very pleased," said Hynix lawyer Kenneth Nissly, of O'Melveny & Myers. "Rambus was not able to prove its allegations. There was no conspiracy." Jurors declined to talk to reporters, but were polled before leaving court at Rambus' request. Three jurors, all older women, said that they didn't agree with the verdict, with one interjecting "no!" when San Francisco Superior Court Judge James McBride asked her if it was her true verdict. "All of you are winners," she said to the lawyers on both sides when she filed out of the courtroom. Rambus General Counsel Thomas Lavelle said he was disappointed in the jury's verdict and that he's currently analyzing avenues for appeal. One possibility is McBride's ruling that price-fixing in this case would be governed by the rule of reason rather than considered a per se violation of the law. Lavelle said this decision is unusual. "I have never seen a price-fixing case where it wasn't a per se case," he said. Rambus accused its competitors of colluding with manufacturers of digital memory and computer processors to make Rambus' proprietary RDRAM less attractive to manufacturers. They did that, Rambus said, by limiting supplies of RDRAM chips, which drove up prices, making the new technology less attractive to manufacturers like Intel Corp. Micron Technology Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. said that the RDRAM chips failed to gain market share because they were slow and prone to overheating. Sedgwick antitrust partner Paul Riehle, who's not involved in the matter, said he believes the two-month deliberation is among the longest ever in a state civil trial, and that the length of deliberations makes the verdict a "shocker." "When a jury deliberates for that long, often you think that they're trying to come up with a number," he said. "It's surprising to see a jury deliberate that long and end up with a defense verdict." This article originally appeared in The Recorder.
-
Patent Reform Act Passes Senate, on to President to Sign
9/12/2011
The long expected Leahy-Smith America Invents Act H.R. 1249 has passed the U.S. Senate with little debate and with strong provisions that favor defenses against patent infringement. New reexamination procedures will replace current practices with reduced restrictions for proceeding with reexaminations in the USPTO, lowering the bar for defense teams seeking to invalidate asserted patents. The law, expected to be signed by President Obama with much comment and little question, will likely change the practices of R&D protection in all industries.
