Patent management

February 28, 2008

States: Patent, M-325

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 11:38 am

In the history of cryptography, M-325, also known as SIGFOY, was an American rotor machine designed by William F. Friedman in 1936. Between 1944 and 1946, more than 1,100 machines were deployed within the United States Foreign Service. Its use was discontinued in 1946 because of faults in operation. Friedman applied for a patent on the M-325 on 11 August, 1944; it was granted on 17 March, 1959 (US patent #2,877,565).

Like the Enigma, the M-325 contains three intermediate rotors and a reflecting rotor.


See also

  • Hebern rotor machine
  • SIGABA


References

  • Louis Kruh, Converter M-325(T), Cryptologia 1, 1977, pp143–149.


External

links

  • Operating and Keying Instructions for Converter M-325(T) Headquarters, Army Security Agency, July 1948, scanned and transcribed by Bob Lord.
  • Friedman M-325 — information and photographs.

References

Patent applications, Chemical patent

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 9:07 am

A chemical patent is an important source of technical and bibliographic information. Chemical patents are different from other sources of technical information because of the generic, Markush structures contained within them, named after the inventor Eugene Markush who won a claim in the US in 1925 to allow such structures to be used in patent claims. These generic structures are used to make the patent claim as broad as possible.

Chemical patents are particularly important in the pharmaceuticals industry where they are used to protect the large investments that are necessary to develop drugs.


External links

  • India wins landmark patent battle

References

Patent, Term of patent

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 7:46 am

The term of a patent is the maximum period during which it can be maintained into force. It is usually expressed in number of years either starting from the filing date of the patent application or from the date of grant of the patent. In most patent laws, renewal annuities or maintenance fees have to be regularly paid in order to keep the patent in force. Otherwise the patent lapses before its term.

The term of a patent or specific “claims” in a patent may also be curtailed by judgment of a court, as where a claim or patent is held “invalid” under the relevant law, and thus no longer enforceable.

Significant international harmonization of patent term across national laws was provided in the 1990s by the implementation of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement). Article 33 of the TRIPs Agreement
provides that the

“The term of protection available [for patents] shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years counted from the filing date.”

Consequently, in most patent laws nowadays, the term of patent is 20 years from the filing date of the application. This however does not forbid the states party to the WTO from providing, in their national law, other type of patent-like rights with shorter terms. Utility models are an example of such rights. Their term is usually 6 or 10 years.

In the United States, under current patent law, for patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (See: Term of patent in the United States). The exact date of termination may be zealously litigated, especially where daily profits from a patent amount to millions of dollars, e.g., pharmaceuticals.

Other types of patents may have varying terms. For example, in the U.S., design patents (based on a decorative, non-functional design) typically have a 14-year term.

The term of patent protection may also be affected by specific multi-lateral, international agreements. Protection of patents issued in European Union countries were only enforced for three years (until 1995) against pharmaceuticals manufactured in Spain (and cheaply available). Prior to its Treaty of Accession, Spain did not offer patent protection for pharmaceutical products.


Term extensions

If the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) delays the issuance of a patent, it is possible to receive extensions. This may result in patents being issued for periods longer than 20 years. The reasons for extensions include:

  • Delayed response to an application request for patent.
  • Exceeding 3 years to consider a patent application.
  • Delays due to a secrecy order or appeal.

It is possible to receive time extensions equal to the amount of delay.


References

  • USPTO - Patent Term
  • USPTO - Adjustment of patent term.
  • How long is a patent good for


See also

  • Maintenance fee
  • Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, provides what is called the “priority year”
  • Provisional patent application
  • Submarine patent
  • Supplementary protection certificate (SPC), provides a limited time extension to the protection conferred by certain patents in the European Union

References

Patent Act, Kokoku (patent law)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 7:18 am

The kokoku or kokoku tokkyo koho is the name given to the examined and approved Japanese patent application, as opposed to the kokai, the published, unexamined Japanese patent application.


See also

  • Japanese patent law

References

For an invention, Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 5:01 am

Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that determined what constituted being “on sale” for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.

Contents


Background of the case

In November of 1980, the plaintiff, engineer Wayne Pfaff, was asked by Texas Instruments to design for them a socket for the mounting and removal of semiconductor chip carriers. Pfaff proceeded to draw designs for the socket, which he showed to Texas Instruments in March of 1981. On April 8, 1981, Texas Instruments provided a written purchase order to buy over 30,000 of the sockets. The sockets were not actually built, however, until July of 1981.

Pfaff applied for a patent for the socket on April 15, 1982, and received the patent in 1985. He then proceeded to sue the defendant, Wells Electronics, Inc., for patent infringement when Wells made a socket that was too similar to Pfaff’s design. Wells, in defense, claimed that Pfaff’s patent was invalid. In support of this assertion, Wells pointed to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), which states that an inventor shall not be entitled to a patent if:

…the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the US.

Wells asserted that by accepting the purchase order from Texas Instruments, Pfaff had placed the invention “on sale” one year and one week before applying for the patent, which would make it invalid under § 102(b). Pfaff countered that the invention had not been reduced to practice, meaning that a working model had not yet been made. Pfaff’s contention was that the invention was not complete at the time of the purchase order, and therefore could not have been “on sale” yet.

The District Court upheld Pfaff’s patent, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the patent invalid because the invention was “substantially complete” at the time of the sale. Pfaff then appealed to the Supreme Court.


Issue

The Supreme Court noted that lower courts had offered different opinions on the question of whether an invention could be “on sale” within the meaning of the statute before it had actually reduced to practice. The Court therefore had to set a standard for when an invention would be considered complete enough to be “on sale”.


The Court’s decision

The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, noted that an invention can actually be patented before it is reduced to practice, because the “invention” occurs when the inventor has a fully formed idea of how the invention will be made. Pfaff could have patented his idea based on the drawings that he had showed to Texas Instruments, because they were complete enough to allow another engineer to build the invention from the designs.

Furthermore, if an invention could be sold before it was reduced to practice without any consequence, then inventors would be able to evade the time limits placed on the patent itself by simply delaying the construction of a working model. This would, in turn delay new inventions from reaching the public, which would undermine the reason for having patents in the first place.

Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that the “on sale” bar applies if two conditions are met:

  • 1. That the product was the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and
  • 2. That the product could have been patented at that time, either because it had in fact been reduced to practice, or because it was sufficiently well described for another person skilled in the art to build the invention from the designs.

Because these conditions were satisfied, the Court held that Pfaff’s patent was invalid.

borring


External link

References

Basis for filing, Linear span

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 12:57 am

In the mathematical subfield of linear algebra, the linear span, also called the linear hull, of a set of vectors in a vector space is the intersection of all subspaces containing that set. The linear span of a set of vectors is therefore a vector space.

Contents


Definition

Given a vector space V over a field K, the span of a set S (not necessarily finite) is defined to be the intersection W of all subspaces of V which contain S. When S is a finite set, then W is referred to as the subspace spanned by the vectors in S.

Let <math>v_1,…,v_r \in V</math>. The span of the set of these vectors is

<math>{ \rm span } \left(v_1,…,v_r\right) = \left\{ {\lambda _1 v_1 + \cdots + \lambda _r v_r |\lambda _1 , \ldots ,\lambda _r \in \mathbb K} \right\}.</math>


Notes

The span of S may also be defined as the collection of all (finite) linear combinations of the elements of S.

If the span of S is V, then S is said to be a spanning set of V. A spanning set of V is not necessarily a basis for V, as it need not be linearly independent. However, a minimal spanning set for a given vector space is necessarily a basis. In other words, a spanning set is a basis for V if and only if every vector in V can be written as a unique linear combination of elements in the spanning set.


Examples

The real vector space R3 has {(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)} as a spanning set. This spanning set is actually a basis.

Another spanning set for the same space is given by {(1,2,3), (0,1,2), (−1,1/2,3), (1,1,1)}, but this set is not a basis, because it is linearly dependent.

The set {(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (1,1,0)} is not a spanning set of R3; instead its span is the space of all vectors in R3 whose last component is zero.


Theorems

Theorem 1: The subspace spanned by a non-empty subset S of a vector space V is the set of all linear combinations of vectors in S.

This theorem is so well known that at times it is referred to as the definition of span of a set.

Theorem 2: Let V be a finite dimensional vector space. Any set of vectors that spans V can be reduced to a basis by discarding vectors if necessary.

This also indicates that a basis is a minimal spanning set when V is finite dimensional.


External links

References

Patent, Patent pool

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 12:08 am

In patent law, a patent pool is a consortium of at least two companies agreeing to cross-license patents relating to a particular technology. The creation of a patent pool can save patentees and licensees time and money. Competition law issues are usually important when a large consortium is formed. Patent pooling has recently become a hotly debated field.

One of the first patent pools was formed in 1856, by manufacturers Grover, Baker, Singer, Wheeler, and Wilson, all accusing the others of patent infringement. They met in Albany, New York to pursue their suits. Orlando B. Potter, a lawyer and president of the Grover and Baker Company, proposed that, rather than sue their profits out of existence, they pool their patents (See also: Isaac Singer/I. M. Singer & Co).

As in that example many industries could not function without patent pools since the coordination costs (risk, negotiation, etc.) would otherwise be too high. Patent pools are only one example of cases where members of an otherwise competitive industry join in common cause to create some resource that is to their collective benefit. For example the insurance industry pools claims data to collectively reduce risk; the catalog sales industry pools sales data to better model their customes; the auto industry collaborates to standardize components; and in the software industry we see open source collaboration. All these are examples of pooling to reduce risk and lower coordination costs.

In a more modern example in August 2005, a patent pool was formed by about 20 companies active in the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) domain [1][2]. The RFID Consortium picked Via Licensing to administer its patent pool in September of 2006 [3].

Patent pools do not eliminate risk, they only temper it. Patent holders (including other patent pools) outside the pool can still create cost and risk for the industry. While it is rare for a patent pool to indemnify licensees the pool does help to assure a common interest will emerge should one member be
accused of infringement by a third party. Flaws in the design of the pool’s governance can create the risk that one member can break the common cause of the group. Examples of well-known such cases include the MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Part 2 and H.264 video coding standards, and the DVD6C pool.


See also

  • Essential patent
  • Open Invention Network
  • Patent portfolio
  • Sherman Antitrust Act
  • 501(c)(6) — i.e. industry specific nonprofits
  • Patent holding company
  • Cross-licensing


References

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Pools: A Solution to the Problem of Access in Biotechnology Patents?, December 5, 2000 (PDF file)

References

February 27, 2008

Results in, Tanzania at the 2000 Summer Olympics

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 10:24 pm

Tanzania competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia.


Results by event


Athletics

Men’s Marathon

  • Zebedayo Bayo

    1. Final - 2:26:24 (61st place)
  • Angelo Peter Simon

    1. Final - DNF
  • Fokasi Wilbrod

    1. Final - DNF

Women’s 5,000m

  • Restituta Joseph

    1. Round 1 - DNS (did not advance)

Women’s 10,000m

  • Restituta Joseph

    1. Round 1 - 33:12.18 (did not advance)


References

  • Wallechinsky, David (2004). The Complete Book of the Summer Olympics (Athens 2004 Edition). Toronto, Canada. ISBN 1-894963-32-6.
  • International Olympic Committee (2001). The Results. Retrieved 11/12/05.
  • Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (2001). Official Report of the XXVII Olympiad Volume 1: Preparing for the Games. Retrieved 11/20/05.
  • Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (2001). Official Report of the XXVII Olympiad Volume 2: Celebrating the Games. Retrieved 11/20/05.
  • Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (2001). The Results. Retrieved 11/20/05.
  • International Olympic Committee Web Site

References

Patent applications, Ingo Kober

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 8:30 pm

Ingo Kober was the third president of the European Patent Office. He held this post from January 1, 1996 to June 30, 2004. In 2007, he was President of the Administrative Council of the Centre for International Industrial Property Studies (CEIPI), which is part of the Robert Schuman University. CEIPI News, epi Information 1/2007, March 2007, pp 10-12


References

References

Original patent application is, PCT Newsletter

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 6:03 pm

The PCT Newsletter is a monthly publication of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It contains “up-to-date news about the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)”, PCT Applicant’s Guide, Volume I, Chapter I, item 7, Retrieved March 25, 2006. which provides a system for filing international (patent) applications. The PCT Newsletter is published in English only. Important changes to the PCT are mentioned and explained in the PCT Newsletter.


References


See also

  • Official Journal of the European Patent Office
  • PCT Gazette
  • List of intellectual property law journals


External links

  • PCT Newsletters since 1999 available online on the WIPO web site

References

Is called the, Boarfish

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 12:28 pm

Boarfish is the common name of two unrelated groups of fishes:

  • All fish of the family Caproidae are called boarfish.
  • Some fish of the family Pentacerotidae are called boarfish.

References

Trademark, Ensign-Bickford Company

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 9:24 am

The Ensign-Bickford Industries, Incorporated (formerly The Ensign-Bickford Company) was started in 1836 in Simsbury, Connecticut as a manufacturer of William Bickford’s safety fuse for use in mining. Safety fuse was a great advance in mining technology over the practice of filling holes with black powder. The next step in mining technology was detonating cord. Ensign-Bickford and other companies developed different versions of detonating cord. Ensign-Bickford’s “Primacord” or “primercord” became the functional generic name for detonating cord in North America. In 2003 Ensign-Bickford sold the trademarks and processes to Dyno Nobel Inc of Australia (formally of Norway).


External links

  • Corporate website

References

Use of patents. There, Goskomizobretenie

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 9:03 am

Goskomizobretenie (Russian: Госкомизобретений), which stood for Gosudarstvennyi komitet po delam izobretenie i otkrytii, was the State Committee for Inventions and Discoveries in the former Soviet Union.

It maintained a registry of inventions and discoveries and gave out authors certificates and patents.

It has been succeeded by Rospatent in the modern day Russian Federation.


See also

  • Patent office


External links

  • Website of Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent)
  • Soviet and USSR patent document search and delivery site

References

Many patents throughout the, Vavasseur mounting

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 7:00 am

Josiah Vavasseur was an inventor who patented several mounting devices for artillery and machine guns. These were known as Vavasseur mountings.


External links


Patents

References

February 26, 2008

A patent application, Patent classification

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 5:53 pm

A patent classification is a way the examiners of patent offices or other people arrange documents, such as patent applications, disclosing inventions according to the technical features of the inventions. They arrange documents using a patent classification so that they can quickly find a document disclosing the invention identical or similar to the invention for which a patent is claimed. The same document may be classified in several classes.

A patent classification is fixed under an agreement among people, otherwise it is useless. The International Patent Classification (IPC) is agreed internationally. The United States Patent Classification (USPC) is fixed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The European Classification (ECLA) is based on the IPC but adapted by the European Patent Office to its own requirements. The Derwent classification system is fixed by an enterprise.


See also

  • European Convention on the International Classification of Patents for Invention


External links

  • Patent classification by the British Library

References

The patents, Reversible fuel cell

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 12:08 am

A reversible fuel cell (RFC) is a fuel cell that is designed to consume chemical A to produce electricity and chemical B and be reversed to consume electricity and chemical B to produce chemical A. A hydrogen fuel cell, for example, uses hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) to produce electricity and water (H2O); a reversible hydrogen fuel cell could also use electricity and water to produce hydrogen and oxygen.

By definition, the process of any fuel cell could be reversed. However, a given device is usually optimized for operating in one mode and may not be built in such a way that it can be operated backwards. Fuel cells operated backwards generally do not make very efficient systems. Because of this, fuel cells operated in forward-reverse mode are not suited for energy storage systems in small and medium scale. Most fuel cells operated in the reverse mode are sold as learning kits or curiosities.


See also

  • Hydrogen technologies


References

  • Lead acid battery efficiency reference
  • Reversible fuel cell learning kit.
  • Example US Patents: 4048383 , 4338167 etc.

References

February 25, 2008

Countries all of, Global Electronic Party Information Register

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 10:50 pm

The Global Electronic Party Information Register (GEPIR) is a distributed database that contains basic information on over 1,000,000 companies in over 100 countries.

You can search by GTIN (includes UPC and EAN-13), SSCC and GLN numbers or by company name in some countries. Results can be returned in HTML or XML for some countries.

The service is provided jointly by different GS1 Member Organizations.


External links

  • http://www.gepir.org

References

Canada:, Governors General of Canada timeline

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 10:11 pm


See also

  • List of Governors General of Canada
  • Timeline of Prime Ministers of Canada

References

Patents. There have been, Register of European Patents

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 8:33 pm

The Register of European Patents, or European Patent Register, is a public register (or registry) kept by the European Patent Office (EPO). It contains legal information relating to the published European patent applications and the European patents granted under the European Patent Convention (EPC).


See also

  • epoline
  • esp@cenet
  • European Patent Bulletin
  • Official Journal of the European Patent Office


External links

  • Online European Patent Register search page
  • Legal basis
    •  : Register of European Patents
    •  : Entries in the Register of European Patents

References

Country’s legislation that, Primary legislation

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 7:56 pm

Primary legislation is legislation made by the legislative branch of government. This contrasts with secondary legislation, made by the executive branch, usually within boundaries laid down by the legislature.

In the UK, primary legislation is known as an Act of Parliament (In Wales, an Assembly Measure), and in the U.S., it is (at federal level) an Act of Congress. In European Union law, the founding treaties are the main primary legislation.


External link

  • UK primary legislation since 1988

References

Newer Posts »

Powered by WordPress