Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:00 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

Why, you ask?  Did they demand higher wages? More vacation hours?  Better work conditions?  No, no, and no.  They simply wanted the EPO to re-examine its patent policies by raising the standards required to gain patent protection in Europe.

According to one article (click here to read), the EPO staff ???claim[s] that the [EPO] is decentralising and focusing on granting as many patents as possible to gain financially from fees generated.???  Some estimates indicate that national patent offices have accumulated over $442.1 million (that???s right, almost half a billion bones) of income from EPO-granted patents.  And that is for the 2007 fiscal year alone!  Projected estimates raise this total to an astonishing $3.9 billion dollars in 2008.  

SUEPO, the EPO staff???s union, has demanded that the European Commission review the EPO administration and patent-granting policies in an effort to raise the quality of patents issued by the EPO.  It appears that SUEPO has at least minimally accomplished its goal, as the Commission dispatched a delegation of officials (including the EU Commissioner himself) to address and evaluate the union???s concerns.  As of today, no official agreement or review has been released, but, it appears, that the EPO staff is back to work.

I guess the old adage still rings true:  ???If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.???

More on this story as information becomes available.  And, as always, comments are much appreciated. 

Photo courtesy of www.suepo.org.

Posted by Michael A. Schade at 04:21 PM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

According to the ruling:

“However, although MedImmune lowers the bar for declaratory judgment jurisdiction, a substantial controversy is still required. In the post-MedImmune authorities relied on by[Plaintiff], a patentee has either demonstrated a preparedness to litigate against the prospective declaratory judgment plaintiff, accused the prospective declaratory judgment plaintiff of infringement, affirmatively asserted its rights to license fees, or engaged in some combination of all three. For example, in Micron Technology, Inc. v. MOSAID Technologies, Inc., 518 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2008), ...

Under these circumstances, the Federal Circuit found that the record demonstrated a “substantial controversy” between the parties under the MedImmune standard.” (Emphasis added).

The instant case is distinguishable because [Defendant] has not demonstrated an intent to litigate against [Plaintiff], has not accused [Plaintiff] of infringement, and has not demanded licensing fees. There is no evidence that [Defendant] has pursued litigation against [Plaintiff].

Considering all the circumstances, the Court finds there is no substantial controversy regarding the … Patent supporting declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Specifically, [Defendant] has not yet established any position on whether [Plaintiff] infringes the ‘356 Patent. [Defendant]’s letter to Plaintiff was a means of gathering information regarding potential infringement, not an assertion of an already determined legal interest adverse to [Plaintiff]. Therefore, because the parties have not established positions of adverse legal interests, there is no substantial controversy regarding the ‘356 patent. Accordingly, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Counts II and III of [Plaintiff]’s Complaint.

A copy of the decision in PDF format can be found by clicking the link (Dismissal Order (26 KB)).

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:14 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

It is summer down here in Phosita-land and we are taking a break from all things blogging.

We will be back shortly with new info, new tutorials and some exciting announcements.

Enjoy your summer break ??? and don???t hate us for the sunshine!

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:50 PM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:33 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:35 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

This time it is the Patent Prospector blasting away at the "over-credentialed chowderheads" who have been huffing and puffing about the havoc patents are inflicting on the economy and innovation.

Lots of good quotes (a couple of which are a bit too risque for PHOSITA), but my favorite:

Jamming what fits into a theoretical construct, leaving as offal inconvenient contrary facts.

Use of "offal" and Alfred E. Neuman in a patent blog post - I am in awe.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:14 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

If you were wondering what this is about - have a read over at Politico for the full angst, political intrique, a bank heist, and patent rhetoric.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:08 PM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

• PATENTCALCULATOR.COM - Determine Patent Expiration Dates and Patent Maintenance Fees
  An online calculator for patent attorneys, businesses and inventors determine the expiration date and maintenance fee dates for United States utility patents.
  (tags: patent maintenancefees expiration)

• Europe???s Patent Demise
  You are a European institution, the European Central Bank, and you seek the invalidation of what has been granted as a valid right by another European institution, the European Patent Office (EPO).
  (tags: epo patent)

• Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): Including Claims in Provisional Patent Applications?
  Good post (and comments) on the pros and cons of including claims in provisional patent applications.
  (tags: provisional patent claim)

• Why Getting a Patent Is Probably a Very Bad Idea
  There is so much wrong in this I don't even know where to start - good for a laugh if nothing else.
  (tags: laughter)

• OCTANe Building Blocks - Avoiding Patent Pitfalls 2008-03-19
  A good response to the "laughable link" in this list. All some business owners should look at this from Knobbe Martens.
  (tags: smart patent ip)

• Big Blue billion dollar patent licensing revenues "an urban legend" - Intellectual Asset Management
  Interesting debate over whether the costs of patents are worth it - using IBM's licensing revenues as a straw man.
  (tags: ibm patent licensing)

• Successful Inventing Equals Successful Marketing
  "Let me explain why the marketing expert early on is so important. Then you can see how you can use this concept to help spur on success in your inventing and patenting activities as well."
  (tags: patent marketing inventors)

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:21 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:25 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

United States Patent 6,933,851
Hahne, et al. August 23, 2005

Air travel security method, system and device

A method of providing air travel security for passengers traveling via an aircraft comprises situating a remotely activatable electric shock device on each of the passengers in position to deliver a disabling electrical shock when activated; and arming the electric shock devices for subsequent selective activation by a selectively operable remote control disposed within the aircraft. The remotely activatable electric shock devices each have activation circuitry responsive to the activating signal transmitted from the selectively operable remote control means. The activated electric shock device is operable to deliver the disabling electrical shock to that passenger.

I just want to know who gets to us the “selectively operable remote control” – it may be a new revenue generator for the airlines.  And while the initial drawings show it being worn on the wrist, the inventors have not limited it to such a configuration – for those of you looking for a nice choker necklace, they haven’t left you out in the cold.

I would be willing to spend up to $100 in order to be able to shock the SOB who decides to slam his seat back into my knees over and over… or… or…

Hmm – perhaps turning each flight into a lord of the flies situation isn’t such a good idea afterall.

I did breathe a sigh of relief, however – it doesn’t appear that the patent has been assigned to any airline.  Whew…

[Via Sore Eyes, via Bruce Schneier, via Techdirt]

UPDATE:  Well, it seems that while the airlines themselves do not appear to be interested in the device – there is a company developing the technology into an actual product – Lamperd Less Lethal.  They have even put up a YouTube showing the benefits of the technology and how it can be used – complete with scary/serious voice over (warning, scenes of 9/11 shown):

And it appears that the Department of Homeland Security has “some interest” (entire PDF of letter (378 KB)):

In discussion with my colleagues and immediate superior, we find your ideas have merit and believe it would be of great help on the borders and indeed for anywhere else, for which the temporarily restraint of large numbers of individuals in open area environments by a small number of agents or Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs).  We see the potential uses to include prisoner transportation, detainee control and the military security forces might have some interest.  In addition, it is conceivable to envision a use to improve air security, on passenger planes.

So – you never know.  In the near future, you could be wearing a choker and being tasered by some unknown “keeper of the device”. 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:58 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:18 AM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

Seventeen year old British college student Rachel Gilbert has reached the final of a national competition, the Ideas Igloo Roadshow, with her design for feline false teeth.

They look a little ghoulish, but have a noble purpose: "When animals suffer broken or rotten teeth, they have had to be removed," Rachel told her local newspaper, The Sheffield Star. "The gum can become infected and they find it difficult to chew food. We aim to reduce animals' suffering and improve their quality of life." Local vets are already on board with the design, which was created after taking a mold from a cat with damaged teeth. This revolution in animal dentistry could also be extended to dogs and sheep.

Rachel and her team of eight now have two minutes to pitch their idea to a panel of American Inventor-style entrepreneurs for a chance to win ??2000 (around $4000) to help launch their business.

Good luck Rachel!  Just watch out so that you don't become the "crazy cat lady" who lives at the end of everyone's block.

Via: Teenager designs false teeth for cats (no, really)

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:51 PM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

Some students at a British high-school wanted to wear colored nail polish, but their school prohibited any kind of make up. They found the ban to be unfair so they came up with a novel approach that would keep them out of detention, but allow them to wear their blood-red fingertips.

They invented nail polish that disappears when its not in the sun.

Presented with a problem, these students came up with a solution.  I hope that their science teacher gives them an A.  Better yet, one of the chemical power house colleges should recruit them and provide them with full scholarships.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:15 PM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.

It may be an interesting coincidence, but I dare you to read the linked article from the NY Times about the Supreme Court and its seemingly pro-business rulings of late, and substitute the word “patent” for “business” ….

Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting [business] Patent interests. Of the 30 [business] Patent cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or two dissenting votes. 

In opinions last term, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing — a strategy championed by progressive groups like Public Citizen but routinely denounced by conservatives as “regulation by litigation.” Conrad reeled off some of her favorite moments: “Justice Ginsburg talked about how ‘[private-securities fraud actions] Patent Litigation, if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively.’ Justice Breyer had a wonderful quote about how Congress was trying to ‘weed out unmeritorious [securities lawsuits] Patents.’ Justice Souter talked about how the threat of litigation ‘will push cost-conscious defendants to settle.’ ”

Is it just me?

Supreme Court Inc. - New York Times.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:03 PM.

Copyright 2004 - 2008 Dunlap Codding and Rogers PC. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only and may not be republished in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of the publisher.