This portion of the blog is directed towards tips that may help patent attorneys in prosecution.

Houston Patent Attorney: Battling Back the “Reasonableness” Standard in Patent Law

IN RE Kevin R. Imes is a decent case patent attorneys can use when a patent Examiner at the USPTO is being truly unreasonable in a patent rejection. IN RE Kevin Imes is a patent case dealing with claims from patent application no. 09/874,423. Independent claim 1 of the ‘423 applications recites an electronic device [...]

By | 2015-02-04T12:30:29+00:00 February 3rd, 2015|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on Houston Patent Attorney: Battling Back the “Reasonableness” Standard in Patent Law

EMD MILLIPORE CORPORATION v. ALLPURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

In this case, the Plaintiffs EMD Millipore Corporation appeals the district courts grant of Summary judgment that the Defendant, AllPure technologies does not infringe the asserted claims of US Patent Number 6,032,543. The ‘543 patent claims are directed towards a device for introducing or withdrawing a sample from a container holding a fluid without contaminating [...]

By | 2014-10-02T14:44:13+00:00 October 2nd, 2014|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on EMD MILLIPORE CORPORATION v. ALLPURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

IN RE: TAYLOR MADE GOLF CO. [OPINION]

IN RE: TAYLOR MADE GOLF CO. [OPINION] This case discusses claim construction, as well as Examiner’s should take into consideration the background knowledge that would have been possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This case is based on an appeal from the USPTO’s Patent Trial [...]

By | 2014-10-01T15:08:33+00:00 October 1st, 2014|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on IN RE: TAYLOR MADE GOLF CO. [OPINION]

McRO (Planet Blue) v. Activision Blizzard, et al.

Another fun case dealing with Alice Corp. and 35 USC 101 This is case that deals with 35 USC 101, where the judge relied on Alice Corp to invalidate all of the plaintiff’s claims. The inventions at issue in this case are directed towards automatically synchronizing lip movements of cartoon characters. See US patent Numbers [...]

By | 2014-09-26T17:00:36+00:00 September 26th, 2014|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on McRO (Planet Blue) v. Activision Blizzard, et al.

USPTO cracking down on Business Method Patents

No Business Method Patents, means no Business Method Patents. Open-Text-SA-v-Alfresco-Software-Ltd In a recent case, regarding Austin’s own Open Text, Judge Donato invalidated claims within a patent assigned to Open Text. The patent suit in question resulted from companies that create management software, wherein the claims were directed towards creating groups of users based upon the [...]

By | 2014-09-25T16:08:29+00:00 September 25th, 2014|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on USPTO cracking down on Business Method Patents

VISTAN CORPORATION v. FADEI USA, INC.

In this case, Vistan is the owner of US Patent No 5,870,949 is directed towards appliances, and more specifically towards a pitting apparatus with a box cam. Claims 5 and 12 are at issue in this case. For your reference, claim 5 is reproduced below: 5. A fruit pitting apparatus, including: a frame; holders having [...]

By | 2013-12-06T18:09:06+00:00 December 6th, 2013|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on VISTAN CORPORATION v. FADEI USA, INC.

Sleepiness detection for a driver? There is a patent lawsuit for that!

AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY OVERVIEW: Ibormeith IP, LLC was is the assignee of US Patent Number 6,313,749, which is directed towards monitoring conditions affecting a vehicle driver’s sleepiness and warning the driver before the drive falls asleep. The monitor in the ‘749 patent takes into account multiple factors associated with sleepiness including the driver’s circadian rhythm, [...]

By | 2013-11-29T18:06:25+00:00 November 29th, 2013|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on Sleepiness detection for a driver? There is a patent lawsuit for that!

NETWORK SIGNATURES: How to revive a patent

Patent maintenance fees are required to be paid on a granted patent 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after a patent is granted. As an Austin Patent Attorney, it is important to docket these dates upon a patent issuing and contacting my client 3 months in advance of the maintenance fees date to determine if they [...]

By | 2013-09-29T21:25:51+00:00 September 29th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on NETWORK SIGNATURES: How to revive a patent

COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC. v. TWITTER, INC.

Non-parallel claim scope can create patent production history, as well as other trouble when the patent is litigated. In this case Cooper Notification, Inc. (Cooper) appeals a decision from US District court holding that Twitter  and other defendants did not infringe claims 12-18 of U.S. Patent 7,409,428. Cooper is the owner of the ‘428 patent [...]

By | 2013-09-11T10:31:50+00:00 September 11th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC. v. TWITTER, INC.

COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC.

Comaper Corporation (hereinafter “Comaper”) v. Antec  is a case dealing with the Federal Circuit reversing the District Court’s JMOL.     Comaper is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,955,955  that is directed towards computer cooling devices. A representative claim at issue is reproduced below: 1. A cooling device for a computer, said computer having [...]

By | 2013-09-08T20:22:26+00:00 September 8th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC.