A Single Drawing in a Design Patent Application
A Single Drawing in a Design Patent Application It looks like a design patent application can satisfy both enablement and definiteness with a single drawing. I know, you were on the edge of your seat about this one. Yet, it is a significant case for what is sufficient for a design application. In In Re Maatita, The […]
Continguity & Anticipation
Continguity & Anticipation In re Facebook (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated. These claims require “image elements to be contiguous” based on a rule during a reshuffle event. The prior art (Perrodin), on the other hand, does not require contiguity “in all cases.” In other words, a reshuffle might happen to result in […]
US Patent No. 10,000,000
US Patent No. 10,000,000 Big news: The USPTO issued patent number 10,000,000 for “COHERENT LADAR USING INTRA-PIXEL QUADRATURE DETECTION”. As an inventor on an old LIDAR patent, I’m excited to see this technology reach this milestone. The USPTO also used this event as an opportunity to highlight patents through history. Others, however, are criticizing the new cover design, which includes […]
Samsung Losses Piling Up
Samsung Losses Piling Up It’s been a tough go recently for Samsung in the patent space. Here are some losses in the first half of 2018: Papst Licensing v. Samsung– November 2018 – USA – $5.9 Million for infringing patents covering data transfers that occur in smartphones and tablets Apple v. Samsung – May 2018 […]
Ericsson V. Intellectual Ventures
Ericsson V. Intellectual Ventures Two IP heavy weights faced off at the Federal Circuit over Intellectual Ventures’ wireless technology patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,952,408. Relying heavily on experts, the court overturned the PTAB’s finding in an IPR that claim 1 is not patentable. This holding includes a complex and highly technical discussion of the technical […]
Our Favoriate Patent
Our Favoriate Patent Words are insufficient for U.S. Patent No. 5,023,850: Related Posts
One Of A Few Of Our Favorite Patents
A Few Of Our Favorite Patents In what I hope will be a regular feature on this blog, here is one of my favorite patents based solely on this humorous drawing. This is Apple’s patent 9,986,419, which, according to PatentlyO, has the distinction of being the patent with the most prior-art-citations at 6,701 citations! This patent […]
USPTO what is “well-understood routine, and conventional” is not well understood
uspto what is “well-understood routine and conventional” is not well understood On April 19, the USPTO issued a memo with an update on subject matter eligibility guidance. The memo explains changes to Subject matter eligibility rejections based on recent case law (Berheimer & Aatrix). Determining that something is “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is a factual matter […]
Contumacious Conduct = $450,000 Attorney Fee Award
Contumacious Conduct = $450,000 Attorney Fee Award The line of attorney fee cases following Octane Fitness continues to grow. In Raniere v. Microsoft and AT&T (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court case finding Raniere liable for attorney fees. In so doing, the court further established that district courts have discretion in attorney fee awards and […]
Office Action Grant Rate
Office Action Grant Rate Shine Su, has written an interesting paper on a new metric for patent examiner activity called the Office Action Grant Rate (OGR). You can find a summary of the paper and a link to the paper here. Overall, Shine discovered there is a wide range of OGR scores across examiners at the […]
