Patent management

September 29, 2007

Patent, Opposition proceeding

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 2:00 pm

An opposition proceeding is an administrative process available under the patent and trademark law of most jurisdictions which allows third parties to dispute the validity of a granted patent or trademark.


Patents

In Europe, third parties may dispute the validity of a granted European patent by filing a post-grant opposition under the European Patent Convention.

In Germany, third parties may dispute the validity of a pending German patent application under German patent law.

Under United States patent law, an opposition proceeding is called a reexamination.

In Japanese patent law, opposition procedure after an examiner’s decision to grant a patent was abandoned in 2003; trial for invalidation serves as the alternative.


Trademarks

In the case of trademarks, third parties may use opposition proceedings to “oppose” the acceptance of a trademark application after it has been accepted and published for opposition purposes. If an opposition is defeated the trademark will proceed to registration. Some jurisdictions operate a “post-grant” opposition system, whereby opposition is not possible until after registration (eg. Japan).


See also

  • Opposition procedure before the European Patent Office
  • Patent infringement
  • Patent watch
  • Patentability
  • Prior art
  • Reexamination

References

Kingdom: Copyright Designs, Software law

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 10:39 am

Software law refers the to legal remedies available to protect software-based assets. Software may, under various circumstances and in various countries, be restricted by patent or copyright or both. Most commercial software is sold under some kind of software license.

A patent normally covers the design of something with a function such as a machine or process. Copyright restricts the right to make and distribute copies of something written or recorded, such as a song or a book of recipes. Software has both these aspects - it embodies functional design in the algorithms and data structures it uses and it could also be considered as a recording which can be copied and “performed” (run).

“Look and feel” lawsuits attempt to monopolize well-known command languages; some have succeeded. Copyrights on command languages enforce gratuitous incompatibility, close opportunities for competition, and stifle incremental improvements.

Software patents are even more dangerous; they make every design decision in the development of a program carry a risk of a lawsuit, with draconian pretrial seizure. It is difficult and expensive to find out whether the techniques you consider using are patented; it is impossible to find out whether they will be patented in the future.

The proper use of copyright is to prevent software piracy - unauthorised duplication of software. This is completely different from copying the idea behind the program in the same way that photocopying a book differs from writing another book on the same subject.

References

September 28, 2007

Patent, Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 6:52 pm

Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.


Facts

Eastern Paper Bag brought an action to prevent its competitor Continental Paper Bag from using its patent for a “self-opening” paper bag. Continental Paper Bag alleged that Eastern Paper Bag was not using its patent but simply trying to suppress competition.


Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court rejected this argument by Continental Paper Bag, holding that it was the essence of the patent to exclude others without question of motive.

References

Herbert Hovenkamp and Mark D. Janis, “Unilateral Refusals to License in the U.S.”, Working Paper No. 303, Stanford Law School John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, April 2005: [1]


External links

  • 210 U.S. 405 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.

References

Patents, Hog oiler

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 3:18 pm

A hog oiler was a mechanical device employed on farms to be used by hogs to provide relief from insects and offer skin protection. It consisted of a reservoir to hold oil, and a means to distribute the oil onto the hog, often via grooved wheels or cylinders. Hogs seeking relief would rub up against a wheel (or cylinder) causing it to rotate and dispense oil onto their bodies.

Hog oilers were produced in a variety of designs, most made of cast iron. The era of innovation for this device was mainly the years 1913-1923; during this time some 20 patents were issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Hog oilers are now considered desirable antiques by collectors of agricultural equipment.


External links

  • Hog oiler images

A few US Patents for hog oilers.

  • Patent issued to E.J. Smith in 1913 for a twin wheel hog oiler.
  • Patent issued to F.R. McDermond in 1916 for a “watermelon type” hog oiler.
  • Patent issued to Albert A. Nasser in 1918 for an overhead tank reservoir hog oiler.

References

Patent, Assignor estoppel

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 12:18 pm

The doctrine of assignor estoppel is an equitable estoppel barring a patent’s seller (assignor) from attacking the patent’s validity if he/she is found to have infringed that patent later.

The exclusive right of a patent is negotiable. Even though the inventor’s name remains unchanged, the inventor is allowed to sell the exclusive right to another party (assignee). Not unlike the selling of a car, the inventor is barred from using that patent afterwards if the contract says so.


Example

For example, if Tom sold his U.S. patent rights to Jerry, and was sued by Jerry over infringement of that patent later, Tom is not allowed to challenge the patent’s validity because he was the inventor.

“Doctrine of assignor estoppel prevents unfairness and injustice of permitting party to sell patent rights and later assert that what he sold is worthless.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc., 150 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

This doctrine extends to those in “privity” with the assignor. If Tom becomes another company’s largest shareholder, and that company is sued by Jerry over patent infringement, that company could very likely be barred from raising patent validity as a defense even if Tom was not personally involved in the infringing process.


Case law

  • Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342, 45 S.Ct. 117 (1924).
  • Diamond Scientific Co. v. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1988), in some circumstances, equity may outweigh the estoppel doctrine.


See also

  • Inventor (patent)

References

Original, Original design manufacturer

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 11:55 am

An original design manufacturer (ODM) is a company which manufactures a product which ultimately will be branded by another firm for sale. Such companies allow the brand firm to produce (either as a supplement or solely) without having to engage in the organization or running of a factory. ODMs have grown in size in recent years and many are now sufficient in size to handle production for multiple clients, often providing a large portion of overall production. A primary attribute of this business model is that the ODM owns and/or designs in-house the products that are branded by the buying firm. This is in contrast to a contract manufacturer (CM).

This model is especially used in international trade, where a local ODM is used to produce goods for a foreign company which sees some advantage in the transaction, such as low labor inputs, transport links or proximity to markets. This is also used where local ownership laws possibly prohibit direct ownership of assets by foreigners, allowing a local firm to produce for a brand company for either the domestic market or export.

This type of business is part of “outsourcing”. An example is Compal Electronics, which makes notebook computers and monitors, and operates as a mass producer for numerous brand companies, assisted by low labor costs, low-cost transport, and the near commodity nature of the physical inputs (in Compal’s case, computer components).

The market research firm iSuppli issued a report in 2006 which demonstrated that 82.6% of PC notebooks are made in Taiwan by Taiwanese original equipment manufacturer (OEMs) and ODMs.


See also

  • Original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
  • Pure-play semiconductor foundry

References

Patent Act of, Sequah Medicine Company

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 9:33 am

In 1887 the Sequah Medicine Co Ltd began selling patent medicines such as prairie flower and Indian oil using travelling salesman, known as Sequahs. The travelling salesmen were quack doctors. One such example is Peter Alexander Gordon, who went under the pseudonym James Kaspar. Gordon sold the Sequah Patent Medicine in Great Britain, Ireland, the West Indies and North America.

Sequah products were sold using the device of a travelling medicine show. These shows consisted of a warm-act of music and other entertainments which attracted a crowd in order for the travelling salesman to begin his pitch. The British version, introduced in 1890, was made up of a fairground steam organ. The Government soon declared the practise of selling patent medicines in such a fashion illegal. The company went in to liquidation in 1895 due to lack of demand.

References

And Trademark Law Amendments, Quebec Veto Reference

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 5:54 am

Quebec Veto Reference (Reference re Amendment to the Canadian Constitution) [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793 is a Supreme Court of Canada opinion on whether there is a constitutional convention giving the province of Quebec a veto over Amendments to the Constitution of Canada. The issue arose during patriation debates, after the Supreme Court ruled in the Patriation Reference that there is a constitutional convention requiring “a substantial degree of provincial consent” for amendments to the Constitution of Canada.

In November 1981, the Government of Quebec ordered that a reference be taken in the Quebec Court of Appeal, asking whether the consent of the Province of Quebec is required, by constitutional convention, for constitutional amendments affecting the legislative competence of the Quebec legislature, or the status or role of Quebec’s government or legislature.

On April 7, 1982, the Quebec Court of Appeal answered in the negative. By that time, the Canada Act 1982 had already been passed by the UK Parliament, though not proclaimed in force. On April 13, 1982, the Attorney General of Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, but on April 17, 1982, the Canada Act 1982 was proclaimed in force by the Queen.

In June 1982 the Supreme Court heard the appeal. On December 6, 1982, The Supreme Court rendered judgment, upholding the opinion of the Quebec Court of Appeal that Quebec did not have a veto by constitutional convention.


External links

  • Text of the decision
  • Library of Parliament research report

References

Patent, Intellectual property organization

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 5:35 am

Intellectual property organizations encompass international intergovernmental organizations that involve cooperation in the area of copyrights, trademarks and patents, and non-governmental, non-profit organizations, lobbying organizations, think tanks, as well as professional associations.

Contents


General organisations

  • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
  • African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)
  • Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI) or African Intellectual Property Organization


Specialized organisations


Patent offices


Patent-related organisations

  • European Patent Organisation (EPO or EPOrg)
  • Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO)
  • Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC)


Trademark- and design-related organisations

  • Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)
  • Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP)


Think tanks, institutes, non-profit and professional organizations

  • AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law (SCRIPT)
  • Alliance for American Innovation (AAIUSA)
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
  • Arab Society for Intellectual Property (ASIP)
  • Centre for International Industrial Property Studies (CEIPI)
  • Center for Intellectual Property Studies (CIP)
  • Center for Patent Policy (CPP)
  • Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA)
  • European Federation of Industrial Property Agents in Industry (FEMIPI)
  • European Intellectual Property Institutes Network (EIPIN)
  • European Patent Institute (epi)
  • European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW)
  • German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR e. V.)
  • Institute of Patentees and Inventors
  • Intellectual Property Institute (IP Institute)
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)
  • International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP)
  • International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (AIPPI)
  • International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI)
  • International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)
  • International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI)
  • International Trademark Association (INTA)
  • InventorEd (InvEd)
  • Inventors Network of the Capital Area (INCA)
  • Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA)
  • Licensing Executives Society International (LESI or LES Int.)
  • Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law
  • Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC)
  • National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP)
  • Patent Office Practioners Association (POPA)
  • Patent Information Users Group (PIUG)
  • Professional Inventors Alliance (PIAUSA)
  • Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT)
  • Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute
  • The Intellectual Property Lawyers’ Organisation (TIPLO)
  • Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation (TMPDF)
  • UNION of European Practitioners in Intellectual Property (UNION or UEPIP)
  • Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM)


Anti-patent organizations

  • Patent Commons
  • Pirate Party


Former organisations

  • International Patent Institute (IIB)
  • The United States Patent Association
  • United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI)


See also

  • Intellectual property
  • List of organizations
  • Patent attorney
  • Patent examiner

References

September 27, 2007

Application Triadic patent, Interference proceeding

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 8:27 pm

An interference proceeding, also known as priority contest, is an inter partes proceeding to determine the priority issues of multiple patent applications. It is a unique patent law concept of the United States. Unlike most other countries that have adopted the first-to-file system, the first-to-invent system of the U.S. allows a party that failed to file a patent application on time to challenge the inventorship of another party that has a granted or pending patent if certain requirements are met.

Contents


Definition

The interference proceeding is an administrative proceeding conducted by a panel of Administrative Patent Judges (administrative law judges sitting on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to determine which applicant is not entitled to the patent if both claim the same invention in:

  1. two or more pending patent applications, or
  2. at least one pending patent application and at least one patent issued within a year of the pending application’s filing date.

A panel, composed of judges on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, a quasi-judicial body in the USPTO, hears interference contests. Its final judgment designating one party in an interference contest as the first inventor is called priority award or simply award. Appeals from this tribunal may be heard before either the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 35 U.S.C. § 14435 U.S.C. § 145


Parties

At least two parties are involved in an interference proceeding: the inventor(s) or applicant(s) who filed an earlier patent application are called the “senior party,” and the other inventor(s) or applicant(s) are called the “junior party.” Both parties can be referred as “contestants,” but that term is currently more likely to be used to describe the junior party.

  • Senior Party: Merely being the first to file the application does not grant a party legal protection. It counts only as prima facie evidence that he or she is the first inventor. It can also file a “motion to dissolve interference” to request the dismissal of challenges to its priority.
  • Junior Party: Party or parties other than the senior party. A junior party bears the burden of proving that he or she is the first inventor. The proceeding’s administrator takes certain factors — for example, the invention’s conception date and the inventor’s diligence in reducing the invention to practice — into account. Until the 1960s, a junior party was frequently called an “interferant.”


Presumptions

Presumptions are stated in 37 C.F.R. 41.207(a):

(1) Order of invention. Parties are presumed to have invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each count. If two parties are accorded the benefit of the same earliest date of constructive reduction to practice, then neither party is entitled to a presumption of priority with respect to the other such party.
(2) Evidentiary standard. Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, except a party must prove priority by clear and convincing evidence if the date of its earliest constructive reduction to practice is after the issue date of an involved patent or the publication date under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) of an involved application or patent.


External links

  • MPEP 2300.01 Introduction - 2300 Interference Proceedings (USPTO web site)

References

Patent, Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 5:57 pm

Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. (1982) R.P.C. 183 is a leading House of Lords decision on the nature of a patent and in particular the methods of claim construction.


Background

Catnic components had a patent for a lintel, used to provide structural support over a door or window opening in a brick wall. Part of the specification required a bar to “extend vertically”. Hill created a virtually identical invention that had a bar that extended at an upwards slant, only 6 degrees from being completely vertical. Despite the difference the device worked entirely in the same way as Catnic’s invention.

Catnic sued for patent infringement. At trial, the judge held there was an infringement under the “pith and marrow” doctrine. The Court of Appeal overturned the ruling as it held that the “vertical” requirement was an exact and essential element of the patent and thus variation on it would not violate the patent.


Opinion of the Court

Lord Diplock held that a patent must be read in a “purposive” manner that focuses on the essential features of the patent. He famously stated:

My Lords, a patent specification is a unilateral statement by the patentee, in words of his own choosing, addressed to those likely to have a practical interest in the subject matter of his invention (i.e. “skilled in the art”), by which he informs them what he claims to be the essential features of the new product or process for which the letters patent grant him a monopoly. It is called “pith and marrow” of the claim. A patent specification should be given a purposive construction rather than a purely literal one derived from applying to it the kind of meticulous verbal analysis in which lawyers are too often tempted by their training to indulge. The question in each case is: whether persons with practical knowledge and experience of the kind of work in which the invention was intended to be used, would understand that strict compliance with a particular descriptive word or phrase appearing in a claim was intended by the patentee to be an essential requirement of the invention so that any variant would fall outside the monopoly claimed, even though it could have no material effect upon the way the invention worked.


See also

  • Doctrine of equivalents
  • Improver v Remington (1990)
  • Kirin Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd (2004)

References

Patent application, Gas lift chairs

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 3:44 pm

Gas lift chairs are a form of the office chair that allow the user to modify their height in relation to the height of a desk, leading to an increase in comfort and ergonomic benefit.

The concept of using a gas spring to aid the adjustment of chairs is described in patent , issued in 1972 to Drabert Soehne of Minden, Germany and cites the inventor as Drabert Fritz.


References

  •  : Improvements in and relating to chairs

References

Patent, Confederate Patent Office

Filed under: