On October 11, Bartonfalls filed patent lawsuits against Ziff Davis (the owners of PC Magazine), Viacom, Advance Publications (over the website for GQ; GQ and Ars are both owned by Conde Nast, which is in turn owned by Advance Publications), Scripps Networks (HGTV), Bloomberg, Allrecipes.com, NBC Universal, Turner Broadcasting, the New York Times Company, Forbes, ABC, Discovery, CBS, and Consumers Union (Consumer Reports).
Each claims that websites owned by these large publishers violate the '922 patent because when a viewer is done watching an online video, their video players cue up another video and automatically start playing it when the first video ends. Love this feature or hate it, it's an extremely common way of serving up online video.
"We are in the process of hiring counsel and will vigorously fight this claim," said one defendant "We plan to work with the other companies that were sued to challenge the patents."
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Boilerplate – New Consideration in View of Patent Subject Matter
Can boilerplate language describing possible variations to an invention ever impact validity of a patent?
Many software patents include standard “boilerplate” text describing many ways to implement an invention, such as by discussing execution of the software on a smart phone, laptop, mainframe, PDA, audio player, or even a refrigerator! This boilerplate language is often added to patent applications to broaden the potential scope of the recited terms or provide additional support for recited claim terms.
In Nextpoint v. Hewlett-Packard, an Illinois district court used such “broadening” boilerplate language against the patent holder deciding this is an abstract idea and thus not eligible for patent protection under section 101.
Many software patents include standard “boilerplate” text describing many ways to implement an invention, such as by discussing execution of the software on a smart phone, laptop, mainframe, PDA, audio player, or even a refrigerator! This boilerplate language is often added to patent applications to broaden the potential scope of the recited terms or provide additional support for recited claim terms.
In Nextpoint v. Hewlett-Packard, an Illinois district court used such “broadening” boilerplate language against the patent holder deciding this is an abstract idea and thus not eligible for patent protection under section 101.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Opinion: How to Avoid Legal Problems in Collaborative Research
The path from the discovery of the CRISPR/Cas mechanism as part of bacteria’s adaptive immune system to the use of this pathway in the food industry and later as a breakthrough gene-editing tool is a good illustration of the power of collaboration among scientists across disciplines. Yet CRISPR’s development also serves as a salient warning of how failing to assign clear and up-front ownership of intellectual property (IP) can result in prolonged and costly legal friction.
That Other CRISPR Patent Dispute
Normally, if an inventor believed he or she was left off a patent, he or she could raise the issue in the patent office or federal court and appeal to have it added, explained Dan Burk of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. Yet, for reasons that are unclear, the university didn’t go this route. “It’s hard to tell what [Rockefeller] wanted to accomplish,” said Burk.
If the patent application move by Rockefeller isn’t unusual enough, there’s this: the Broad alleges that the university filed the application without ever telling the institute.
In a letter sent to the USPTO in August 2014, Ellen Law, a lawyer representing the Broad, wrote that the institute had nothing to do with Rockefeller’s application. “The present application was NOT FILED WITH ANY NOTICE to Feng Zhang, the Broad or MIT prior to its filing,” she wrote (emphasis Law’s), adding that the Broad’s position maintained that Marraffini was not an inventor of the described technology.
If the patent application move by Rockefeller isn’t unusual enough, there’s this: the Broad alleges that the university filed the application without ever telling the institute.
In a letter sent to the USPTO in August 2014, Ellen Law, a lawyer representing the Broad, wrote that the institute had nothing to do with Rockefeller’s application. “The present application was NOT FILED WITH ANY NOTICE to Feng Zhang, the Broad or MIT prior to its filing,” she wrote (emphasis Law’s), adding that the Broad’s position maintained that Marraffini was not an inventor of the described technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)