Archives
Bob Siminski Gets Insight from the Korean Patent Court
Today I met with the Korean Patent Court (KPC), which is essentially equivalent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Despite its name, the KPC has jurisdiction over a wide variety of intellectual property matters, including copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, for example. The Justices at the KPC tend to sit for two to
Bob Siminski Meets with The Supreme People’s Court in Asia
Today I had the privilege of meeting with five Justices of The Supreme People’s Court. The Justices were very engaging and did a great job educating our group on procedural issues. We discussed everything from injunctive relief to evidentiary considerations. The Justices were asked why there appears to be great disparity from court to court with
Bob Siminski’s First Meeting in Asia
This morning I met with a delegation of the State Intellectual Property Office led by Deputy Commissioner Yang Tiejun in Beijing. He participated in a question and answer session covering various topics. Some of the more interesting questions and answers were as follows: Q: Due to government incentives, the number of new patent
ADAPTING TO PATENT REFORM
Patent “Reform” — the America Invents Act — which is being implemented over the next eighteen months, makes significant changes to America’s patent system that will require business to adapt their procedures for evaluating and protecting their innovations. Here are ten suggestions for handling the transition: 1. File
Patent Attorney, Bob Siminski, Scheduled for Asia Trip with IPO
From Oct. 29 – Nov.5 Harness Dickey attorney Robert (Bob) Siminski will a delegate of
CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
In CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358 (August 16, 2011), the Federal Circuit held that an Internet-related method claim and a “computer readable medium” claim both fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, potentially calling into question the validity of many patented claims to devices programmed with
The Cost of Sloppy Claim Drafting
In CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., No. 2010-1202, -1203 (Fed. Cir. August 10, 2011), CBT appealed a district court’s judgment that a claim was invalid as indefinite. The claim was for an apparatus comprising a network computer “programmed to detect analyze the electronic mail communication sent by the sending party to determine whether
CAFC MYRIAD DECISION: This is Not a “Gene Patent” Case
The panel decision in AMP v. Myriad Genetics, written by Judge Lourie, contained law and fact rulings consistent with the Amicus Brief submitted by HDP on behalf of Gilead Sciences, Inc., Biogenerator and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The CAFC held that a synthetic cDNA construct is patent-eligible subject-matter under 35 U.S.C. §101, agreeing with
USPTO PROPOSES AMENDING RULE 1.56 TO DEFINE MATERIALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THERASENSE
On July 21, 2011 the USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Rule 56 (37 CFR §1.56) to define materiality in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in as the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., — F.3d. — (Fed. Cir. 2011). A similar amendment is proposed
Launch of .XXX Domain Names – Blocking Registration of Trademarks as Domains
Summary: This September, the new .XXX registry will begin accepting registrations and protection against registrations, that is, requests to block registration of non-adult industry trademarks as domains (example: blocking registration of HDP.xxx). As with most extension launches, applications will be accepted in stages called sunrises, with priority