• patent

    Invention and Assignment of Patents

    by  • October 28, 2008 • patent

    A couple of ownership cases of interest. First, Oren Tavory failed in his effort to join in the NTP jackpot also known as the RIM settlement – he’s not a co-inventor because he didn’t have evidence that his contribution to the invention was more than simply the exercise of ordinary skill in the art....

    Read more →

    Patent Ownership and Joint Development Agreements

    by  • October 8, 2008 • patent

    It was big news when Lucent Technologies won a $1.5 billion patent infringement suit against Gateway, Dell and Microsoft.  Less memorable was when the jury award was tossed on a motion for judgment as a matter of law (Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 509 F.Supp.2d 912 (S.D.Cal. 2007)).  Now, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the...

    Read more →

    Patents in the Ether, Admission to the Rescue

    by  • October 4, 2008 • patent

    THERASENSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant.No. C 04-02123 WHAConsolidated with No. C 04-03327 WHA, No. C 04-03732 WHA,No. C 05-03117 WHAUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76716 July 14, 2008, DecidedJuly 14, 2008, Filed  OPINION ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Abbott Laboratories filed this...

    Read more →

    Positively Perfect in Every Way

    by  • September 30, 2008 • patent

    Positive Technologies whiffed the first patent infringement complaint by filing in the name of the wrong entity, Positive-California, when it should have been filed in the name of Positive-Nevada.  Positive calls a mulligan and refiles in the correct entity’s name, then the two companies merge into Positive Technologies, Inc. The standing problems aren’t over...

    Read more →

    Aerotel Visits the United States

    by  • August 27, 2008 • patent

    The name “Aerotel” is fairly well known in the UK, at least among software companies. The UK doctrine on patentability of business methods and software is known as Aerotel/Macrossan, after the pair of cases decided in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan’s application EWCA 1371 (Civ) (2006-10-27)....

    Read more →

    Lesson Learned

    by  • July 31, 2008 • patent

    This is a story that makes lawyers groan “if only I could’ve been there.” The plaintiff, Miller, had an idea for a four-way induction unit for an air handling system. He told his idea to Shutes, who introduced him to defendant M&I Heat Transfer Products, a company that designed and manufactured induction units. M&I,...

    Read more →

    Invention Made for Hire

    by  • July 25, 2008 • patent

    The Patent Prospector reports on an inventor who invented, changed companies, and the new employer filed the patent applications. Didn’t work out so well for the patent infringement claim, but that’s not even the end of the worries. Patent Prospector here.News story here.

    Read more →

    Shifting IP

    by  • June 30, 2008 • patent

    Update: See more recent post on related case here. In large corporate entities, intellectual property is often placed and moved around to improve the company’s tax position. The IP department may not be consulted on the shift, finding out only at the last minute when it is asked to execute the assignments that the...

    Read more →