//
archives

Claims

This tag is associated with 7 posts

Of The Patent System, Risk Taking And ‘Not Being A Complete Puss’ — An Inventor Speaks Out

A patentee takes great risks. They deserve protection. Those are the words of Joe Atler, inventor of certain CGI techniques (US Patent 6,720,962) and self-made champion of his own cause. After getting the proverbial ‘run-around’ from Disney executives, Alter sued back in October, without a lawyer or law firm to back him up.  Alter now … Continue reading

Patent Office Solicits Comments on Patent Claim Clarity

In a Press Release today, the Patent Office released new examination guidelines related to interpretation of 35 USC 112, addressing clarity and general requirements of patent applications.  From the release: These new guidelines, which address section 112 of the Patent Act, will promote patent quality

On The Qwest For A Single Actor – Infringement Of Distributed “Systems”

Yesterday, the CAFC offered another look into how your patents will be interpreted years after they’re drafted.  As I noted earlier regarding the Akamai decision, “there is a world of difference between the use or existence of a patented process, system, or product, and whether that use or existence actually infringes the patent.” Yesterday’s decision … Continue reading

Patent Connections: A Patent Does Not Protect Your Products

I’ve taken to becoming quite frustrated lately with the propagation of the falsity that filing patents can protect your products. Either this statement is incredibly misleading, or patent attorneys have a different interpretation of “protection” than the rest of us. (Actually, there is a third possibility that we’ll get to later)  After all, if this … Continue reading

USPTO Interprets Fed Circuit’s Bilski Interpretation – Everything Is Patentable (Again)

First the CAFC refused to invalidate RCT’s patent on halftoning greyscale images.  Next, they broadly applied Bilski to uphold a medical diagnostic patent.  While the rest of us wait to see if the Supreme Court will revisit the Bilski issue in 2011 (and while I’m apparently accused of “cheering” the earlier diagnostic opinion), it’s business … Continue reading

Akamai Learns The Hard Way, But You Don’t Have To

By now you’ve heard about a decision called Akamai v. Limelight.  Your patent attorney probably sent you an email, newsletter or some kind of brief synopsis of the legal issues the CAFC ruled on.  You may have heard the phrase “joint infringement” or “divided infringement.”  Ultimately, what you really want to know is, ‘what can … Continue reading

CAFC (Again) Refuses Chance To Give Bilski-test Teeth

The concept of “patentable subject matter” (also known as section ‘101’ patentability) was addressed again by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) last week.  As you may recall from my earlier discussion of a Microsoft-related patent case, this legal requirement is really focused on whether the patent claims something that is too … Continue reading