//
archives

Prior art

This tag is associated with 10 posts

Google Helps Patent Enforcement Companies With New ‘Infringement Finder’

In a rare move, given their previous disdain for intellectual property owners, Google released new enhancements to the free Google Patents search engine to help patent owners–along with lawyers, analysts and advisors–identify and investigate potential patent infringement.  To avoid potential backlash from a community of activists that have rallied around the search advertising giant, Google … Continue reading

Inventor Of Patented CGI Technique Runs To Court After A Walt Disney Runaround

Joe Alter invented an improved technique for computer generated animation back in 2000, and was awarded US Patent 6,720,962 in 2004. According to Alter’s patent, his invention allows for “creation of a highly stable coordinate system involving guide columns in which Cartesian physical simulations may be carried out and rendered as well as deformed and … Continue reading

Serious Opposition To Patent Reform From California Senators

Proving that patent reform truly is a bi-partisan issue, California Senator’s Boxer and Feinstein boldly challenged fellow Democrat Patrick Leahy’s Patent Reform America Invents Act and its ‘first-to-file’ provisions. Meanwhile, myself and others in the anti-FTF camp have spent far too much time needlessly debating the interference aspect of the present ‘first-to-invent’ system (where a … Continue reading

Interval Licensing Defendants Fail To Identify Prior Art

Patents asserted against Google, AOL, Yahoo and several others were suggested to be “one of the most obvious things out there” according to certain pundits (evidently date stamped repositories of all technical knowledge).  On Wednesday we learned that, despite such protestations, proof of such obviousness was not as easily identified.  Having failed to identify satisfactory … Continue reading

This Blog States The Obvious

Obviously, things that are obvious shouldn’t be patentable. Obvious improvements aren’t worthy of patents, instead being reserved for inventors who possess extra-ordinary skill, not merely every Tom, Dick and Harry to come up with something new … Unfortunately, figuring out how to actually prove something obvious has plagued the patent system for centuries. Engineering is … 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

IP Strategists, Huh? What Are They Good For? Useful Tips To Avoid Fattening Up Your Patent Counsel

Over at Jane Lambert’s NIPC Law blog, a recent post about IP strategists quotes from Jackie Hutter’s earlier post about what it means to be an IP strategist: An IP Strategist does not advise you to spend your money on obtaining IP because you can, but because you need to. Lambert explains that strategists are … Continue reading

Statutory Bar Prior Art – Looking For A Test Case

In today’s article, Statutory Bar Prior Art in the Nonobviousness Analysis, Dennis Crouch asks whether anyone has a test case that might test applicability of 102(b), post invention prior art in a 103(a) obviousness analysis.  The problem, according to Prof Crouch: A plain reading of the statute that considers the obviousness of an invention “at the … Continue reading

A Sign of Things To Come?

March has arrived, and along with it a remarkable (both for its content and style) dissenting opinion by soon-to-be-Chief Judge Rader at the Federal Circuit. The three Judge panel (consisting of Judges Mayer and Lourie along with the aforementioned Rader) considered patentability of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,803,501 and 6,142,532 (link to patent tools). Media Tech … Continue reading

Cry, Cry Again?

Other than Perfect Web Technologies, no one is going to cry over the invalidation of patent no. 6,631,400.  The ‘400 Patent claims: 1. A method for managing bulk e-mail distribution comprising the steps: (A) matching a target recipient profile with a group of target recipients; (B) transmitting a set of bulk e-mails to said target … Continue reading