Deposing your opponent’s patent counsel

Via NYLawyer.com, NY Judge Quashes Subpoena Aimed at Patent Counsel

Defendants in a patent action may not depose the plaintiff’s litigation counsel, even though he was responsible for prosecuting the patents at issue in the case, a Southern District judge ruled yesterday.

Related Posts:

• Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GMBH v. Dana Corporation, et al. (Fed. Cir. en banc)
• Federal Circuit Update (Sept. 30 - Oct 5)
• Gen-Probe Inc., v. Vysis, Inc. (Federal Circuit)

TGIF — How well do you know corporate logos?

OK fellow trademark attorneys…how well do you know corporate logos/brands? Check out the “Retail Alphabet Game” where you are presented with 26 letters snipped out of corporate logo…your job is to guess the corporation/brand. Have fun.

Related Posts:

• Sudoku 101
• Fantasy Football, Blawg-Style
• Greatest thing since sliced toast?

Lawyer jokes

Don’t you love it when one of your family members goes out of their way to tell you a “new” lawyer joke (that you’ve heard 400 times before)? Robert J. Ambrogi recently wrote an article on Law.com regarding websites devoted to lawyer jokes and humor. law.com - Article [Via The Blawg Channel]

Related Posts:

• A Patent Attorney Joke from a Reader
• TGIF: What not to do at a deposition
• “I’ve got the best lawyer soft tacos can buy…”

Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., et al. (Fed. Cir.)

Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., et al.
Federal Circuit, July 29, 2004
Before SCHALL, DYK (opinion) and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Mars, Inc. (“Mars”) appeals the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting appellees H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Heinz Management Company, and Del Monte Corporation (collectively “Heinz”) summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,312,746 (the “’746 patent”). Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., L.P., No. CV-01-10961-RGK (C.D. Cal. Jul. 28, 2003). Because the district court applied the incorrect claim construction, we vacate and remand.

Related Posts:

• AFG Industries, Inc., et al. v. Cardinal IG Company, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Federal Circuit Update (September 13, 2004)
• Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir.)

High Concrete Structures, Inc. v. New Enterprise Stone and Lime Co., Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.)

High Concrete Structures, Inc. v. New Enterprise Stone and Lime Co., Inc., et al.
Download: [zipped .exe file from the court] or [pdf I created]
Federal Circuit, July 29, 2004
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN (opinion) and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.

High Concrete Structures, Inc. (”High Concrete”) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,947,665 (the ‘665 patent) is invalid for failure to comply with the best mode requirement, and consequently not infringed by New Enterprise Stone and Lime Company and Robbins Motor Transportation, Inc. (together “New Enterprise”). Because the district court incorrectly applied the law of best mode, we reverse the summary judgment on this ground, and remand for further proceedings.

Related Posts:

• AFG Industries, Inc., et al. v. Cardinal IG Company, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir.)

Glaxo Group Limited, et al. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Glaxo Group Limited, et al. v. Apotex, Inc.
Federal Circuit, July 27, 2004
Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA.
Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge DYK.

Apotex, Inc. (“Apotex”) appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which found that Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for a generic version of the antibiotic Ceftin® willfully infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,562,181 (the “’181 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 4,820,833 (the “’833 patent”) owned by Glaxo Group Limited and SmithKline Beecham Corp. (collectively “Glaxo”). Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Ill. 2003). While we affirm the district court’s determination that Apotex’s ANDA infringes the ’181 and ’833 patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), and also affirm that the patents at issue are not invalid, we reverse the district court’s finding that Apotex’s ANDA filing constituted willful infringement. We hold that the mere filing of an ANDA cannot constitute an act of willful infringement compensable by attorney’s fees under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Related Posts:

• Smithkline Beecham Corp., et al. v. Apotex Corp., et al.
• Federal Circuit Update (Sept. 30 - Oct 5)
• Goldenberg, et al. v. Cytogen, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.)

Running around like Chicken Little with its head cut off

An interesting post this morning by Ernie The Attorney on the INDUCE Act. Ernie states that he “not a fan of the INDUCE Act” and likewise is “not a fan of the whole ‘chicken little’ approach that some opponents of the INDUCE Act are taking. When you try to get people’s attention by saying that the INDUCE Act threatens the iPod you just lose credibility.”

He raises some legitimate points…but I (personally) don’t think the threat to the iPod is in making it iPods illegal but in making Apple (and others) scared enough of suit that they change the functionality and convenience of the iPod (or their other products).

What does “that” mean? Maybe you wouldn’t be able to copy files off the iPod (make a backup), maybe you could only copy to the iPod from an original CD (you couldn’t just copy an existing .mp3 file to the unit), maybe you’d have to use digital rights management, maybe….etc.

Look at TiVo. TiVo is so paranoid about suit from the “industry” that the box (the newer Series 2 boxes) are locked down like Fort Knox, making it impossible (unless you are some l337 h4×0r) to copy digital recordings to a computer. TiVo is so scared of “the industry” that they don’t dare enable a 30 second skip by default or introduce the ability to skip commercials. An example of “the industry” as it applies to TiVo pressure can be found in my earlier post about Tivo, the NFL and the MPAA.

You can’t tell me that “industry” if they had INDUCE Act power wouldn’t pressure Apple (and the other “chicken little” concerns) into modifying their devices (to the detriment of user ease of use). Thus, I agree that iPods are not going away anytime soon…, but I think the Act, if enacted, would have some unforeseen consequences to the ease of use of many electronic devices we all use. For that reason…I say: run Chicken Little, run….

Related Posts:

• TiVo’s , NFL and MPAA
• Apple gets IP
• Tivo To Go is a go

Articles: PTO Reexam process & Licensing lawyers

A couple more articles from this month’s IP Law & Business

PTO Update: A Second Look
The reexamination process may be in need of a reexamination.
By Stephen Maebius, Sean Passino, and Harold Wegner

License to Hire
With deals on the rise, companies want their own licensing lawyers.
By Alexei Oreskovic

Related Posts:

• April IP Law & Business on-line
• June IP Law & Business Magazine
• Invention Promotion Scams and other articles

InventBlog.com

I have done some “domain mapping” here at NP blog…moving to the URL www.inventblog.com. This shouldn’t (in theory) affect any of you…you can still go to nip.blogs.com/patent or nip.blogs.com to see the site.

Neccessity’s Progeny is (of course) Invention…so a gradual transition to the “Invent Blog” has been in the works for some time. Don’t worry…I have no intention to change content. I’m just spiffing the place up a little bit….

Let me know if there are “domain mapping” issues…broken links, other problems. The transition is supposed to be seamless…

So….welcome to the Invent Blog.

Related Posts:

• The Invent Blog Improvements
• Five things I would do differently if I started blogging today
• Invent Blog Maintenance

Reminder re: USPTO fees

Matthew at Promote the Progress reminding us all that the latest USPTO fee increase went into effect yesterday….note to self.

Related Posts:

• Changes to USPTO Fees coming soon
• Don’t forget, a number of PCT changes are effective today
• New USPTO Fee Schedule Effective TODAY