No Means

Robert Bosch sued Snap-On for infringing

6,782,313, which claims a motor vehicle diagnostic tester. Alas, the tester
had no specification support for a testing device. The courts found
insufficiency under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, even though there was no explicit
“means for” element.  Another stupid patent assertion with another stupid
patent bites dust. (CAFC

2014-1040). But then,
Bosch is a German company, and their nickel-slick lawyers got paid

Read the full story here: Patent Prospector

Pressing Matters: Inserting Indow Windows for Energy Efficiency

Indow Windows (Indow) is a Portland, Oregon, company that has developed energy efficient window inserts. Indow owns at least one U.S. Patent and a pending patent application covering its storm window technology.  U.S. Patent No. 8,272,178 (’178 Patent) is entitled “Press-fit storm window” and directed to a storm window assembly comprising a transparent panel and tubes [...]
Read the full story here: Green Patent Blog®

Sherry Knowles Addresses Real World Impact of Myriad-Mayo Guidance at BIO Symposium

By Donald Zuhn — Last month, at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) IP & Diagnostics Symposium in Alexandria, VA, Sherry Knowles of Knowles IP Strategies addressed the impact of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Myriad-Mayo Guidance. The Guidance, which was issued on March 4, implements a new procedure for determining the subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013), and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012). Ms. Knowles, who as former Senior Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel…
Read the full story here: Patent Docs

Cambridge Assoc., LLC v. Capital Dynamics (PTAB 2014); PNC Bank v. Secure Axcess, LLC (PTAB 2014)

By Michael Borella — As the fallout of the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision propagates through the USPTO and lower courts, many patent applications and patents directed to business methods are being rejected or struck down for failing to meet the patentable subject matter requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in particular, has been frequently applying the high court’s two prong patent-eligibility test in Institution of Covered Business Method (CBM) Patent Review proceedings. These proceedings allow a petitioner to challenge the validity of one or more claims of an…
Read the full story here: Patent Docs

Guest Post by Prof. Shubha Ghosh: Are South African Yellow Canaries a Question of Law or Fact?

Guest Post by Professor Shubha Ghosh.  Prof. Ghosh is the Vilas Research Fellow & George Young Bascom Professor in Business Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, where he is also the Associate Director of the Initiatives for Studies in Transformational Entrepreneurship (INSITE).   I was fortunate to be able to attend oral argument in Teva […]
Read the full story here: Patently-O » Patent

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wordpress themes