IPWatchdog.com focus is on the business, policy and substance of patents and other forms of intellectual property, such as copyrights and trademarks. Today IPWatchdog is recognized as one of the leading sources for news and information in the patent and innovation industries.
There’s a season every year where individuals dress-up in homemade costumes and gather for tricks, treats… and comic books? That’s right, it’s comic-con season! Many fans proudly wear costumes that they create themselves, dressing up as their favorite super hero, anime cartoon, or video game character. However, one thing they probably are not considering is whether those costumes could put them in jeopardy of a copyright infringement claim. But, since the costume industry as a whole is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States alone, it is a consideration that could have costly consequences.
The day’s hearing featured discussion of actions the U.S. government should be taking in order to counter deceptive trade practices pursued by the Chinese government, a topic which has become a main theme of the administration of President Donald Trump... Despite initiatives like the Made in China 2025 program, there’s no way for the Chinese economy to get close to catching up to the United States’ competitive advantage in many industries over the next 20 to 30 years without cheating by stealing innovation according to panel witness Robert Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Atkinson argued in his opening statement for a stronger antitrust regime to go after specific Chinese firms, such as rules prohibiting Chinese firms that have stolen U.S. IP from using our nation’s banking and financial systems.
There are 13 sections to Massie’s bill, many of which are geared towards the abolition of various statutes of the AIA. Perhaps the most salient portion of the proposed bill are sections regarding the abolishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as well as the elimination of both inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings currently conducted by the PTAB. As the bill states, both IPR and PGR proceedings “have harmed the progress of science and the useful arts by subjecting inventors to serial challenges to patents.” The bill also recognizes that those proceedings have been invalidating patents at an unreasonably high rate and that patent rights should adjudicated in a judicial proceeding and not in the unfair adjudication proceedings which occur within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Ex parte reexamination proceedings would be preserved by this bill as well.
In his Categorical Imperative, Kant simplifies a moral argument position for an individual by asking a question: if you thought that your position or Statement would be Universal, i.e., applicable to all people, it would have the stance of a Categorical Imperative and thus you must do it. A proposed Categorical Imperative is the following Statement: creators should be protected against the unlawful taking of their creation by others... Allowing the free taking of ideas, content and valuable data, i.e., the fruits of individual intellectual endeavor, would disrupt capitalism in a radical way. The resulting more secretive approach in support of the above free-riding Statement would be akin to a Communist environment where the State owned everything and the citizen owned nothing, i.e., the people “consented” to this.
Over the years the Supreme Court has reached many controversial decisions, but in the patent space they have made statements that demonstrate just how incompetent they are to render decisions in this vitally important area to our national economy. While the Supreme Court has ruled that a pH of 5 is equivalent to a pH of 6, that is simply false; pH is logarithmic. The Supreme Court has also ruled that manganese is equivalent to magnesium, which is also not true. The Supreme Court has ruled that isolated DNA exists in nature, which it doesn't. But with each new, ridiculous decision that proves they are out of their depth we just live with the consequences as if what they say is visionary.
After several years in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) did not seem to have an official position on the issue, and many Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panels took a position that was clearly at variance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the PTO recently seems to be acquiescing to principles that the patent bar has been urging for years: (a) the PTO is subject to the same Administrative Procedure Act obligations as any other agency, and therefore cannot make factual findings without substantial evidence, and (b) there’s no carve-out for factual findings underlying § 101 subject matter eligibility rejections.
Warren Johnson one of the 2018 inductees into the National Inventors Hall of Fame for his invention of automatic room temperature control. July marks the anniversary of two seminal patents in the field of temperature control for which Johnson received this honor. Today, we return to our Evolution of Technology series to shed some light on how one of the most important advances in modern HVAC technology was conceived and developed.
Power Integrations, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,079 ("the '079 patent") and 6,538,908 ("the '908 patent"). Power Integrations sued Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively "Fairchild") for infringement. A jury found Fairchild literally infringed the '079 patent and infringed the '908 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury subsequently awarded damages of $140 million, applying the entire market value rule in calculating damages. Fairchild appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgments of infringement, but concluded that the entire market value rule was inappropriately used in this case to calculate damages.
Many articles are coming out about how the recent decision in Oracle America v. Google is going to destroy the ability to create and protect software in the United States. The latest doomsday prophet is Jie Lian in his IPWatchdog article entitled Oracle v. America: Fair or Unfair. As a longtime programmer and an expert in software copyright law, I can tell you that the Federal Circuit got it right, and the decision helps software developers and encourages software development because it leaves in place the copyright protections that have existed at least since the Software Copyright Act of 1980. I am sure that most of us can agree that software development has skyrocketed since 1980.
On Wednesday, July 11th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Apple v. ContentGuard Holdings vacating a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute a covered business method (CBM) validity proceeding... Amazingly, the Federal Circuit’s vacature of the PTAB’s determination of unpatentable subject matter came after appeals from petitioners Google and Apple sent the case to the Federal Circuit. Although the panel of administrative patent judges (APJs) determined the challenged claims to be unpatentable, they also granted a motion from ContentGuard to amend claims which substituted the unpatentable claims. This appeal gave ContentGuard the ability to cross appeal the PTAB’s determination that the ‘280 patent was subject to CBM review.