tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49064651268503204992008-07-24T11:36:26.093-07:00Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-27299084789408003552008-07-24T11:20:00.000-07:002008-07-24T11:36:26.110-07:00

An excellent article by John Duffy, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, explains that two recent decisions from the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), Ex parte Langemyr (May 28, 2008) and Ex parte Wasynczuk (June 2, 2008) substantially raise the stakes for all interested parties in the Federal Circuit's en banc review of In re Bilski, a decision set

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-84761865070616101772008-07-23T11:48:00.000-07:002008-07-23T12:02:27.383-07:00

Judge Lasnik recently construed claims for US Patent No. 5,603,522 for a "Wide, Short Ski." The case is one for infringement brought by inventor Paul Nelson against K2 Corporation. The parties disputed six claim terms from independent claim 1. Not surprisingly, the patent here uses words of approximation, like "about" and "approximately" to describe some numerical measurement ranges. Using the

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-92014189479695845332008-07-18T11:45:00.000-07:002008-07-18T12:21:51.380-07:00

Catching up on my reading, I notice that in May, the Federal Circuit affirmed in-part, remanded, and vacated in-part a judgment entered following a two-week bench trial here in Seattle between TALtech Limited and Esquel Apparel, Inc. involving US Patent No. 5,568,779, a patent covering a seam for "wash-and-wear" dress shirts that solved the problem of puckering when laundered (WDWa Case No. 04-

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-29949913815249870122008-07-13T19:56:00.000-07:002008-07-13T20:21:21.098-07:00

So my trial is now over. My posts will pick up and be more frequent. I'm happy to report a victory for one local inventor over Sears Roebuck and their advertising firm, Young & Rubicam. Jury returned a verdict for $1.7 million on Wednesday afternoon. It's a copyright case, so I won't go into detail here. If you are interested, here is a link to today's story in the Seattle Times. May and

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2070553572149859122008-06-21T17:57:00.000-07:002008-06-21T18:12:30.684-07:00

Some of you may remember my post about this case in March involving US 7,118,245 for a Trainman Lantern. The Plaintiff in this case, A.G. Design & Associates, LLC, sells patented lanterns to Burlington Northern Santa Fe and other railroads for use by trainmen and engineers. They sued Trainman Lantern Company and initially won a preliminary injunction from Judge Burgess, ordering TLC to cease

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-31205265337834863222008-06-05T09:35:00.000-07:002008-07-16T14:03:24.634-07:00

Things finally slowed down last month in terms of new patent case filings in the Western District. There was just one new case hitting the electronic docket in May, and it was actually filed in April, so it really doesn't count as a May filing. Since it didn't make April's list, I'll post it here. The case is Vtran Media Technologies, LLC v. Astound Braodband LLC (C08-0650) (Pechman) This is the

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-34567607045187314092008-05-21T08:05:00.000-07:002008-05-21T08:21:49.298-07:00

It's been a while since I've posted. I know both of you are disappointed (hi mom). Reason for the hiatus is that I've been preparing for trial. So expect my posts to be less frequent through about the end of July. There's still a lot to report on the local patent litigation front. First, as I'm sure many of you already know, Nintendo was hit with a significant infringement verdict by a Texas

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-55883403553326620752008-05-10T08:15:00.000-07:002008-05-10T09:23:04.753-07:00

April was a very busy month for patent litigation in the Western District of Washington. Wacom settled its patent dispute with competitor, Hanvon, Microsoft and Veritas settled their decade old database dispute, and there were seven new cases filed. TGN, Inc v. CRS, LLC, (2:2008cv00680) (Pechman) VTran Media Technologies LLC v. Astound Broadband LLC et al

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-33226912233507234042008-05-06T09:34:00.000-07:002008-05-06T09:58:39.014-07:00

Normally, a party who loses its appeal at the Federal Circuit has little hope of the Supreme Court accepting its case on a petition for Certiorari. Even with increased activity by the Supreme Court reviewing patent cases in the last two years, chances of having review granted by the Supreme Court are less than 1 in 1000. Oregon maker of multiplexer integrated circuits, Transolgic Technologies

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-46241181445362712472008-05-05T09:14:00.001-07:002008-05-05T10:09:20.467-07:00

Unigen Pharmaceuticals, maker of an herbal supplement Univestin (a blend of flavans from Acacia catechu and flavanoids from Chinese Skullcap (Scutellaria Baicalensis)) agreed Friday to consolidate three pending cases for infringement of US Patent No. 7,192,611. The claims of the '611 patent are directed to a method for treating osteoarthritis using what is known as a Free-B-Ring flavonoid,

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-65144420640568141742008-04-30T13:47:00.000-07:002008-05-10T09:04:48.942-07:00

A soon-to-be-published study in the Michigan Law Review says that claim construction decisions by the Western District of Washington were reversed by the CAFC 38.9 % of the time during the time period April 24, 1996 (the date of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman) and June 30, 2007. Presented by Professor David L. Schwartz, the study seeks to test the conventional wisdom that "[p]ractice

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-30778697835647893402008-04-25T15:25:00.000-07:002008-04-25T15:40:44.424-07:00

Yesterday, Judge Jones issued a decision that required the Court to "traverse uncharted territory between the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764 (2007), and the Federal Circuit’s decision in Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V., 514 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2008)." Because I'm personally involved in this case on behalf of National Products, Inc., I'll

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8037381820756175952008-04-21T09:30:00.001-07:002008-04-21T09:44:05.783-07:00

On April 4, 2008 the Washington State Patent Law Association (WSPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of Petitioner Bernard L Bilksi and Rand A Warsaw in the case currently under en banc consideration by the CAFC, In re Bilksi. My earlier posts on this case can be found here and here. WSPLA's brief was signed by Michael Swope over at Woodcock Washburn. Also on the brief were Grzegorz S Plichta

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-66511377562642139332008-04-16T15:11:00.000-07:002008-04-16T15:37:47.824-07:00

Because of my involvement in this case as counsel for local shoe designer, Australia Unlimited (maker of the NOTHINZ brand of foam clog), I'll limit my post to reporting the fact that Crocs has suffered a major blow in its case at the ITC. By way of background, Crocs filed a complaint at the ITC over two years ago claiming that a number of other providers of foam clogs were infringing its IP

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6163626222527119542008-04-09T13:21:00.000-07:002008-04-18T09:47:28.708-07:00

Patent case filings in Washington State remained strong through March. There were four cases filed total; three in the Western District and one in the Eastern District. This is one better than March 2007, which only had three patent cases total. So far, Washington is substantially ahead of where it was last year at this time in terms of the number of patent cases filed. Through March last year,

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6069586986101204532008-04-08T09:20:00.000-07:002008-04-08T09:25:22.487-07:00

Here is a Link to the AIPLA Brief in the Bilski case. My post on this case is found here. This is from the AIPLA post on the case: AIPLA on April 7, 2008, filed an amicus brief with the en banc Federal Circuit, arguing that it is improper to apply the subject matter categories at 35 U.S.C. §101 narrowly to require that a process claim must be implemented by an apparatus in order to be

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-15918153402523662222008-04-06T08:16:00.001-07:002008-04-06T09:18:19.448-07:00

A San Diego, CA jury returned a verdict last Friday against Microsoft in its patent infringement suit with Alcatel-Lucent. The amount: $367 million. Check out my previous post on this case to get some more background. The patents at issue all involve video coding technology as well as patents related to a form entry system, algorithms for gesture recognition and commands to select video display

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-47850278251742291002008-04-02T10:33:00.000-07:002008-04-02T10:43:46.510-07:00

Belkin, Inc., a leading manufacturer of accessories for the electronics industry, won its motion to stay a patent infringement case filed by Prokop Labs, LLC for infringement of US 5,566,913, for a "Wrist Apparatus." Several other manufacturers and retailers were sued. The case is styled Prokop Labs LLC v. Staples Inc. (07-1094-MJP). According to the order, the case will be stayed indefinitely

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-54457249181878099562008-04-01T12:28:00.000-07:002008-04-01T12:37:49.552-07:00

Most patent practitioners are rejoicing today. The proposed new USPTO rules will will remain blocked, at least for now. Judge Cacheris from the U.S.D.C., E.D. of Virginia issued a decision today granting GSK's and Mr. Tafas' motions for summary judgment. From the order: Because the USPTO’s rulemaking authority under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2) does not extend to substantive rules, and because the

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-61124980898780348152008-03-28T15:32:00.000-07:002008-03-28T15:53:33.264-07:00

The Plaintiff in the case Gebr. Tigges Gmbh & Co. KG v. EYS Metal Sanayi Ltd. (C07-1673) (Lasnik, J.) was ordered to produce more specific infringement contentions in response to the Court's scheduling order calling for "preliminary infringement contentions." The order states as follows: The Local Rules for the Western District of Washington do not currently [NOTE: I think the key word from our

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-22820912663678144132008-03-24T10:51:00.001-07:002008-03-27T12:48:25.448-07:00

Note: This post was modified on 3/27/2008 to reflect the fact that the opinion is nonprecedential. In this case for infringement of US 7,118,245, the USDC, WDWA in Tacoma granted the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on July 3, 2007. In ordering the preliminary injunction, the district court (Judge Burgess) noted that expert testimony provided that the accused device was "identical

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-84726113015733258242008-03-21T09:37:00.000-07:002008-03-21T10:20:29.179-07:00

Defendant Smith & Fong Company, a California provider of bamboo furniture and building products, including bamboo flooring under the name PLYBOO, was sued last December by Teragren, LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,543,197, "Parallel Randomly Stranded Laminated Bamboo Boards and Beams." Smith & Fong denied infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity, inequitable conduct, and

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-17436848548573363602008-03-15T08:58:00.000-07:002008-03-15T09:30:27.715-07:00

As predicted in my earlier post on this case, Judge Coughenhour accepted findings by the special master and invalidated Microsoft's U.S Patent No. 5,558,147. The case is not over by any means. Microsoft is positioned quite well for the upcoming May 2008 trial with total damages on the contract claims capped at $4,000,000. Microsoft finds that kind of money in the cushions of its executive

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-21275574850683342422008-03-14T10:42:00.000-07:002008-03-14T11:37:44.116-07:00

In this case, Plaintiff Alliance Packaging asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,287 against Altivity Packaging LLC. The patent-in-suit is for a container with a spout. Judge Zilly recently held a Markman hearing and construed the following terms of the '287 patent claims: "lower side" "acute angle" and "cover the concavity." The order is attached below. Alliance%20Packaging%20Claims%

Mark P. Waltershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-87868479633302299172008-03-12T10:14:00.000-07:002008-03-12T15:59:05.400-07:00

Michael Smith is reporting that the recently unmasked "patent TrollTracker," Rick Frenkle, has been sued along with his company Cisco by attorney John ("Johnny") Ward, Jr. of Ward and Smith in Longview, Texas. The allegations originate with a post by trolltracker regarding the filing date of a complaint Ward filed against Cisco for patent infringement in October last year. Download the complaint

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