Washington State Patent Law Blog

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49064651268503204992009-07-01T10:33:32.515-07:00Washington State Patent Law BlogPatent Law Discussions with an Emphasis on Practitioners and Industries in Washington StateMark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comBlogger136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-63673335668157714452009-07-01T09:58:00.000-07:002009-07-01T10:33:32.546-07:00Supreme Court denies Certiorari in Quanta v. Ricoh

Does the unconditional sale of a patented item overseas result in a forfeiture of rights to enforce patent rights in the United States? Federal Circuit precedent has answered this question in the negative; see Harold C. Wegner, Post-Quanta, Post-Sale Patentee Controls, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 682, 698 (2008). So called "international patent exhaustion" was the focal point of a

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-69967614050877409352009-06-24T09:09:00.000-07:002009-06-24T09:13:34.321-07:00Chinese High Court Comments on Patent Law

Supreme People’s Court Justice HE Zhonglin of the People’s Republic of China introduced the draft of Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Applicable Laws to the Trial of Patent Infringement Controversies (the “Judicial Interpretations”). The Judicial Interpretations keyed to parallel the implementation of the recent Third Amendment to the Patent Law. Justice He

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-48439185739689110132009-06-17T09:41:00.000-07:002009-06-17T09:58:53.485-07:00Fluke Files Declaratory Judgment Action Against Competitor

Local manufacturer of electronic test tools (among other products in the largely "wired" electronics space reminiscent of last century), Fluke Products, filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that certain Modular Telephone Plugs do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,562,475, allegedly owned by Aines Manufacturing Corp. of Ronkonkoma, NY. Fluke also alleges that the '475 patent is invalid. As

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-90829145125735467642009-06-10T22:42:00.000-07:002009-06-11T09:22:27.345-07:00Patently Challenging Road for Amazon

By all accounts, Amazon.com is an innovator. It pioneered online commerce in the 1990s and it was an early adopter of aggressive IP strategies, including the much maligned "one-click" patent, which was unsuccessfully enforced against Barnesandnoble.com in 2000 and is still suffering through reexamination at the request of a part time actor from New Zealand. Recently, Amazon was back on the

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-64983475290771820362009-05-21T08:38:00.000-07:002009-05-21T11:47:16.923-07:00Texas Jury Stings Microsoft for $200M

I guess the third trial's the charm for patent holders looking to collect big money from Microsoft for patent infringement. After winning one case on summary judgment on the eve of trial, and settling another one mid-way through, Microsoft decided to gamble on the jury yesterday and lost. Here is a snippet of today's article from IP 360:"A federal jury on Wednesday found that Microsoft Corp.

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-35885573228158462592009-05-19T11:05:00.001-07:002009-05-19T11:24:36.882-07:00Amazon.com Strikes Back at Discovery Communications

Amazon.com asserted three patents against Discovery Communications, owner of the well known cable TV brand, the Discovery Channel, as well as other goods and services sold under the Discovery name and mark. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Nos. 6,006,225 ("Refining Search Queries by Suggestion of Correlated Terms from prior Searches"); 6,169,986 ("System and method for Refining Search Queries");

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-48347034033907378992009-05-18T09:07:00.000-07:002009-05-18T09:50:15.534-07:00Claim Construction Sticks in Bamboo Flooring Case

Judge Leighton resolved a motion for reconsideration of an order construing the terms "random orientation" as used in U.S. Patent No. 5,543,197, in an order that was issued over four months ago (previous posts here and here). The primary bone of contention was that the Court had construed these terms to require not only random orientation of the individual bamboo strands, but also random, "not

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-44107063119459563372009-05-11T09:40:00.000-07:002009-05-11T10:21:31.611-07:00Surgical Trainer Patent Case Headed for Trial in October

Simulab Corp. will get a jury this fall to decide claims for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,780,016, a patent for a "Human Surgical Trainer and Methods for Training." Infringement claims are being asserted against Synbone AG, a Swiss company. My previous posts here and here, discussed Judge Zilly's summary judgment rulings, expressing skepticism that "Simulab can demonstrate the requisite

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-67310567344958558002009-05-05T11:04:00.000-07:002009-05-05T11:40:33.425-07:00Fees Denied to K2 in Short Fat Ski Case

The case is Paul N. Nelson v. K2 Inc., Cause No. C07-1660RSL. My previous posts, explain that plaintiff Nelson lost his priority date claimed in U.S. Patent No. 5,603,522 on written description grounds, and then lost summary judgment on his invalidity defense based on allegedly "experimental sales." K2 moved for attorneys fees. In an order denying fees, Judge Lasnik reasoned as follows:"Prior

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-16229944388447008302009-04-30T10:20:00.000-07:002009-04-30T13:54:19.511-07:00Seattle Patent Litigation Update: May 2009

What recession? Seattle patent cases exploded during the months of February, March and April 2009 (list included in this post). Note that I've done something a little different for this post, I've included the patent number and the name of the plaintiff's lawyer and law firm. While the number of cases increased over the last few months, most of these cases remain idle, without even an

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-40268701142230547672009-04-21T09:13:00.000-07:002009-04-22T10:38:16.795-07:00Data Retrieval Patent Case Transferred

As a counterpoint to my previous post, regarding an order denying a defendant's motion to transfer patent litigation out of the WD of Wash., this post features the opposite result, a defendant winning a transfer to the N.D. of California. The case is Data Retrieval Tech v. SybaseC08-1702-RSM.There are key differences that made this case susceptible to transfer. Judge Martinez explained in his

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-15475211679077282782009-04-16T10:27:00.001-07:002009-04-16T13:36:41.550-07:00Potato Case Stays in Seattle

In the case Pace International LLC v. Industrial Ventilation, Inc., 08-1822-RSL, Judge Lasnik recently denied the Defendant's motion to transfer the case to the District of Idaho.This case involves allegations of infringement of a patent owned by Xeda International, S.A., a French Corporation (also a plaintiff). Defendants in this case provide sprout-inhibiting products and services to potato

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-17012510384580664732009-03-30T21:16:00.000-07:002009-03-30T22:40:37.665-07:00Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft: A Reason to Delay Congressional Patent Reform?

The damages issue has been hotly debated among those supportive of congressional patent reform, including so-called "damages apportionment" and damages keyed to the "whole market value" of a device.According to noted patent commentator, Hal Wegner, the case brought by Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft embodies these damages "reform" issues and provides an opportunity for the Federal Circuit (and

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-84986036510135489412009-03-20T13:00:00.000-07:002009-03-20T13:18:31.121-07:00USPTO Acted Within its Rulemaking Authority

The following summary was provided by Joseph R. Robinson of Darby & Darby, New York, NY.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its opinion in the lawsuit challenging the implementation of the proposed USPTO rules on continuation applications and other USPTO procedures. Tafas v. Doll, Appeal No. 2008-1352 (Fed. Cir. March 20, 2009). The Federal Circuit has held that Final

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-55800777374651114742009-03-17T09:00:00.000-07:002009-03-17T09:36:09.397-07:00Nintendo Prevails Over Fenner Investments in East Texas Patent Suit

Literally on the "eve of trial," Judge Leonard Davis dismissed claims for patent infringement against Nintendo that were brought by Fenner Investment in East Texas. Fenner had alleging that the Wii console and its controllers along with the GameCube infringed on a patent held by Fenner. Judge Davis dismissed the case Monday citing that no jury trial was needed. From Judge Davis' order:Following

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-77573465168921341312009-03-10T17:46:00.000-07:002009-03-10T18:09:55.233-07:00Portland Chain-maker Makes it Rain, Winning $2-million in Patent Infringement Damages

A Portland jury recently found in favor of Blount, Inc., a maker of chainsaw chain, bar, and accessories under its Oregon brand, in a patent infringement action against TriLink Saw Chain, LLC, TriLink Global, LLC, Jinhua TriLink Huihuang Co., and Jinhua Huihuang Hardware Co. The jury found claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,136,783 to be valid and infringed and awarded Blount nearly two million dollars

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-59194723928711021542009-03-04T11:14:00.000-08:002009-03-04T12:31:05.669-08:00Patent Reform 2009: It's a "Threepeat"

Law makers are trying for a third time in (almost) as many legislative sessions to reform patent law. On March 3, 2009, the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees introduced companion patent reform bills. H.R. 1260 was introduced in the by Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), along with four cosponsors. The Senate's version, S. 515, was introduced by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-13070451408115238982009-02-25T16:20:00.000-08:002009-02-25T16:50:33.891-08:00Microsoft Goes on the Offensive Against TomTom

Ben Romano from the Seattle Times reported today that Microsoft filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Seattle and the International Trade Commission against TomTom, the Amsterdam-based maker of portable GPS systems for in-car navigation, after more than a year of trying to reach a licensing arrangement. According to a company spokesperson, the patents cover "inventions that enable a vehicle

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-26799696224809568502009-02-12T10:43:00.000-08:002009-02-12T11:13:27.374-08:00Implicit Networks Sued by Sun

It's been a bad month for local patent licensing company, Implicit Networks. Its case against Intel, Sun, Real, and AMD was stayed in view of reexamination, and now, it has been DJed (pronounced "dee-jay-ed," yes, it can be a verb, meaning "to sue for a declaratory judgment") by Sun.Sun filed a complaint on January 15, 2009, asking for an order invalidating US Patent Nos. 6,324,685 and 6,976,248,

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-39388269401512915412009-02-12T10:21:00.000-08:002009-02-12T10:41:32.495-08:00Simulab Survives Summary Judgment (Barely) In Surgical Trainer Patent Case

Following up on my recent post about this case involving a patent owned by Simulab Corp. for a surgical trainer (U.S. Patent No. 6,780,016 "Human Surgical Trainer and Methods for Training"), Judge Zilly granted in-part and denied in-part Defendant's motion for summary judgment. In denying part of the motion, Judge Zilly asked for a proffer from Simulab to see if there was a need to go to

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-18462816223585475592009-02-11T10:22:00.000-08:002009-02-11T10:57:45.226-08:00Implicit Networks Case Stayed Pending Reexamination

Local patent licensing company, Implicit Networks, was dealt a blow recently in its bid to enforce patent rights against Intel, AMD, Real Networks, and Sun. Implicit Sued back in February 2008 on U.S. Patent No. 6,629,163, a patent covering various encryption methods using demultiplexing technology for data processing. Implicit Networks alleges Intel uses this patented technology in its

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-79730518334582573052009-02-05T14:37:00.000-08:002009-02-05T15:58:13.692-08:00K2 Wins Summary Judgment in Wide Short Ski Case

Some of you may remember an earlier post of mine about this case. Individual inventor, Paul Nelson, sued K2 on claims involving U.S. Patent No. 5,603,522 covering a "Wide Short Ski." The specification was drawn to a shaped ski having a range of dimensions in length, side-cut radius, shovel width, and tail width. The claims at issue (added in a CIP) were for much narrower ranges than what was

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-71188227520715837242009-02-04T10:52:00.000-08:002009-02-04T16:03:21.197-08:00Seattle Patent Litigation Update January 2009

The Western District saw just one patent case filed last month, Chen v. Unisen, Inc. (2:2009cv00128, assigned to Judge Lasnik). Unisen does business under the name Star Trac. According to the Star Trac web site, Star Trac is "proud to be an international leader in commercial quality fitness equipment. But [it is] far from satisfied." The patent at issue is U.S. 6,745,873 covering a braking

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-29450982304609525052009-01-27T13:35:00.000-08:002009-01-28T10:50:06.821-08:00Court Hears Arguments for Summary Judgment in Surgical Trainer Patent Case

Judge Zilly heard arguments recently on a pending motion for summary judgment in a case brought by Simulab Corp. involving U.S. Patent No. 6,780,016 for a Human Surgical Trainer and Methods for Training. The accused infringer is Synbone AG, a Swiss company. A claims construction order was issued by the court back in September after the parties agreed no Markman hearing was necessary. The

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-31416273178283580012009-01-13T09:02:00.000-08:002009-01-13T09:09:11.773-08:00In Re Comiskey: Fed. Cir. Narrowly Denies Rehearing En Banc

Rehearing en banc was denied today in the closely watched case dealing with patentable subject matter under 35 USC Section 101, In re Comiskey. The petition for rehearing en banc failed by two votes, (failing to achieve a majority of seven judges) as only Newman, Mayer, Rader, Bryson, Moore, JJ., voted to rehear the case en banc. Hal Wegner, gave a great summary of the decision today:"The nub of

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0