tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49064651268503204992010-01-06T10:48:01.095-08:00Washington State Patent Law BlogPatent Law Discussions with an Emphasis on Practitioners and Industries in Washington StateMark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comBlogger165125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-66682569661300537552010-01-06T10:40:00.000-08:002010-01-06T10:48:01.177-08:00Fed Cir. Reverses WDWA on Rare Interference RulingI previously posted about this case here, when Judge Pechman dismissed a suit brought by Philips Electronics seeking to overturn a ruling made in an interference. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences had ruled an inventor at Philips Electronics, Morgan, was not the first to invent certain defibrillator methods claimed in US Patent No. 6,241,751. The invention claimed in the '751 patentMark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2197242954602743082009-12-28T11:16:00.001-08:002009-12-28T11:40:16.310-08:00Federal Circuit Authorizes Qui Tam False Marking Cases
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;
mso-font-alt:"Arial Unicode MS";
mso-font-charset:134;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 135135232 16 0 262144 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:134;
Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-85334447262628903702009-12-22T09:50:00.000-08:002009-12-22T09:50:33.116-08:00i4i Prevails on AppealToday, the CAFC decided the i4i appeal in what appears to be a sweeping victory for i4i. "We affirm the issuance of the permanent injunction, though we modify its effective date to accord with the evidence. In all other respects, we affirm for the reasons set forth below."
My previous posts on this case are found here. There will certainly be more to say about this opinion, but one thing that Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-89270167341144688352009-12-22T09:38:00.000-08:002009-12-22T09:38:00.849-08:00Federal Circuit Scraps Point of Novelty for Design Patents
I'm happy to report that the case I recently argued at the Federal Circuit resulted in new law for anticipation of design patents. Here is the article written for Darby & Darby. Articles have also appeared in the National Law Journal and IP 360 (subscriptions required for both).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has changed the law of anticipation for design patents. The Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-571346648703139952009-12-08T10:09:00.000-08:002009-12-08T10:14:59.582-08:00Implicit Networks Accuses Windows Seven of InfringementIf it wasn't any good, no one would be accusing it of infringement, right? Unwelcome flattery of this nature was thrust upon Microsoft and its successful Windows Seven product last week when a patent infringement case was brought by local patent licensing company, Implicit Networks.
Implicit owns US 6,629,163, Method and System for Demultiplexing a First Sequence of Packet Components to Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-41139055587721572332009-12-07T10:13:00.000-08:002009-12-07T10:13:41.344-08:00The True Cost of Discovery Disputes"The parties have done their level best to avoid and undermine the purposes of the meet and confer requirements," was Judge Lasnik's opening sentence for a recent ruling granting in-part a motion to compel discovery filed by Defendants Industrial Ventilation, Inc. This is a case for patent infringement brought by Pace International who owns U.S. Patent No. 6,723,364 ("Fog Treatment Method Using aMark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-29147401170402883152009-12-03T21:01:00.000-08:002009-12-03T21:01:45.621-08:00Seattle Patent Litigation Update: December 2009
As we enter the last month of 2009, there is much to report on the state of local patent litigation.
Here are some interesting orders that were issued over the past few months.
On October 23, 2009, Judge Pechman stayed a patent case filed by National Products, Inc. against Gamber-Johnson LLC. The case involves allegations that Gamber-Johnson has willfully infringement NPI's U.S. Patent NumberMark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-17102058661729897892009-11-24T09:43:00.000-08:002009-11-24T09:43:15.103-08:00Revised Local Rules Become Effective December 1, 2009
The Western District adopted revised local rules, including some important revisions to CR 7, the rule governing motion practice. These revisions take place December 1, 2009.
Here is a summary of the changes to CR 7:
CR 7(d)(1), the rule governing the consideration of motions and saying that certain motions shall be noted for consideration on the day they are filed, now expressly includes Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-51392070781873331962009-11-18T20:21:00.000-08:002009-11-18T20:31:27.383-08:00Ancora Settles Litigation with MicrosoftI posted back in April about a lawsuit that was transfered to Seattle. The lawsuit was between Ancora Technologies and Microsoft. Recently, Ancora sent out the following press release.
Seattle, WA (PRWEB) November 13, 2009 -- Ancora Technologies today announced that a settlement has been reached in the litigation between Ancora, Miki Mullor, and Microsoft, both in respect of the patent Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-91014347096053618522009-11-09T12:00:00.000-08:002009-11-09T12:56:22.109-08:00Big Baboon Battles Bilski, Court Cites Morse Code
Debate over the patentability of process patents, particularly those having claims drawn to software inventions, continues to rage in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to accept certiorari in Bilski. The state of the law is in flux. Portfolios of patents hang in the balance while patent lawyers across the U.S. extend time on pending applications, waiting to see what the Supreme Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1569990469324890612009-11-03T09:52:00.000-08:002009-11-03T10:09:18.651-08:00Microsoft Denied Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction a Second TimeMicrosoft was unable to sustain a declaratory action brought against WebXchange to invalidate three patents covering network services. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 5,778,178; 6,212,556; and 7,340,506. According to IP 360, the USPTO has agreed to re-examine the '178 and '556 patents and has canceled the claims of the '506 patent.
On Friday U.S. District Judge Farnan sitting in Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-52384270058651580192009-10-24T11:54:00.000-07:002009-10-25T12:28:48.722-07:00Seattle Patent Litigation Update Fall 2009Seeing that it has been almost a month since I last posted, I thought I needed to break the silence and provide an update on the world of Seattle patent litigation.
For my part, things have been extremely busy over the last 30 days, which included a trip back to the CAFC to argue a design patent case, one of the first that might extend the Egyptian Goddess holding into determinations of Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-89441407005299114932009-09-23T14:47:00.000-07:002009-09-23T14:52:16.220-07:00Oral argument audio available in i4i v. MicrosoftAudio files of today's merits argument in the i4i v. Microsoft appeal are available at the CAFC's website by following this link and this link.Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-65368375524626812762009-09-14T17:40:00.000-07:002009-09-14T18:03:30.910-07:00Microsoft Files Reply in i4i CaseMicrosoft filed its reply today to i4i's Brief in opposition to Microsoft's appeal. This brief does a good job trying to refocus attention to Microsoft's most winnable issues: (1) claim construction, (2) jury instructions, and (3) damages. The brief (correctly in my opinion) retreats from (abandons?) the "gatekeeper" theme that was so prevalent in Microsoft's opening brief.From the brief:i4i Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-36501409709631350142009-09-11T09:10:00.000-07:002009-09-11T10:04:20.405-07:00CAFC: Jury's $360 M Damages Award Against Microsoft, In Favor of Lucent, Not Supported by Evidence
In a decision affirming the jury's finding of Microsoft's liability for infringement of Lucent's U.S. Patent No. 4,763,356, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") reversed and remanded the damages award, which the jury had calculated to the penny, in the amount of $357,693,056.18. This decision represents a rejection of the the "entire market value" approach to patent damages, Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-44902898762291663242009-09-10T10:18:00.000-07:002009-09-10T10:43:05.848-07:00i4i Files Response Brief at CAFCSoftware maker and recently successful patent enforcer, i4i, filed its responsive brief yesterday in the appeal filed by Microsoft. In this high profile patent infringement case, Microsoft was found by a Texas jury to have infringed US Patent No. 5,787,449 on a method for reading XML, and ordered to pay over $280 M in damages for willful infringement. Microsoft was also ordered to stop selling Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-28622616758522346692009-09-03T15:33:00.000-07:002009-09-03T15:42:45.056-07:00i4i v. Microsoft: Injunction StayedHal Wegner just reported that the CAFC will stay an injunction entered last month by Judge Leonard Davis of the ED of Texas. The injunction was to take effect October 10, 2009 and it was to apply against all copies of MS WORD currently being sold. The stay will be in place during the CAFC's consideration of Microsoft's appeal. No reasons were given for the stay, other than that "the court Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-72180377305251762422009-08-26T18:20:00.000-07:002009-08-27T11:22:11.449-07:00Microsoft Submits Opening Brief in i4i AppealMicrosoft submitted its opening appeal brief on Tuesday and the CAFC set oral argument on its motion to stay Judge Davis' order enjoining further distribution of infringing copies of Microsoft's multi-Billion dollar WORD product. Oral argument on Microsoft's motion to stay and on Microsoft's motion for an expedited consideration of the appeal is set for September 23, 2009.An East Texas jury foundMark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-38129832296949633322009-08-25T08:47:00.000-07:002009-08-25T09:18:19.120-07:00Nintendo Settles Patent Suit with HillcrestNintendo has reached an agreement with Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc, signing a license agreement under three patents that are currently the subject matter of an ITC investigation. (For more, see my previous post here) On Friday, the companies filed a joint motion with the ITC, requesting dismissal in view of a settlement that resolved the ongoing dispute between them.According to Hillcrest's Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-68851800302038054552009-08-22T09:26:00.000-07:002009-08-22T10:39:31.177-07:00Ariad v. Lilly: Written Description Showdown at the CAFCYesterday the CAFC granted rehearing en banc in Ariad v. Lilly. The order poses two questions: 1. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, contains a written description requirement separate from an enablement requirement? and 2. If a separate written description requirement is set forth in the statute, what is the scope and purpose of the requirement?The debate at the CAFC centers around whether Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-24733157263194430802009-08-13T15:13:00.000-07:002009-08-22T09:13:39.080-07:00Judge Davis Orders Microsoft to Stop Selling WordAs many of you undoubtedly already know, Judge Leonard Davis granted plaintiff i4i's motion for a permanent injunction following a jury verdict in the case for infringement of US Patent No. 5,787,499, which covers software controlling document architecture and content and enables individuals to manipulate electronic documents without using manually embedded command codes (i.e., A/K/A "XML"). (Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-81226910491054131742009-08-08T09:22:00.001-07:002009-08-08T09:29:21.820-07:00Section 293 and BaseballThe following was written by my colleague, Darby & Darby principal, Steve Lipman.In my recent efforts to learn the name of the “Section 293 Notice” representative of a client’s U.S. patent, I came upon the following incredible story. By the way, for those of you who may not know about a “Section 293 Notice,” it is a provision of Title 35 that gives a foreign owner of a U.S. patent the option of Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1818134768526627352009-08-06T09:10:00.000-07:002009-08-06T09:42:54.171-07:00Seattle Patent Litgiation Update: July 2009There were three patent cases filed in July. Here they are.July 27, 2009F5 Networks Inc v. Kemp Technologies Inc. (Judge Jones) July 23, 2009Sharafabadi v. University of Idaho et. al. (Judge Robart) July 22, 2009Avtech Corporation v. Day-Ray Products Inc. (Judge Pechman) Th F5 case is another action to enforce US Pat. No. 6,473,802 entitled "Method and System for Storing Load Balancing Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-40013469957547217442009-08-04T10:30:00.000-07:002009-08-22T08:58:35.932-07:00Inter Partes Reexamination: When is a Final Ruling "Finally Determined"The following case addresses the under appreciated concept of estoppel from so-called "final" rulings in an inter partes reexamination. In Safoco, Inc v. Cameron Int. Corp. (USDC SD Texas H-05-0739), the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas addressed when estoppel attaches to a "final" ruling at the PTO in an proceeding for inter partes reexamination. This case interprets the Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-57031059896968308092009-07-31T09:29:00.000-07:002009-07-31T10:04:33.272-07:00Court Refuses to Vacate Markman Ruling Following SettlementIn the case Unigen Pharmaceuticals v. Walgreen Co. (07-471 RAJ), which is actually a consolidation of three cases brought by plaintiff Unigen, asserting infringement of US Patent No. 7,192,611 (for more on the consolidation, click here), the parties recently settled and approached the court jointly to dismiss the case and to also vacate a prior claims construction ruling. The claims of the '611 Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.com0