Category Archives: Patent Law

President Obama’s $2.322 Billion Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request for USPTO

Posted on February 4, 2010 | Leave a comment

On February 1, 2010, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) David Kappos announced President Obama’s $2.322 billion fiscal year 2011 budget request for the USPTO. The President’s budget request will support a five-year plan designed to significantly reduce the patent pendency periods, improve patent quality, and enhance intellectual property protection and enforcement. To achieve these goals, the USPTO will:

(1) achieve 3% annual efficiency gains in patents processing through the re-engineering of management and workflow processes; and (2) initiate a targeted hiring surge and hire 1,000 patent examiners annually during FY 2011 and FY 2012, targeting former patent examiners and IP professionals who will require minimum training and can be productive virtually from the start of their employment.

The FY 2011 budget request projects fee collections of $2.098 billion and the administration is proposing an interim fee increase on certain patent fees which is estimated to generate $224 million.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , ,

Patent Term Adjustment Interim Procedure

Posted on January 31, 2010 | Leave a comment

The USPTO announced that it is providing patentees with a new interim procedure for requesting Patent Term Adjustment recalculation.   The new procedure allows for the request without a fee or petition that is usually required under 37 CFR 1.705(d).  This procedure is being put into place to comply with the Federal Circuit Decision in Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir., Jan 7, 2010).  In order to qualify the request must meet the following:

(1)   be filed no later than 180 days from the issue date of the patent;

(2)   be filed prior to March 2, 2010; and

(3)   the alleged errors must be the ones specifically identified in Wyeth.

 

John C. Thomas III

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , , , ,

Correction to Inventorship After Filing an Unsigned Declaration

Posted on January 17, 2010 | Leave a comment

Often times when a new Patent Application is filed in a rush it is filed with an unsigned declaration listing inventors. In this situation the U.S. Patent Office will issue a Notice of Missing Parts requiring that an executed declaration be submitted. Sometimes during the process of attempting to obtain signatures from the inventors, it is found out that either not all of the listed inventors are not inventors or that there is an additional inventor. 37 CFR 1.48 covers Correction of Inventorship in Patent Applications. Fortunately, the fix to this situation is currently rather simple. 37 CFR 1.48(f)(1) specifically addresses the issue. All that is that is required is to file the signed declaration with the correct inventors.

Nonprovisional application-filing executed oath/declaration corrects inventorship. If the correct inventor or inventors are not named on filing a nonprovisional application under § 1.53(b) without an executed oath or declaration under § 1.63 by any of the inventors, the first submission of an executed oath or declaration under § 1.63 by any of the inventors during the pendency of the application will act to correct the earlier identification of inventorship. See §§ 1.41(a)(4) and 1.497(d) and (f) for submission of an executed oath or declaration to enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 naming an inventive entity different from the inventive entity set forth in the international stage.

37 CFR 1.48(f)(1).

John C. Thomas III

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , , ,

Penntech Industrial Tools, Inc. Sued for Patent Infringement

Posted on January 13, 2010 | Leave a comment

Max Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of industrial and office products, located in Japan, filed suit against Penntech Industrial Tools, Inc. in the U.S. Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 9, 2009 for patent infringement.

Max Co. designed a “battery-operated reinforcing bar tying machine designed to replace the manual process of tying rebar.” Max Co. claims that Penntech infringed Max Co.’s U.S. Design Pat. No. 527,041 titled “Wire Bobbin of the Binding Machine” and U.S. Pat. No. 6,000,443 titled “Brake Mechanism of Wire Reel for Reinforcing Bar Binding Machine.”

Penntech Industrial Tools is “a leading supplier of productive cost saving metal fabricating and metal stamping machinery, accessories and related tooling products.”

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , ,

Accelerated Review of Green Technology Patent Applications

Posted on December 14, 2009 | Leave a comment

On December 7, 2009, the USPTO announced a pilot program for accelerated review of certain green technology patent applications. The accelerated review will help keep America competitive by bringing new technologies to market faster.

Pending patent applications in green technologies will be eligible for expedited examination. The accelerated review is projected to reduce the time it takes to patent these technologies by approximately one year.

“The average pendency time for applications in green technology areas is approximately 30 months to a first office action and 40 months to a final decision. Under the pilot program, for the first 3,000 applications related to green technologies in which a proper petition is filed, the agency will examine the applications on an accelerated basis.”

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged ,

Pittsburgh Inventor Wins Patent Infringement Case

Posted on November 24, 2009 | Leave a comment

Ren Junkins is an independent inventor from Kilbuck Township, a suburb of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He owns more than 70 patents in the window covering field.

Mr. Junkins filed suit against HT Window Fashions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on February 27, 2007 for patent infringement based on U.S. Patent No. 7,182,120 for “Tabbed Multi-Cellular Shade Material.” The cellular shade product has pleats on the front and tabs on the back.

On November 18, 2009, a judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Junkins in the amount of $154,776 as a result of a jury verdict. The jury decided that HT Window Fashions infringed Pat. ‘120 by selling its Polaris double cell window shades.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , ,

Google Chrome Lawsuit

Posted on November 4, 2009 | Leave a comment

An Israeli corporation filed suit against Google Inc. for patent infringement relating to Google’s new browser, Google Chrome, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 26, 2009. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,546,552, entitled “Difference Extraction Between Two Versions of Data-Tables Containing Intra-References” is owned by Red Bend Ltd. Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee within the United States of the ‘552 Patent. (“Red Bend Ltd.” and “Red Bend Software” will be collectively referred to as “Red Bend.”)

Red Bend alleges that Google has “manufactured products and provided instructions regarding the use of those products that constitute or effect contributory and/or induced infringement of the ‘552 Patent.”

Red Bend provided two examples of Google’s alleged infringement:

1. Google’s implementation of its differential compression algorithm for making Google Chrome updates significantly smaller, used by Google and others under the direction and control of Google, infringes one or more claims of the ‘552 Patent; and

2. Google’s publication and distribution of the source code for the algorithm induces others’ infringement of one or more claims of the ‘552 Patent.

Red Bend has requested compensation including a reasonable royalty, lost profits and lost future profits, plus interest. Google has not yet filed an Answer.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , , ,

University of Pittsburgh Files Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit

Posted on October 30, 2009 | Leave a comment

pittThe University of Pittsburgh has been in a patent litigation suit with Varian Medical Systems, Inc. since the University of Pittsburgh filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 13, 2007. The University of Pittsburgh owns two patents pertaining to image-guided radiation therapy technology: U.S. Patent No. 5,727,554 entitled “Apparatus responsive to movement of a patient during treatment/diagnosis” and U.S. Patent No. 5,784,431 entitled “Apparatus for matching X-ray images with reference images.”

On September 1, 2009, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the Defendant.

The University of Pittsburgh filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 28, 2009.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , , , ,

API Technologies Settles Data Network Patent Infringement Case Against Facebook et al

Posted on October 16, 2009 | Leave a comment

data systemAPI Technologies, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 6,859,699 entitled “Network-Based Method and System for Distributing Data.” On May 12, 2009, API Technologies filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging patent infringement against Facebook, Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Web Services LLC; AOL LLC; Mapquest, Inc.; Bebo, Inc.; Truveo, Inc.; Best Buy Co. Inc.; CBS Corporation; CBS Interactive Inc.; CBS Interactive Media Inc.; CNET Investments, Inc.; CNET Networks, 2 Inc.; Last.FM Limited; The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation; Hoover’s, Inc.; Google Inc.; Android, Inc.; Thomson Reuters Corporation; Thomson Reuters PLC; Thomson Reuters U.S. Inc.; Thomson Reuters U.S.A. Inc.; Reuters America, LLC; and Yahoo! Inc.

API claimed that defendants infringed the ‘699 Patent “by, among other things, making, using, selling and/or offering for sale systems and/or methods for providing data using a data transmission network covered by one or more claims of the ‘699 Patent.”

API provided the example that:

Facebook provides users with systems or methods, including Application Programming Interfaces, for providing user interfaces for soliciting selections of desired data. Facebook then uses the data transmission network to receive an input signal representing a selection of desired data, and retrieves and transmits that data. Facebook then generates license codes with embedded information that is related to a valid product code associated with a specific device or system. Facebook requires the use of such license codes to access the desired data.

Several defendants filed answers to the complaint. On October 13, 2009, an order granted a motion to dismiss the case subject to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement dated September 22, 2009.

According to BusinessWeek, API Technologies, LLC provides software solutions to the gaming, law enforcement and security industries.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , , ,

Google Design Patent

Posted on September 9, 2009 | Leave a comment

googleOn March 7, 2006 Google Inc. filed for a design patent for its home page.  The patent issued on September 1, 2009 as U.S. Pat. No. D599,732.   There are ten (10) listed inventors on the patent. 

A design patent protects the ornamental design of an article of manufacture.  Google’s patent covers the ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a display screen of a communications terminal.   The U.S. Patent Office must have considered this design new and nonobvious over the prior art.

- John C. Thomas III

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , ,