by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
I would love to meet the person who could do that. This is not an algorithm case. This is not a math case. This is not a software case. And the idea that they would say in their reply brief that a human could do what these packets do with a pencil and paper . . . . I mean, it's crazy what they're willing to say.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Monday, August 28, 2017
On the Lone or Individual Inventor
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
The iconic individual inventor plays a much smaller role today than he once did. 19th century America was a time of flourishing individual invention. Individual inventors got the vast majority of patents.
Toward the end of the century, the picture began to change
Increasingly, patent rights were sold before the patent was issued, a sign that corporate support was needed at an earlier stage.
The notion of the inventor as a genius working along in his shop became increasingly anachronistic as the complexity of technology required numerous machinists, chemists, or other skilled workers to contribute to the developments of ever more sophisticated and complicated machines, compounds, and processes. Collective research and development had become the source of most inventions long before the courts and the public finally realized it.
By 2003 individual inventors accounted for only about 12% of patents.
Additionally, most of the recent inventions made by individuals are hardly breakthrough technologies.
The most prolific patentee in US history is Donald Weder (1336 patents). At one point, Weder was listed as holding 984[1] utility patents and 413[2] design patents for a total of 1397 US patents. Weder is still actively inventing, so his ultimate number of patents is yet to be known. His most recent patent was issued on April, 2017. He beat out Thomas Edison (1336 to 1093) in 2002.
Weder's contribution to society? Flower pots, bundling flowers, and other inventions relevant to florists.
Most individual inventors appear to work in mature, but not cutting-edge technologies.
Bessen and Meurer, Patent Failure (2008), pp. 168-171 ("Individual Inventors")
The iconic individual inventor plays a much smaller role today than he once did. 19th century America was a time of flourishing individual invention. Individual inventors got the vast majority of patents.
Toward the end of the century, the picture began to change
Increasingly, patent rights were sold before the patent was issued, a sign that corporate support was needed at an earlier stage.
The notion of the inventor as a genius working along in his shop became increasingly anachronistic as the complexity of technology required numerous machinists, chemists, or other skilled workers to contribute to the developments of ever more sophisticated and complicated machines, compounds, and processes. Collective research and development had become the source of most inventions long before the courts and the public finally realized it.
By 2003 individual inventors accounted for only about 12% of patents.
Additionally, most of the recent inventions made by individuals are hardly breakthrough technologies.
The most prolific patentee in US history is Donald Weder (1336 patents). At one point, Weder was listed as holding 984[1] utility patents and 413[2] design patents for a total of 1397 US patents. Weder is still actively inventing, so his ultimate number of patents is yet to be known. His most recent patent was issued on April, 2017. He beat out Thomas Edison (1336 to 1093) in 2002.
Weder's contribution to society? Flower pots, bundling flowers, and other inventions relevant to florists.
Most individual inventors appear to work in mature, but not cutting-edge technologies.
Bessen and Meurer, Patent Failure (2008), pp. 168-171 ("Individual Inventors")
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Breaking Bad and Patent Combinations
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
It also repeated a local version of its combination argument:
It also repeated a local version of its combination argument:
"[I]f these lawyers were defending Walter White, they would come in and say, Judge, you can't convict him of anything because he didn't possess anything but Sudafed, battery acid, drain cleaner, lantern fuel, and antifreeze. Forget the fact that when [**52] you mix those up, it's methamphetamine."
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Well Settled Doubt Favors Applicant?
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
In the first place, it is the settled rule in such proceedings that doubts as to whether or not invention is present are to be resolved in favor of the applicant.7 While the exact degree of doubt necessary to justify the allowance of a claim has not been accurately defined, it is probably greater than the "reasonable doubt" which will prevent a conviction in criminal cases. It is evident, however, that the existence of the rule has a definite tendency to lower whatever standard of invention one may begin with.
7. In re Coykend1all, 58 App. D.C. 280, 29 F. 2d 868 (Ct. App.D.C. 1928); In re Davidson, 56 App. D.C. 279, 12 F. 2d 814 (Ct. App. D.C. 1926); In re Herchenrider, 28 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 876, 117 F. 2d 261, 48 U.S.P.Q. 393 (C.C.P.A. 1941); Ex Parte Bennett, 29 U.S.P.Q. 612 (P.O. Bd. App. 1936); Ex Parte Nord, 68 U.S. P.Q. 335 (P.O. Bd. App. 1945).
DYNAMICS OF THE PATENT SYSTEM , p. 5
In the first place, it is the settled rule in such proceedings that doubts as to whether or not invention is present are to be resolved in favor of the applicant.7 While the exact degree of doubt necessary to justify the allowance of a claim has not been accurately defined, it is probably greater than the "reasonable doubt" which will prevent a conviction in criminal cases. It is evident, however, that the existence of the rule has a definite tendency to lower whatever standard of invention one may begin with.
7. In re Coykend1all, 58 App. D.C. 280, 29 F. 2d 868 (Ct. App.D.C. 1928); In re Davidson, 56 App. D.C. 279, 12 F. 2d 814 (Ct. App. D.C. 1926); In re Herchenrider, 28 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 876, 117 F. 2d 261, 48 U.S.P.Q. 393 (C.C.P.A. 1941); Ex Parte Bennett, 29 U.S.P.Q. 612 (P.O. Bd. App. 1936); Ex Parte Nord, 68 U.S. P.Q. 335 (P.O. Bd. App. 1945).
DYNAMICS OF THE PATENT SYSTEM , p. 5
101 Money Where Your Infringement Mouth Is
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
Front Row repeatedly argued that the Court should require the Defendants "to take precise claims construction positions if they're going to make a 101 argument." Tr. at 101:1-3 (Shore). It explained that the Defendants, given their argument that Front Row's patents cover a broad swathe of material, ought to be willing to stipulate to infringement. See Tr. at 101:7-23 (Shore)
Front Row repeatedly argued that the Court should require the Defendants "to take precise claims construction positions if they're going to make a 101 argument." Tr. at 101:1-3 (Shore). It explained that the Defendants, given their argument that Front Row's patents cover a broad swathe of material, ought to be willing to stipulate to infringement. See Tr. at 101:7-23 (Shore)
Bull Dogs and Trademarks and other Woofs
by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com.
In Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, 537 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2003), the US SC noticed that the term "BullDog" had been trademarked "over one hundred times by 1923".
As of today, there are 173 service/trademarks including some form of "bull dog." Of these, 58 are alive and 115 are dead.
There are only 26 total for whippet and 37 for dalmatian.
Too bad it is not easy to find out which dog breed has been used the most in trademarks.
In Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, 537 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2003), the US SC noticed that the term "BullDog" had been trademarked "over one hundred times by 1923".
As of today, there are 173 service/trademarks including some form of "bull dog." Of these, 58 are alive and 115 are dead.
There are only 26 total for whippet and 37 for dalmatian.
Too bad it is not easy to find out which dog breed has been used the most in trademarks.
Abstract Ideas and Patent Abstracts and Alice/101
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
Plaintiff also attacked the Defendants' reliance on patent abstracts, insisting that:
Plaintiff also attacked the Defendants' reliance on patent abstracts, insisting that:
"[a]nybody who practices before the patent office, anybody who has been doing this more than six months would say, to take the abstract, something that's required to be in the patent, and use it to prove that a patent is abstract is silly."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)