itemscope="" itemscope=""

Amazon’s 1-Click Patent Rejected By European Patent Office

July 8, 2011 By
Amazon’s One-Click Feature

An Appeals Board at the European Patent Office (EPO) has ruled that Amazon.com’s 1-Click patent is “obvious” in view of the prior art. 1-Click buying refers to a technique in which online purchases can be made with a single click, using payment information entered by the user previously.

As pointed out in the decision, Web sites use HTTP which is essentially a “stateless” protocol (it does not “remember” things previously done). However, the notion of using cookies to store information on user computers for use later was known in the prior art. Though the EPO Appeals Board conceded that the notion of using cookies to store payment information was not known previously, it was deemed to be obvious in view of the use of cookies generally along with the existence of shopping carts in e-commerce sites at the time.

The 23-page decision is available here.

Silicon Valley Patent Office?

July 6, 2011 By

There is an interesting opinion piece in today’s Silicon Valley Mercury News arguing that the Patent Office ought to create a regional office in Silicon Valley. At present all patent examiners are located in the Washington DC area (the headquarters of the Patent Offce is in Alexandria, Virginia). A previous attempt at starting a Detroit office was put on hold.

The article notes that

With Silicon Valley accounting for 12.5 percent of the nation’s patents last year, this region’s claim for one of the two other offices is unsurpassed. Plus, this area has ample experts who would bring critical knowledge to the patent office. And being closer to a place constantly minting new companies and technologies would keep the patent office on top of the latest innovations.

The main problem with a Silicon Valley is the higher cost of living.. which would mean that it would be difficult to recruit and retain qualified examiners without a pay differential. And what type of pay would be required? The average home in Palo Alto is $1.63 million and in Mountain View is $957.500, for example.

Furthermore, the author  seems to think that the central issue with the patent system is that examiners have insufficient knowledge of current technology. However, as almost all patent pracitioners can attest, the main problems stem from fee diversion (in which Congress takes fees away from the Patent Office) and the irrational “count” system which rewards quantity over quality… neither of which is addressed in the article.

USPTO Student Extern Program to Double in Size this Year

June 25, 2011 By

Last year the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hired about 100 students for “extern” positions. This year the USPTO plans to double the number of externs — to 200 or more.

According to USPTO Director David Kappos:
“The PEEP program is one of our premier methods of finding talented individuals who are able to do the kind of challenging and rewarding work we do here at the USPTO. It represents a unique opportunity for students to get hands-on experience and truly learn what it is like to work at the Patent Office.

“This program helps us identify and recruit future, fulltime patent examiners, a facet that has several implications for the program. PEEP integrates theories learned at universities with real-world practice and implementation of those theories, with substantive work within our offices and technology centers. Though the specific duties vary based on the student’s selected position and their level of education, I can assure all those interested in PEEP that they will not only be challenged by what we have in store, but will also be encouraged to learn and enjoy working at the USPTO. I’m in close contact with the individuals heading up the program for us this summer, and I know they are dedicated to ensuring that it will be our best yet.”

 More information is available here.

Miscelaneous IP Nuggets #5

June 24, 2011 By

1) The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249 (aka the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act) by a voice vote of 304 to 117. The House bill will now have to be reconciled with the Senate version. The bill would do away with the current first-to-invent regime and replace it with a first-to-file system.

2) In the case of Microsoft v. i4i (SCOTUS 10-290), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Mircrosoft’s argument that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard in patent cases should be replaced by a preponderance of the evidence rule.  Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alioto, and Kagan joined the opinion, and Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Roberts recused himself since he owns stock in Microsoft. This is a victory for patent owners.

3) Apple Computer’s trademark “App Store” is “probably” not infringed by Amazon’s “Amazon Appstore for Android”, according to U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who stated after a hearing that she is “probably” going to deny the motion because Apple hasn’t demonstrated confusion among consumers. (Source: Bloomberg News).

4) The trademarks for the Palin’s names  (Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin have now been issued.  Strange that this was not reported in the media, though the iniitial rejection by the Trademark Office was widely noted.

Supreme Court to Review Patentability of Medical Diagnostic Patents

June 22, 2011 By

On June 20th the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiori in the case of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Promethius Laboratories, Inc. This patents at issue are: US Patent No. 6,355,623 and US Patent No. 6,680,302 which involve methods for treating certain gastrointestinal disorders such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn’s disease, and ulceritive colitus.  The patents involve methods for testing the patient’s blood for the presence of 6-thioguanie and administering a particular dosage of 6-meercaptopurine. The method also ensures that the administered drug is not toxic to the subject at the level administered.

Appellant Mayo (defendant in the case below) argues that these patents are invalid because they involve non-statutory subject matter. The question presented is:

Whether 35 U.S.C. § 101 is satisfied by a patent claim that covers observed correlations between blood test results and patient health, so that the claim effectively preempts all uses of the naturally occurring correlations, simply because well-known methods used to administer prescription drugs and test blood may involve “transformations” of body chemistry.

Can a tattoo be copyrighted?

June 21, 2011 By

That was the question put to U.S. District Court Judge Catherine D. Perry by plaintiff tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill, the person who created the tattoo adorning former boxer Mike Tyson’s face. When the “Tyson tattoo” was worn by actor Ed Helms in the film The Hangover: Part II, Mr. Whitmil sued for copyright infringement. In its answer, Warner Bros. stated that tattoos (or any other artwork on the human body) are not copyrightable. Although there is limited case law on human body artwork, the Copyright Act merely requires that the work be fixed in a tangible form. Putting ink to skin is analogous to putting it to paper, so the argument would seem to lack merit.

The other defense raised by Warner Brothers is more substantive. Warner Bros. also stated that the usage of the Tyson tattoo on the character’s face was a form of parody protected under the Fair Use Docrine. The character was portrayed in the film as being cowardly / weak. There is humor in portraying him with Mike Tyson’s face tattoo.  But humor is not the same as parody.

In any case, the matter has since be settled, as reported here.

USPTO Launches Trademark Dashboard

May 31, 2011 By

As we mentioned in an earlier post, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched its Patent Dashboard showing vital statisitcs for the Patent Office, such as patent pendency (currently 25.9 months) and number of cases waiting a first action (currently 178,392).  Now the USPTO has launched a Trademark Dashboard, similar in concept, but covering trademarks.

Compared with patents, trademarks are processed much faster.  Trademark pendancy has reached historically low levels as measured by the time from filing to first action (within 2.5 and 3.5 months).  Total disposals are about 12.5 months.

Of course,  patent examination is far more difficult, and requires more resources, so it would  be inappropriate to compare the two.

Disney Withdraws Trademark for “SEAL Team 6”

May 27, 2011 By

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Walt Disney announced today that it would pull a controversial trademark application for “SEAL Team 6” “out of defference to the Navy”, a spokesman stated. Seal Team 6 was reportedly the team that killed Osama bin Laden. However, officially, the Navy does not admit that the team exists. Shortly after Disney filed for “SEAL Team 6”, the Navy had filed its own marks for “SEAL Team” and “Navy SEALs”.

Patent Attorney Sings with Paul Simon

May 26, 2011 By

According to an article in the Washington Post, rock legend Paul Simon was giving a concert at Constitution Hall (Washington DC) and was having difficulty remembering the words to the song “Gomboots”. When a fan in the front row shouted out the lines to the song, Simon invited him on stage.

As the below video shows, the man gave an inspired performance. It turns out that the fan was patent attorney Paul Fournier, and has long been a fan of Simon’s music. That the person was an attorney is hardly surprising, though, given that the Washington DC area has the largest concentration of lawyers in the country.

24,583 Bit Torrent Users Targeted for Copyright Infringement

May 24, 2011 By

Voltage Picture, the producers of the film Hurt Locker, have retained the law firm of Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver to target 24,583 BitTorrent users who allegedly downloaded pirated copes of the film. BitTorrent offers software that allowws for peer-to-peer transfer of files, particularly videos and audio. However, users of this software who violate copyright laws may be liable. The way it usually works, in practice, is that the copyright owner asks / subpoenas the user’s ISP for the user’s IP address, then sends a “settlement offer” to the user. If the person does not “settle”, then the company may file a lawsuit in federal court. Many of these cases wind up being thrown out  for various reasons including lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. A list of the IP addresses cited in the law suit is shown below.

ipaddresses

« Previous Page
Next Page »