tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:59:36 +0000Patent Law Discussions with an Emphasis on Practitioners and Industries in Washington Statehttp://www.wapatents.com/noreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)Blogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5502881292119000860Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:54:00 +00002010-03-17T17:59:36.722-07:00seattle patent litigationseattle patent lawyerspatent litigation seattleIn a case that features Hollywood's David-versus-Goliath story of inventorship (for example see this link), independent inventor Conrad Gardner is suing Toyota for patent infringement of his U.S. Patent No. 7,290,627. The ‘627 Patent covers hybrid vehicle technology for automobiles. Specifically, the patent relates to the use of an internal combustion engine and a separate electric motor for http://www.wapatents.com/2010/03/judge-jones-construes-claims-in-toyota.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5355255057201263427Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:22:00 +00002010-03-12T15:26:01.928-08:00Darby and DarbyThe son of James T. and Ellen Doran (Dunman) Darby, Sam Darby was born in Falcon, Arkansas, February 4, 1867. In the fall of 1882, he went to Annapolis, Maryland, as a cadet in the US Naval Academy. He left the Navy after graduation in 1886. Two years later, he started his undergraduate at Georgetown in Washington, D.C., finishing in 1891, with an LL.B and LL.M in law. During law school, he http://www.wapatents.com/2010/03/goodbye-and-thanks-to-sam-darby.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4572098174473149311Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:22:00 +00002010-02-22T16:31:28.779-08:00CordanceAmazonLooks like local software company, Cordance may get a chance to have a jury determine the amount of damages Amazon owes for infringing certain patents covering aspects of the popular One-Click ordering system. In a case pending in USDC, District of Delaware, Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Cause No. 06-491-MPT, a jury found late last year (among other things) that certain patents asserted byhttp://www.wapatents.com/2010/02/cordance-wins-jmol-in-amazon-one-click.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6668256966130053755Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:40:00 +00002010-01-06T10:48:01.177-08:00interferenceseattle patent litigationpatent attorneys seattlepatent litigation seattleI 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 patenthttp://www.wapatents.com/2010/01/fed-cir-reverses-wdwa-on-rare.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-219724295460274308Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:16:00 +00002009-12-28T11:40:16.310-08:00false marking <!-- /* 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; http://www.wapatents.com/2009/12/federal-circuit-authorizes-qui-tam.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8533444726262890370Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:50:00 +00002009-12-22T09:50:33.116-08:00CAFCi4iMicrosoftToday, 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/12/i4i-prevails-on-appeal.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8927016734114468835Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:38:00 +00002009-12-22T09:38:00.849-08:00point of noveltydesign patentInternational Seaway Trading v. Walgreenspatent attorneys seattleEgyptian Goddess v Swisa 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/12/federal-circuit-scraps-point-of-novelty.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-57134664870313995Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:09:00 +00002009-12-08T10:14:59.582-08:00Implicit NetworksMicrosoftIf 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/12/implicit-networks-accuses-windows-seven.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4113905558772157233Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:13:00 +00002009-12-07T10:13:41.344-08:00discoveryseattle patent litigation"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 ahttp://www.wapatents.com/2009/12/true-cost-of-discovery-disputes.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2914740117040288315Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:01:00 +00002009-12-03T21:01:45.621-08:00 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 Numberhttp://www.wapatents.com/2009/12/seattle-patent-litigation-update.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1710205866172989789Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:43:00 +00002009-11-24T09:43:15.103-08:00local rule changesproposed local patent rules WDWAseattle litigationPatent litigation 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/11/revised-local-rules-become-effective.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5139207078187333196Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:21:00 +00002009-11-18T20:31:27.383-08:00seattle patent litigationAncoraMicrosoftI 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/11/ancora-settles-litigation-with.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-9101434709605361852Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:00:00 +00002009-11-09T12:56:22.109-08:00in re bilskiBig BaboonAmazon 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/11/big-baboon-battles-bilski-court-cites.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-156999046932489061Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:52:00 +00002009-11-03T10:09:18.651-08:00Webxchangedeclaratory judgment statuteMicrosoftMicrosoft 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/11/microsoft-denied-declaratory-judgment.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5238427005865158019Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:54:00 +00002009-10-25T12:28:48.722-07:00CAFCseattle patent litigationseattle patent lawyersdesign patentEgyptian Goddess v SwisaSeeing 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/10/seattle-patent-litigation-update-fall_24.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8944140700529911493Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:47:00 +00002009-09-23T14:52:16.220-07:00i4iMicrosoftAudio 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.http://www.wapatents.com/2009/09/oral-argument-audio-available-in-i4i-v.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6536837552462681276Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:40:00 +00002009-09-14T18:03:30.910-07:00i4iMicrosoftMicrosoft 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/09/microsoft-files-reply-in-i4i-case.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3650140970963135014Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:10:00 +00002009-09-11T10:04:20.405-07:00Lucententire market value ruleMicrosoft 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, http://www.wapatents.com/2009/09/cafc-jurys-360-m-damages-award-against.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4490289876229166324Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:18:00 +00002009-09-10T10:43:05.848-07:00i4iMicrosoftSoftware 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/09/i4i-files-response-brief-at-cafc.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2862261675852234669Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:33:00 +00002009-09-03T15:42:45.056-07:00i4iMicrosoftHal 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/09/i4i-v-microsoft-injunction-stayed.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-7218037730525176242Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:20:00 +00002009-08-27T11:22:11.449-07:00i4iMicrosoftMicrosoft 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 foundhttp://www.wapatents.com/2009/08/microsoft-submits-opening-brief-in-i4i.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3812983229694963332Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:47:00 +00002009-08-25T09:18:19.120-07:00NintendoNintendo 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/08/nintendo-settles-patent-suit-with.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6885180030203805455Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:26:00 +00002009-08-22T10:39:31.177-07:00written descriptionAriad v. Eli LillyYesterday 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/08/ariad-v-lilly-written-description.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2473315726319443080Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:13:00 +00002009-08-22T09:13:39.080-07:00i4iMicrosoftAs 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"). (http://www.wapatents.com/2009/08/judge-davis-orders-microsoft-to-stop.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8122691049105413174Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:22:00 +00002009-08-08T09:29:21.820-07:00USPTOThe 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 http://www.wapatents.com/2009/08/section-293-and-baseball.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mark P. Walters)0