Off-Topic Computer Ramblings

I thought I’d mention some off-topic computer tidbits….

I have been trying out Windows XP Service Pack 2 (beta) on my computer at home (you DO NOT want to install something like that on your main computer…just in case it wipes out your computer…nothing worse than spending billable time (or paying someone) to fix your tinkering). I don’t know that I notice much of a difference other than the fact that the firewall is turned on by default (a good thing) and the wireless settings/connection has been reworked. The full scoop on what is different can be found in the latest “Scot’s Newsletter” (which is worth subscribing to).

Earlier today, Ernie the Attorney posted on “Internet Explorer: not ready for prime time,” talking about alternatives to IE. It amazes me how often he reads my mind…I (who hasn’t used anything but IE for years), a few days ago, downloaded the new “FIREFOX” browser put out by Mozilla. I must say, it was pretty slick…downloading all of my cookies, settings, bookmarks, etc. It seems to be faster than IE at loading pages…maybe it is just me. It is worth checking out…

Related Posts:

• My switch (partial) to Mac…update
• Windows v. Macintosh v. Linux
• FireFox

How people find this blog

I haven’t mentioned “how people find this blog” lately (personally, I find it interesting). Here is the top 20 search terms (for people that found NP blog via a search engine) for the last month or so:

[#1] quando omni flunkus moritati (Google)
mpep (Google)
ip jobs (Google)
chiron v. genentech (Google)
windows v linux (Google)
patent blog (Google)
cargo magazine (Google)
patent law (Google)
Patent law 2005 Pharmaceuticals (Google)
honeywell sundstrand (Google)
gmail application (Google)
pennie & edmonds (Google)
National Steel Car (Google)
university of rochester f3d (Google)
Patent Bar Exam (Google)
blog pfizer (Google)
“patent attorney” seattle robot (Google)
patent mediation wipo (Google)
upgrade tivo software (Google)
[#20] poland patent law (Google)

If you are bored…search Google for any of those phrases to see how high NP blog is. Proof of the power of blogging. Now if I could just get people to visit the blog who want to hire me….

Related Posts:

• TIB in the news
• New Kid on the European Blawgk
• My most popular search terms

Competitive Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Fujitsu Limited, et al. (Fed. Cir.)

Competitive Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Fujitsu Limited, et al.
Federal Circuit, June 30, 2004
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by DYK.

The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (“the University”) brought suit against Fujitsu Limited; Fujitsu General Limited; Fujitsu Hitachi Plasma Display Limited; Fujitsu General America, Inc.; and Fujitsu Microelectronics, Inc. (collectively, “Fujitsu”), alleging that Fujitsu infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 4,866,349 (the “’349 patent”) and 5,081,400 (the “’400 patent”). Fujitsu asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims against the University. The University sought to have some of the counterclaims dismissed on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the University’s motion to dismiss Counterclaims 6-11 but stated that “it may be necessary to revisit the question of [the University’s] waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Competitive Techs. v. Fujitsu Ltd., 286 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1140 n.15 (N.D. Cal. 2003). The University appealed, claiming that the district court’s order was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine of Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Related Posts:

• Dynacore Holdings Corp., et al. v. U.S. Philips Corp., et al.
• Unova, Inc. v. Acer Inc., et al. (Fed.Cir.)
• Federal Circuit Update

TI Group Automotive Systems (North America), Inc. v. VDO North America, L.L.C., et al. (Fed. Cir.)

TI Group Automotive Systems (North America), Inc. v. VDO North America, L.L.C., et al.
June 30, 2004, Federal Circuit
Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by LINN.

TI Group Automotive Systems, L.L.C. (“TI Group”), appeals from a post-trial decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that VDO North America, L.L.C., Mannesmann VDO AG, Siemens VDO Automotive Corp., and Siemens VDO Automotive AG (collectively “VDO” or “defendants”) do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 4,860,714 (“the ’714 patent”) [”In-tank fuel pump assembly for fuel-injected engines”]. TI Group Auto. Sys. (N. Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., No. 00-432-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2002) (“JMOL Infringement Opinion”). The defendants cross-appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for JMOL of invalidity of the ’714 patent. TI Group Auto. Sys. (N. Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., No. 00-432-GMS (D. Del. June 6, 2003) (“JMOL Invalidity Opinion”). Because we affirm the district court’s claim constructions of the disputed terms “reservoir” and “within,” and further, because we conclude that the facts presented at trial are sufficient to support the district court’s grant of judgment of non-infringement in VDO’s favor, we affirm the district court’s JMOL Infringement Opinion. However, because we reverse some of the district court’s claim constructions, we vacate the district court’s JMOL Invalidity Opinion and remand the invalidity issues to the district court for further proceedings in light of the claim constructions set forth in this opinion.

Related Posts:

• Federal Circuit Update - September 14-17, 2004
• Koito Manufacturing Co., LTD., et al. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC., et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir.)

New FCBJ

Latest Federal Circuit Bar Journal
2004 - Vol. 13, No. 4

“The Prior Art By Admission Doctrine: Judicially Created Prior Art”
“Effect of the Publication of Applications Under the American Invenotr Protection Act of 1999″
Defending Against Patent Infringement Suits In Standard-Setting Organizations: Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG”
“Where The Rabbit Hole Ends: A Working Model For Measuring Winstar-Type Damages in the Federal Circuit”
“Limiting Lanham to Save Sherman: Narrowing the Application of the FTDA to Further the Goals of Federal Antiturst Law”

Related Posts:

• IP Today Magazine
• Patent Practice Articles on the ‘Net
• New Magazine Covers Federal Circuit Patent Decisions

Rewarding Japanese inventors, American inventors

Update to these three prior posts on IP Law and Business magazine’s June edition. A new article on-line: Smart Pills: Shifting the Balance — The Nakamura case dramatically illustrates how Japanese patent law can sometimes favor inventors over their employers. U.S. inventors aren’t as lucky. By Paul Morico and Thomas Morrow

Related Posts:

• What to do when your witness dies
• Mammoth team of lawyers to fight Microsoft….
• Picking expert witnesses

AOL Instant Messenger and what your buddy is watching on TV?

American Online has a new patent, which for the life of me I can’t see any use for (but maybe it is just me). The patent, USPN 6,754,904, is entitled “Informing network users of television programming viewed by other network users ” and appears to be directed towards allowing an instant messaging user to see what their instant messaging buddy (using a “web TV” style box) is watching on TV.

Related Posts:

• Microsoft and the patently absurd
• iPod Design Patent
• JPEG gets a Markman Date

This week’s Official Gazette

This week’s OG.

1. PCT Information
2. Notice of Maintenance Fees
3. Expiration of Patents
4. Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee
5. Reissue Application Notice
6. Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination
7. Expiration of Registrations
8. Service by Publication
9. Registration to Practice
10. Reinstatement to Register
11. Registration to Practice Erratum
12. Elimination of P.O. Box for Patent Correspondence
13. Postage for Oversized Postcards
14. Status of Office of Public Records Services
15. Certificates of Correction Erratum
16. Certificates of Correction
17-25. Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the TTAB
26. Special Mail Stops for Patents and Address for Trademarks
27. Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries
28. Examining Corps
29. Condition of Applications
30. Subscriptions/Copy Information

Related Posts:

• New Official Gazette
• This Week’s Official Gazette Notice
• Official Gazette Notices for 02 March 2004

Trademark.com

Via the Trademark Blog, Thompson and Thompson has bought Trademark.com’s parent company. Trademark.com provides excellent trademark searching databases (if you haven’t used them before). See also: Thomson Corp. paying $441 million US for Information Holdings Inc.

[Shameless self promotion: my office registered www.trademark.biz and a handful of other .biz IP domain names a few years ago…but never did anything productive with them. Maybe it’s time to better use them or find someone who can…note to self]

Related Posts:

• Patent Bar v. “Trademark Bar” « The Legal Satyricon
• Trademark FAQ
• TIBBIT #2 — Trademark searching

Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir.)

Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc. et al.
Federal Circuit, June 28, 2004
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LINN.

Ron Nystrom (“Nystrom”) appeals from the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1-15 and of invalidity of claims 18-20 of his U.S. Patent No. 5,474,831 (“the ’831 patent”) and from an order denying sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 [Counsel’s liability for excessive costs], entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in favor of defendants TREX Company, Inc. and TREX Company, LLC (collectively “TREX”). Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., No. 2:01cv905 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2002) (original final judgment); Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., No. 2:01cv905 (E.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2003) (amended final judgment). Because the district court erroneously construed certain claim limitations and erred in not properly applying our precedent relating to invalidity, we reverse the district court’s summary judgments of non-infringement and invalidity and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Further, because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nystrom’s motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, we affirm the district court’s disposition of that motion.

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, dissenting-in-part.

I agree with the majority’s conclusions with respect to validity and the affirmance of the district court’s refusal to award sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s construction of the terms “board” and “manufactured to have.”

Related Posts:

• Toro v. Deere (Fed. Cir. 2004)
• International Rectifier Corp. v. Ixys Corp. (Fed. Cir.)
• Federal Circuit update II