obvIPat - Obviously Patentable

The blog for inventors, in-house counsel, & entrepreneurs.

Archive for August, 2010

CAFC Weekly: August 26, 2010

by Orlando Lopez

This week there are two precedential opinions, General Protecht Group, Inc. v. International Trade Commission and Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. International Trade Commission.  Each arises from the same ITC (International Trade Commission) decision on a complaint by Pass & Seymour, Inc, for infringement of a number of patents on ground fault interrupter circuits (GFICs).  The ITC found that some imported products from General Protecht Group, Inc. and two other companies infringed three of the patents and that some of the other imported products did not infringe. Read the rest of this entry »

Share

CAFC Weekly: August 20, 2010

by Orlando Lopez

The two precedential opinions issued this week considered the effect of secondary considerations of obviousness, with a different result in each. One of the opinions also includes a discussion on whether a sale negotiated outside of the US between two US companies and for delivery of the product in the US, can constitute infringement.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Patent Stimulus Package-A Cure For An Ailing Economy?

by Orlando Lopez

The Patent Stimulus Package is not WPA for patent attorneys and it is not a way for patent attorneys to get big bonuses, not that I would oppose that! The Patent Stimulus idea is based on the fact that, if the time it takes to obtain a patent, or at least to get the first response from the Patent Office, can be decreased to a reasonable time (such as 12-18 months), then the increase in the number of patents allowed would lead to the formation of new emerging companies.  This idea, expressed by Judge Michel (Ret.), the recently retired Chief Judge of the CAFC, was commented on last Sunday by Liz Claman, an anchor on Fox Business News.

There are also other forms of possible Patent Stimulus.   Read the rest of this entry »

Share

CAFC Weekly: August 13, 2010

by Orlando Lopez

The precedential opinions of this week cover inequitable conduct, joint infringement and the difficulty in proving joint infringement and claim construction.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

The Bilski Decision – The Score Card

by Orlando Lopez

As the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision starts to be applied, it is important to look at the decision and identify which areas are a majority opinion and which areas are statements by a plurality of the Court.  The Bilski decision is similar to a mid-season Red Sox game, you cannot tell the players without a scorecard.  The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy with Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito concurring; however, in the midst of the majority opinion there are two sections in which Justice Scalia did not join.  Those two sections are statements by a plurality of the Court.

First, the majority opinion holds that the machine or transformation test is not the sole test for determining whether an invention recited in a method claim is patent eligible; however, the majority does find the results of the machine or transformation test a useful clue to patentability.  Read the rest of this entry »

Share