patent

Patently Bad Move Gags Critics

Jennifer Granick — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:11:17 -0800

Last week, RFID access device company HID Global got IOActive researcher Chris Paget to pull his talk from Black Hat DC because they claimed that demonstrating how to clone RFID cards violated their patents in card readers. Are they nuts?

Supreme Court Holds Licensees in Good Standing May Seek Declaratory Judgment on Patent Validity, Enforceability, or Infringement

Lauren Gelman — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:18:50 -0800

Petitioner, a patent licensee in good standing, appealed dismissal of its declaratory judgment claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that petitioner had established an Article III case or controversy as required by the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201(a), and thus, that dismissal was inappropriate. Because the threat of a patent infringement suit served to coerce petitioner into making royalty payments, the payments did not constitute a resolution to the controversy.

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. ___ (2007).

Federal Circuit Rules That Explicit Assignment of Right to Sue without Transfer of All Substantial Patent Rights Is Insufficient

Lauren Gelman — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:11:52 -0800

In Propat v. RPost, a case addressing standing to file in a patent suit, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision stating that the plaintiff-licensee did not have substantial rights to file a patent infringement suit in its own name.
Propat International Corporation (“Propat”) was a licensee of Authenticational Technologies Ltd. (“Authentix”), the patent owner. The two parties entered into an agreement authorizing Propat to license and litigate one of Authentix’ patents. Propat filed an infringement suit against RPost, Inc.; RPost US, Inc.; RPost International Limited; and three individuals (collectively, “RPost”). The district court dismissed Propat’s action for lack of standing, because Propat was not the patent owner and the agreement between Authentix and Propat did not transfer “all the substantial patent rights.” Therefore, Propat did not have a proprietary interest to sue infringers even if the patent owner joined the suit.

Propat v. RPost.

Internet at the next Ocean Tomo IP Auction

Stuart Soffer — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:50:02 -0800

For the past year I’ve tracked the series of Ocean Tomo Patent / IP Auctions. The third in the series occurs April 2007 in Chicago, and I just received the catalog. The catalog is divided into topical sections, including Web-Based Services, Business Methods/Data Systems, and Digital and Home Media.

CIS Speaker 12/4: Patents

Lauren Gelman — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:13:03 -0800

Start: Dec 4 2006 - 1:00pm

End: Dec 4 2006 - 2:00pm

Name of Speaker:

David Olson

Title of Event:

Patentable Subject Matter: The Problem of the Absent Gatekeeper

Speaker's Bio:

David Olson is a Resident Fellow at the Center for Internet and Society. David’s current research interests are in the areas of software/business method patents, subject matter patentability, the law and economics of the U.S. patent system, and international regulation of intellectual property.

Topic Description:

The federal courts used to act as gatekeepers who determined which sorts of inventions (which "subject matter" in patent-speak) should be patentable and which should not. The clear theory underlying this role was that some sorts of inventions simply should not be patentable. With the advent of computer software and the information age, however, the courts faced an assault on their old tests for whether a type of subject matter should be patentable. The courts reacted to this assault by abandoning the barricades and allowing patentability for virtually any sort of invention.

David Olson will present a lecture based on his paper arguing that the courts should have kept to the barricades, and that if they won't remount them, then Congress should delegate the patentable subject matter gatekeeper role to someone who will.