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

An Austin Patent Attorney’s Review of: RAMBUS INC. v. REA

OVERVIEW: The technology at issue in this case related to dynamic random access memory devices (DRAM). In DRAM storing information occurs when memory is “written” to the memory device and a “read’ operation is performed when memory is retrieved from the memory device. DRAM utilize a clock signal to execute the read and write signals, [...]

By | 2013-06-28T15:37:04+00:00 June 28th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on An Austin Patent Attorney’s Review of: RAMBUS INC. v. REA

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF: ULTRAMERCIAL, INC. v. HULU, LLC

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF: ULTRAMERCIAL, INC. v. HULU, LLC OVERVIEW: In this case, the Court of Appeals reviewed and reversed the District Court’s holding that subject matter of ‘7346,545 patent was not a process within the language of 35 USC 101. The '545 patent claims a method of distributing copyrighted materials over the [...]

By | 2013-06-27T10:40:35+00:00 June 27th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF: ULTRAMERCIAL, INC. v. HULU, LLC

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW: DOUGLAS DYNAMICS V. BUYERS PRODUCTS

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S OVERVIEW: Douglas Dynamics sued Buyers Products for infringement of three patents related to snowplow mounting assemblies. The three patents that were owned by Douglas included Re: 35,700, US Patent Number 5,353,530, and US Patent Number 6,944,978. The court of appeals reviewed the district court’s denial of Douglas’s request for permanent injunction [...]

By | 2013-06-07T21:29:54+00:00 June 7th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW: DOUGLAS DYNAMICS V. BUYERS PRODUCTS

IN RE STEVE MORSA: AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW: In this case Steven Morsa appealed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for utility application number US20030093283 claiming priority to provisional patent application 60/211228 (‘228 patent). The patent application is directed towards receiving a plurality of inputs for which a plurality of benefits may be determined [...]

By | 2013-04-15T18:03:04+00:00 April 15th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on IN RE STEVE MORSA: AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW

An Austin Patent Attorney’s Review: SAFFRAN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON

SAFFRAN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S OVERVIEW: In this case Johnson & Johnson and Cordis (collectively referred to as Cordis) appeal the final judgment of the district court that was in favor of Saffran holding Cordis liable for infringing Saffrans U.S. patent 5,653,760 on the theory that the district court erred in [...]

By | 2013-04-04T20:20:04+00:00 April 4th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on An Austin Patent Attorney’s Review: SAFFRAN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON

AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY OVERVIEW: RD INDUSTRIES V. KAPPOS

PATENT ATTORNEY OVERVIEW: This case discusses when it is timely to raise an issue on the board of patent appeals during re-examination.  Responsive to a patent infringement suit against Rexnord filed by Habasit, Rexnord requested reexamination of Habasit’s 6,523,680 patent. The technology in the ‘680 patent was directed towards a mechanical conveyor belt with rows [...]

By | 2013-04-01T21:55:48+00:00 April 1st, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY OVERVIEW: RD INDUSTRIES V. KAPPOS

CHECKPOINT VS. ALL TAG

AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S OVERVIEW OF CHECKPOINT VS. ALL TAG The subject matter in this lawsuit relates to security tags that are attached to merchandise in retail stores to limit/prevent shoplifting. If the tags are not deactivated by a salesperson of the retail store, then an alarm will be triggered if the tags move past sensors [...]

By | 2013-03-26T20:48:32+00:00 March 26th, 2013|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on CHECKPOINT VS. ALL TAG

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY REVIEW: BRILLIANT INSTRUMENTS V. GUIDETECH

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S OVERVIEW: The technology in this case relates to electrical circuits, and specifically placement of components within circuits to measure time intervals of the circuits. In this case, GuideTech, appeals the district courts grant of summary judgment that Brilliant Instruments did not infringe on three of GuideTech’s Patents (U.S. Patent Number 6,226,231; [...]

By | 2013-02-25T18:48:06+00:00 February 25th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY REVIEW: BRILLIANT INSTRUMENTS V. GUIDETECH

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF FUNCTION MEDIA V. GOOGLE

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S OVERVIEW: Function Media (FM) sued Google for infringement of three patents, 6,446,045; 7,240,025; and 7,249,059. These patents were directed for ways to facilitate advertisements on media outlet that do not have the same requirements. Such as, one media outlet may publish advertisements in a square box while a second media outlet [...]

By | 2013-02-16T22:01:38+00:00 February 16th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF FUNCTION MEDIA V. GOOGLE

IN RE CHEVALIER

PATENT ATTORNEY TAKEAWAY: If claimed limitations are taught by a combination of the cited art, it is very hard to overcome the obviousness standard of “obvious to combine.” Instead of formulating an obvious to combine argument, it may be easier to amend the claims. I do not agree with the courts analysis that if each [...]

By | 2013-01-09T15:24:11+00:00 January 9th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on IN RE CHEVALIER