From the category archives:

Patents

Judge Young Issues Mea Culpa on Expert Witness Testimony in Patent Case, Orders a Do-Over

January 27, 2010
Thumbnail image for Judge Young Issues Mea Culpa on Expert Witness Testimony in Patent Case, Orders a Do-Over

Massachusetts U.S. District Court William Young has been teaching evidence law for as long as I can recall, even as far back as his pre-federal court days, when he was on the Superior Court bench (Judge Young was appointed to the federal bench in 1985, and had been a Massachusetts Superior Court Judge from 1978

Read the full article →

Mister Softee Bitten By Waiver Under FRCP 50

January 18, 2010

I’ve written before about how dangerous waiver is for lawyers.  It lurks everywhere, like sharp coral just a few inches beneath the water off an inviting tropical beach. In Microsoft’s recent loss to i4i in federal court in Texas affirmed by the Federal Circuit, Mister Softee (stock trader slang for Microsoft), found itself hung up

Read the full article →

Listen to Oral Argument in Bilski v. Kappos

December 10, 2009

Well, sort of. You can wait until the end of the term to hear oral argument in Bilski v. Kappos, or you can listen to Professor Doug Lichtman’s students’ impassioned reading of the transcript, on the superb Intellectual Property Colloquium.  I found this reading to be very accessible – a new twist on audiobooks. IP

Read the full article →

Judge Michel Announces Resignation, Lays it On the Line (and promises more to follow)

November 25, 2009

CAFC Chief Judge Paul Michel doesn’t pull punches when he states his views on problems with the U.S. patent system and the federal courts more generally, and he didn’t pull too many when he announced his upcoming retirement from the CAFC on on November 20, 2009.  A few notable quotes from his speech: On interlocutory

Read the full article →

Expect a "Perilous Future for Most Business Method Patents," Saith Judge Marylin Patel

April 6, 2009

Judge Marylin Hall Patel, a federal district judge in the North District of California (San Francisco/Silicon Valley) since 1980 and Chief Judge in the District from 1997 – 2004, is a well known federal judge when it comes to intellectual property matters. For example, Judge Patel decided the Grokster case at the district court level,

Read the full article →

Andy Updegrove's Thoughts on the Microsoft v. TomTom Patent Case, on Consortiuminfo.org

March 20, 2009

It would be an understatement to observe that Microsoft’s patent suit against Dutch GPS vendor company TomTom has been closely watched. Why? Because Microsoft alleges that several of the patents at issue are infringed by TomTom’s implementation of the Linux kernel. In this first month of the dispute, the most urgent question has been this:

Read the full article →

"You Assert That a 'Spike' is a Non-Pointed Structure Under This Patent? That Will Cost You $4.6 Million, Counselor!"

March 18, 2009

As I’ve said so many times in this blog, it’s not the law you need to fear, it’s the judge. In CU Medical v. Alaris Medical System (a patent infringement case involving medical valves) the patent owner/plaintiff argued that the term “spike,” described in the patent as “a pointed instrument,” included non-pointed structures, such as

Read the full article →

American Lawyer: The USSC Has the CAFC Trembling in its Robes

March 17, 2009

“Justice belongs to those who claim it, but let the claimant beware lest he create new injustice by his claim and thus set the bloody pendulum of revenge into its inexorable motion” Frank Herbert ———————— For those who have access to the American Lawyer (and I realize that at $430/year that’s a tiny percentage of

Read the full article →

CAFC to Patent Applicant: "Read Our Lips – We Really Don't Like Business Method Patents"

March 14, 2009

In In re Lewis Ferguson, a March 6, 2009 decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the applicant sought to patent “a marketing paradigm for bringing products to market.” After the application was denied by the various levels of the Patent Office bureaucracy for lack of patentable subject matter, the applicant appealed.

Read the full article →
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5