Patent Baristas

[This is the ninth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Prior User Rights The proposed legislation expands the prior user rights defense. Currently, 35 U.S.C. 273(b) provides that it shall be a defense to infringement if the accused, acting in good faith, had actually reduced the […]

[This is the eighth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Inter Partes Reexamination The American Inventor’s Protection Act (The American Inventors Protection Act was enacted November 29, 1999, as Public Law 106-113 (AIPA) introduced the concept of inter partes reexamination prospectively (post-1999). (35 U.S.C. 314). This […]

Here at Patent Baristas, we love the mystery and intrigue that comes with litigation to establish priority of invention. These matters often bring out juicy details worthy of a good Dynasty episode. In a particularly protracted example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Medichem, S.A., v. Rolabo, S.L. (05-1179, 05-1248), reversed […]

[This is the seventh in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Continuation Applications Ah, the ghost of Jerome Lemelson lives and continues to rattle his chains. (Even though his patents were adjudged invalid in Symbol Technologies Inc. et al. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation LP […]

In an appeal from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (05-1119; Interference No. 103,586), in Brown et al. v. Barbacid et al., looked at an invention priority determination (interference” proceeding). In an interference between Brown and Barbacid over an assay for identifying compounds […]

[This is the sixth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Injunctions And we’re back to the original law in this match of patent reform ping-pong. (35 U.S.C. § 283 mandates that the courts may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the […]

[This is the fifth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Apportionment of Damages for Infringement in the Case of a Combination If 35 U.S.C. 271(f) remains unchanged, there may be some relief offered to defendants by the proposal that damages should be assessed according to the […]

[This is the fourth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Willful Infringement The phrase treble damages strikes terror into the heart of all non-patentees. It further promotes a balancing act between maintaining an ostrich mentality and risking that curiosity will kill the cat. An individual who […]