<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499</id><updated>2012-02-16T07:22:30.494-08:00</updated><category term='Ward v. Cisco'/><category term='TomTom'/><category term='Chiron'/><category term='Richo'/><category term='power management'/><category term='patent law'/><category term='China'/><category term='Seagate'/><category term='Z4'/><category term='Wireless Gaming'/><category term='Obviousness'/><category term='subject matter jurisdiction'/><category term='scheduling order'/><category term='HR 1908'/><category term='Hal Wegner'/><category term='arthropathy'/><category term='Intel Corp.'/><category term='Dell'/><category term='6785825'/><category term='095'/><category term='Kevin Zilka'/><category term='5568779'/><category term='walgreens'/><category term='6263064'/><category term='WSPLA'/><category term='summary judgment no willfulness'/><category term='campbell pet co'/><category term='video-coding technolgy'/><category term='Rick Frenkle'/><category term='verimatrix'/><category term='amercare'/><category term='5134689'/><category term='6421439'/><category term='written description'/><category term='ADC'/><category term='6073124'/><category term='patent'/><category term='FSA'/><category term='FTC'/><category term='CRS LLC'/><category term='forum non conveniens'/><category term='local patent rules'/><category term='judge ward'/><category term='innovation'/><category term='Gametap'/><category term='Chicago IP Litigation Blog'/><category term='Real Networks'/><category term='Invalid'/><category term='TBS'/><category term='patent cases Western District of Washington'/><category term='Lucent'/><category term='5543197'/><category term='Michigan Law Review'/><category term='Big Baboon'/><category term='Microsoft'/><category term='Joint Rule 37 Submission'/><category term='Judge Huff'/><category term='construing claims to preserve validity'/><category term='Nothinz'/><category term='microscan'/><category term='judge lasnik'/><category term='applet patents'/><category term='Simulab Corporation'/><category term='Acacia'/><category term='BPAI'/><category term='cardiac science'/><category term='hot keys'/><category term='5347295'/><category term='BBN'/><category term='Faraday’s Law of Induction'/><category term='USPTO rule changes'/><category term='International Seaway Trading v. Walgreens'/><category term='GSK'/><category term='Blount'/><category term='USPTO'/><category term='Loyola'/><category term='Multiplexers'/><category term='innovate'/><category term='Intellectual Ventures'/><category term='Dougherty'/><category term='preliminary injunction'/><category term='4958226'/><category term='KSR'/><category term='philips'/><category term='local rule changes'/><category term='Paul Nelson'/><category term='i4i'/><category term='Bristol-Myers'/><category term='expedited discovery hearing'/><category term='relief from scheduling order'/><category term='Judge Settle'/><category term='supplemental patent rules'/><category term='willfulness'/><category term='Inc.'/><category term='MDL 1948'/><category term='John Duffy'/><category term='Red Hat'/><category term='Judge Jones'/><category term='Judge Anna J. Brown'/><category term='Paltalk Holdings Inc.'/><category term='Rebecca S Eisenberg'/><category term='Free-B-Ring flavanoids'/><category term='PatentlyO'/><category term='ATT v. Microsoft'/><category term='Amazon'/><category term='extraterritoriality'/><category term='Digeo'/><category term='B2B'/><category term='5558147'/><category term='Johnny Ward'/><category term='Judge Pechman'/><category term='Discovery Communications'/><category term='article III'/><category term='6343991'/><category term='walker process'/><category term='digital play lists'/><category term='patent infringement overseas'/><category term='Boeing'/><category term='Vonage'/><category term='Cordance'/><category term='Kodak'/><category term='Networking'/><category term='sun'/><category term='271(f)'/><category term='US Patent Law'/><category term='Invalidated'/><category term='preliminary infringement contentions'/><category term='Translogic'/><category term='declaratory judgment statute'/><category term='federal circuit court of appeals'/><category term='immersion'/><category term='Patent litigation'/><category term='GE'/><category term='K2'/><category term='Judge Robart'/><category term='haptic technology'/><category term='IP enforcement'/><category term='ED of VA'/><category term='ruling'/><category term='ZymoGenetics'/><category term='gaming'/><category term='Dennis Crouch'/><category term='Timeline'/><category term='Panasonic'/><category term='jury verdict'/><category term='standing order'/><category term='ND of Cal. local patent rules'/><category term='innovation alliance'/><category term='4999461'/><category term='proposed local patent rules WDWA'/><category term='new rules'/><category term='Implicit Networks'/><category term='Darby and Darby'/><category term='estoppel'/><category term='Kyocera'/><category term='Cane Creek'/><category term='Alliance Packaging'/><category term='cyclooxygenase enzyme (COX-2) mediated inflammation'/><category term='Western District of Washington'/><category term='Turner Broadcasting System'/><category term='RAM'/><category term='NIVIDIA'/><category term='exlcusive license'/><category term='motion to stay'/><category term='en banc'/><category term='Congress'/><category term='Judge Ron Carter'/><category term='Sprint'/><category term='imitate'/><category term='design patent'/><category term='alcatel-lucent'/><category term='entire market value rule'/><category term='National Products'/><category term='WDWA'/><category term='Gamco'/><category term='146 action'/><category term='U.S. Patent No. 5'/><category term='judge martinez'/><category term='Chef&apos;n'/><category term='6430289'/><category term='loops'/><category term='6976248'/><category term='games'/><category term='ProClarity'/><category term='Veritas'/><category term='personal jurisdiction'/><category term='Karl M. Manheim'/><category term='case or controversy'/><category term='Altitute Capital Partners'/><category term='Quanta'/><category term='6763345'/><category term='federal circuit bar association'/><category term='Vtran Media'/><category term='Eveready industrial Services Corp'/><category term='hillcrest labs'/><category term='injunction'/><category term='patent litigation tacoma'/><category term='settlement'/><category term='AIPLA'/><category term='Senate'/><category term='Champerty'/><category term='Glaxosmithkline'/><category term='tafas'/><category term='patent litigation seattle'/><category term='Time Warner'/><category term='inducement'/><category term='In re Seagate'/><category term='US Pat. No. 5933630'/><category term='chain saw'/><category term='Skype'/><category term='ethics violations'/><category term='Crocs'/><category term='pat'/><category term='special master'/><category term='interactive web site'/><category term='5313229'/><category term='wide short ski'/><category term='patent litigation statistics'/><category term='tacoma patents'/><category term='4439759'/><category term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category term='6728357'/><category term='Autodesk'/><category term='Hanvon'/><category term='IBM'/><category term='LabCorp v. Metabolite'/><category term='6243094'/><category term='TriLink'/><category term='implied license'/><category term='title'/><category term='aines'/><category term='international patent exhaustion'/><category term='motion for summary judgment'/><category term='judge zilly'/><category term='Egyptian Goddess v Swisa'/><category term='miale'/><category term='VoIP'/><category term='mandamus'/><category term='Cacheris'/><category term='CAC'/><category term='RE34187; 4878553'/><category term='NPI'/><category term='teragren'/><category term='false marking'/><category term='Screentone'/><category term='TSR'/><category term='Audible'/><category term='6135886'/><category term='Judge Leighton'/><category term='FRCP 7.1'/><category term='claim construction'/><category term='4383272'/><category term='Charles E. Bullock'/><category term='community patent review'/><category term='transfer of venue'/><category term='Seattle Patents'/><category term='Arizona Biltmore'/><category term='rule changes'/><category term='retroactivity'/><category term='in re bilski'/><category term='local rules'/><category term='Crox'/><category term='letters to senators'/><category term='285'/><category term='belkin'/><category term='exceptional case'/><category term='Premier International Associates'/><category term='patent troll'/><category term='6324685'/><category term='Full Speed Ahead'/><category term='Nintendo'/><category term='Nextel'/><category term='F and G Research'/><category term='seattle patent litigation'/><category term='AMD'/><category term='cognex'/><category term='6044471'/><category term='patent invalid'/><category term='ED of Texas'/><category term='Saxon'/><category term='ITC'/><category term='BPAI Rule Changes'/><category term='and Computer Associates'/><category term='HP'/><category term='peer to patent project'/><category term='ex parte langemyr'/><category term='Sklar'/><category term='Game controller patents'/><category term='inter partes reexamination'/><category term='privilege log'/><category term='RE35329'/><category term='software patents'/><category term='LG v Quanta'/><category term='osteoarthritis'/><category term='770'/><category term='Plyboo'/><category term='IGN Entertainment'/><category term='Judge Cacheris'/><category term='trolltracker'/><category term='IGT'/><category term='bar-code'/><category term='patent infringement'/><category term='Summary Judgment'/><category term='EFF'/><category term='shirts'/><category term='report on china patent litigation'/><category term='S 1145'/><category term='5603522'/><category term='business methods'/><category term='sham litigation'/><category term='COJK'/><category term='USDC Western District of Washington'/><category term='Flexiworld'/><category term='pre-filing investigation'/><category term='Judge Burgess'/><category term='patent reform'/><category term='6102802'/><category term='assay'/><category term='pleading with specificity'/><category term='Inequitable conduct'/><category term='Campell Pet Co.'/><category term='6025843'/><category term='6243725'/><category term='Hatch'/><category term='medimmune'/><category term='patentable subject matter'/><category term='Novartis'/><category term='CAFC'/><category term='Community Design'/><category term='inequitable conduict'/><category term='Univestin'/><category term='Patent CLE'/><category term='constitution'/><category term='in re comiskey'/><category term='wash and wear'/><category term='Synbone AG'/><category term='inc'/><category term='standing'/><category term='Sony'/><category term='in re certain foam footwear'/><category term='ex parte wasynczuk'/><category term='Shell Company'/><category term='prokop labs llc'/><category term='staples'/><category term='post-grant review'/><category term='Windows NT'/><category term='wistron'/><category term='star trac'/><category term='Judge Bryan'/><category term='dead inventor'/><category term='Webxchange'/><category term='Australia Unlimited'/><category term='Bill Gates'/><category term='Mouse'/><category term='Smith and Fong'/><category term='Staged Discovery'/><category term='EU'/><category term='GPS'/><category term='taltech limited'/><category term='D517789'/><category term='FCBA'/><category term='5566913'/><category term='seattle litigation'/><category term='Patent venue'/><category term='surgical trainer'/><category term='Kindle'/><category term='fees'/><category term='chen'/><category term='HIV'/><category term='interference'/><category term='voluntary dismissal'/><category term='Leahy'/><category term='foam shoes'/><category term='5691513'/><category term='trainman lantern'/><category term='patent exhaustion'/><category term='4763356'/><category term='Zilly'/><category term='Amicus Briefs'/><category term='Emergency appeal by PTO'/><category term='Canon'/><category term='6629163'/><category term='LG'/><category term='5999084'/><category term='Wacom'/><category term='Lee Johnson'/><category term='fluke'/><category term='one-click'/><category term='fenner investments'/><category term='35 USC Section 101'/><category term='claims construction'/><category term='Nortel'/><category term='abuts'/><category term='Ariad v. Eli Lilly'/><category term='David L. Schwartz'/><category term='Judge Bullock'/><category term='TGN'/><category term='wii'/><category term='bamboo flooring'/><category term='in re halftone color separations'/><category term='Supreme Court'/><category term='judge coughenhour'/><category term='esquel apparel'/><category term='Fish Richardson'/><category term='unigen'/><category term='Ancora'/><category term='Trudeau'/><category term='widevine'/><category term='Hitachi'/><category term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category term='vacate'/><category term='Gamber-Johnson'/><category term='7156287'/><category term='McKool Smith'/><category term='point of novelty'/><category term='Troll Tracker'/><category term='Weyerhaeuser'/><category term='persdonal jurisdiction'/><category term='Peter Zura'/><category term='Reexamination'/><category term='discovery'/><title type='text'>Washington State Patent Law Blog</title><subtitle type='html'>Patent Law Discussions with an Emphasis on Practitioners and Industries in Washington State</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><link rel='next' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default?start-index=101&amp;max-results=100'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>174</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3524104584071608299</id><published>2011-03-03T13:42:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2011-03-03T13:42:20.358-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent reform'/><title type='text'>Patent Reform 2011</title><summary type='text'>By Andrew Wasson

Congress moved closer towards the passage of a major overhaul to the Patent Act on March 1, 2010 with a bi-partisan manager’s amendment to S. 23 (now titled, the “America Invents Act” or in this memo, “the Act”).  While failed attempts to effectuate patent reform stretch back to at least 2005, Senator Leahy introduced S. 23 on January 25, 2011.  The Judiciary Committee ordered </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3524104584071608299/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3524104584071608299' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3524104584071608299'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3524104584071608299'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/patent-reform-2011.html' title='Patent Reform 2011'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3029662964619186434</id><published>2010-12-14T08:44:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2010-12-14T08:44:55.544-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='inducement'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Amicus Briefs'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><title type='text'>Amicus Briefs filed in Global Tech v. SEB</title><summary type='text'>On December 6, 2010, Frommer Lawrence &amp; Haug LLP filed a Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party on behalf of the Federal Circuit Bar Association with the Supreme Court of the United States in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. and Pentalpha Enterprises, Ltd. v. SEB S.A. (10-6). The Court’s ruling in this case will decide the legal standard for the state of mind element of a claim for </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3029662964619186434/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3029662964619186434' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3029662964619186434'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3029662964619186434'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/12/amicus-briefs-filed-in-global-tech-v.html' title='Amicus Briefs filed in Global Tech v. SEB'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4079410466371561352</id><published>2010-11-10T08:04:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2010-11-10T08:04:50.383-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='mandamus'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ED of Texas'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Patent venue'/><title type='text'>Microsoft Wins Mandamus at the CAFC: Allvoice Suit Headed to Washington State</title><summary type='text'>The CAFC granted mandamus yesterday, overruling a decision by Judge Davis (U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Texas) to let a software patent infringement suit against Microsoft continue in Texas rather than Washington state.

According to the ruling (per curium by Judges Newmanm Friedman, and Lourie), all individuals identified by Microsoft as having material information relating to the patents reside</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4079410466371561352/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4079410466371561352' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4079410466371561352'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4079410466371561352'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/microsoft-wins-mandamus-at-cafc.html' title='Microsoft Wins Mandamus at the CAFC: Allvoice Suit Headed to Washington State'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3887555280377489337</id><published>2010-11-04T14:53:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2010-11-04T14:53:15.809-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='transfer of venue'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><title type='text'>Case Transferred to South Carolina</title><summary type='text'>In a case involving allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,886,836 for a "Miter Saw Utility Vehicle," Judge Pechman recently granted Defendant Techtronic Industries, Co. Ltd.'s motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 to the District of South Carolina.  

The Court's reasons for transfer were simply that "Plaintiffs have minimal contact with this forum and TTi [the </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3887555280377489337/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3887555280377489337' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3887555280377489337'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3887555280377489337'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/case-transferred-to-south-carolina.html' title='Case Transferred to South Carolina'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6786554220928965085</id><published>2010-10-18T15:57:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2010-10-19T08:12:09.051-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ED of Texas'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='judge ward'/><title type='text'>Judge Ward's Retirement Highlights Need for Increased Judicial Pay</title><summary type='text'>According to Micheal Smith's ED of Texas blog, Judge Ward from the Eastern District of Texas will not accept an offer to continue judging on senior status, but will instead retire from the bench entirely to resume the practice of law with his son Johnny Ward in Longview, Texas. 

Taking the bench in 1999 as a Clinton nominee, Judge Ward presided over a dramatic increase in patent infringement </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6786554220928965085/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6786554220928965085' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6786554220928965085'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6786554220928965085'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/judge-wards-retirement-highlights-need.html' title='Judge Ward&apos;s Retirement Highlights Need for Increased Judicial Pay'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4930801796768485995</id><published>2010-10-13T08:39:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2010-10-13T08:39:21.243-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update October 2010</title><summary type='text'>So I'm back to blogging after a six month hiatus.  Several factors contributed to this languorous pause, including (in no particular order and definitely not exhaustive), the break-up of Darby &amp; Darby PC after 115 years in business (for more on this read here), the starting of a new West coast office of Frommer Lawrence &amp; Haug (reminder that this blog is a personal blog and it does not reflect </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4930801796768485995/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4930801796768485995' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4930801796768485995'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4930801796768485995'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/seattle-patent-litigation-update.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update October 2010'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5502881292119000860</id><published>2010-03-17T17:54:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2010-03-17T17:59:36.722-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><title type='text'>Judge Jones Construes Claims in Toyota Hybrid Case</title><summary type='text'>In a case that features Hollywood's David-versus-Goliath story of inventorship (for example see this link), independent inventor Conrad Gardner is suing Toyota for patent infringement of his U.S. Patent No. 7,290,627.  The ‘627 Patent covers hybrid vehicle technology for automobiles. Specifically, the patent relates to the use of an internal combustion engine and a separate electric motor for </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5502881292119000860/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5502881292119000860' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5502881292119000860'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5502881292119000860'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/03/judge-jones-construes-claims-in-toyota.html' title='Judge Jones Construes Claims in Toyota Hybrid Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5355255057201263427</id><published>2010-03-12T15:22:00.001-08:00</published><updated>2010-03-12T15:26:01.928-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Darby and Darby'/><title type='text'>Goodbye and Thanks to Sam Darby</title><summary type='text'>The son of James T. and Ellen Doran (Dunman) Darby, Sam Darby was born in Falcon, Arkansas, February 4, 1867.  In the fall of 1882, he went to Annapolis, Maryland, as a cadet in the US Naval Academy.  He left the Navy after graduation in 1886.  Two years later, he started his undergraduate at Georgetown in Washington, D.C., finishing in 1891, with an LL.B and LL.M in law.  During law school, he </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5355255057201263427/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5355255057201263427' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5355255057201263427'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5355255057201263427'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/03/goodbye-and-thanks-to-sam-darby.html' title='Goodbye and Thanks to Sam Darby'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4572098174473149311</id><published>2010-02-22T16:22:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2010-02-22T16:31:28.779-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Cordance'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Amazon'/><title type='text'>Cordance Wins JMOL in Amazon One-Click Patent Suit</title><summary type='text'>Looks like local software company, Cordance may get a chance to have a jury determine the amount of damages Amazon owes for infringing certain patents covering aspects of the popular One-Click ordering system.  In a case pending in USDC, District of Delaware, Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Cause No. 06-491-MPT, a jury found late last year (among other things) that certain patents asserted by</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4572098174473149311/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4572098174473149311' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4572098174473149311'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4572098174473149311'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/02/cordance-wins-jmol-in-amazon-one-click.html' title='Cordance Wins JMOL in Amazon One-Click Patent Suit'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6668256966130053755</id><published>2010-01-06T10:40:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2010-01-06T10:48:01.177-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='interference'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><title type='text'>Fed Cir. Reverses WDWA on Rare Interference Ruling</title><summary type='text'>I previously posted about this case here, when Judge Pechman dismissed a suit brought by Philips Electronics seeking to overturn a ruling made in an interference.  The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences had ruled an inventor at Philips Electronics, Morgan, was not the first to invent certain defibrillator methods claimed in US Patent No. 6,241,751.  The invention claimed in the '751 patent</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6668256966130053755/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6668256966130053755' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6668256966130053755'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6668256966130053755'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2010/01/fed-cir-reverses-wdwa-on-rare.html' title='Fed Cir. Reverses WDWA on Rare Interference Ruling'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-219724295460274308</id><published>2009-12-28T11:16:00.001-08:00</published><updated>2009-12-28T11:40:16.310-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='false marking'/><title type='text'>Federal Circuit Authorizes Qui Tam False Marking Cases</title><summary type='text'>
&lt;!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:SimSun;
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;
	mso-font-alt:"Arial Unicode MS";
	mso-font-charset:134;
	mso-generic-font-family:auto;
	mso-font-format:other;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:1 135135232 16 0 262144 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"\@SimSun";
	panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
	mso-font-charset:134;
	</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/219724295460274308/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=219724295460274308' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/219724295460274308'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/219724295460274308'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/12/federal-circuit-authorizes-qui-tam.html' title='Federal Circuit Authorizes Qui Tam False Marking Cases'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8533444726262890370</id><published>2009-12-22T09:50:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-12-22T09:50:33.116-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CAFC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>i4i Prevails on Appeal</title><summary type='text'>Today, the CAFC decided the i4i appeal in what appears to be a sweeping victory for i4i. "We affirm the issuance of the permanent injunction, though we modify its effective date to accord with the evidence. In all other respects, we affirm for the reasons set forth below."

My previous posts on this case are found here. There will certainly be more to say about this opinion, but one thing that </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8533444726262890370/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8533444726262890370' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8533444726262890370'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8533444726262890370'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/12/i4i-prevails-on-appeal.html' title='i4i Prevails on Appeal'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8927016734114468835</id><published>2009-12-22T09:38:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-12-22T09:38:00.849-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='point of novelty'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='design patent'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='International Seaway Trading v. Walgreens'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Egyptian Goddess v Swisa'/><title type='text'>Federal Circuit Scraps Point of Novelty for Design Patents</title><summary type='text'>

I'm happy to report that the case I recently argued at the Federal Circuit resulted in new law for anticipation of design patents.  Here is the article written for Darby &amp; Darby.  Articles have also appeared in the National Law Journal and IP 360 (subscriptions required for both).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has changed the law of anticipation  for design patents.  The </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8927016734114468835/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8927016734114468835' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8927016734114468835'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8927016734114468835'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/12/federal-circuit-scraps-point-of-novelty.html' title='Federal Circuit Scraps Point of Novelty for Design Patents'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-57134664870313995</id><published>2009-12-08T10:09:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-12-08T10:14:59.582-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Implicit Networks'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Implicit Networks Accuses Windows Seven of Infringement</title><summary type='text'>If it wasn't any good, no one would be accusing it of infringement, right?  Unwelcome flattery of this nature was thrust upon Microsoft and its successful Windows Seven product last week when a patent infringement case was brought by local patent licensing company, Implicit Networks.

Implicit owns US 6,629,163, Method and System for Demultiplexing a First Sequence of Packet Components to </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/57134664870313995/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=57134664870313995' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/57134664870313995'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/57134664870313995'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/12/implicit-networks-accuses-windows-seven.html' title='Implicit Networks Accuses Windows Seven of Infringement'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4113905558772157233</id><published>2009-12-07T10:13:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-12-07T10:13:41.344-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='discovery'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><title type='text'>The True Cost of Discovery Disputes</title><summary type='text'>"The parties have done their level best to avoid and undermine the purposes of the meet and confer requirements," was Judge Lasnik's opening sentence for a recent ruling granting in-part a motion to compel discovery filed by Defendants Industrial Ventilation, Inc. This is a case for patent infringement brought by Pace International who owns U.S. Patent No. 6,723,364 ("Fog Treatment Method Using a</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4113905558772157233/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4113905558772157233' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4113905558772157233'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4113905558772157233'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/12/true-cost-of-discovery-disputes.html' title='The True Cost of Discovery Disputes'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2914740117040288315</id><published>2009-12-03T21:01:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-12-03T21:01:45.621-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update: December 2009</title><summary type='text'>
As we enter the last month of 2009, there is much to report on the state of local patent litigation.

Here are some interesting orders that were issued over the past few months. 

On October 23, 2009, Judge Pechman stayed a patent case filed by National Products, Inc. against Gamber-Johnson LLC. The case involves allegations that Gamber-Johnson has willfully infringement NPI's U.S. Patent Number</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2914740117040288315/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2914740117040288315' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2914740117040288315'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2914740117040288315'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/12/seattle-patent-litigation-update.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update: December 2009'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1710205866172989789</id><published>2009-11-24T09:43:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-11-24T09:43:15.103-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='local rule changes'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='proposed local patent rules WDWA'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Patent litigation'/><title type='text'>Revised Local Rules Become Effective December 1, 2009</title><summary type='text'>
The Western District adopted revised local rules, including some important revisions to CR 7, the rule governing motion practice.   These revisions take place December 1, 2009. 

Here is a summary of the changes to CR 7:
CR 7(d)(1), the rule governing the consideration of motions and saying that certain motions shall be noted for consideration on the day they are filed, now expressly includes </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/1710205866172989789/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=1710205866172989789' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1710205866172989789'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1710205866172989789'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/11/revised-local-rules-become-effective.html' title='Revised Local Rules Become Effective December 1, 2009'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5139207078187333196</id><published>2009-11-18T20:21:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-11-18T20:31:27.383-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Ancora'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Ancora Settles Litigation with Microsoft</title><summary type='text'>I posted back in April about a lawsuit that was transfered to Seattle. The lawsuit was between Ancora Technologies and Microsoft.  Recently, Ancora sent out the following press release.

Seattle, WA (PRWEB) November 13, 2009 -- Ancora Technologies today announced that a settlement has been reached in the litigation between Ancora, Miki Mullor, and Microsoft, both in respect of the patent </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5139207078187333196/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5139207078187333196' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5139207078187333196'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5139207078187333196'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/11/ancora-settles-litigation-with.html' title='Ancora Settles Litigation with Microsoft'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-9101434709605361852</id><published>2009-11-09T12:00:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-11-09T12:56:22.109-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='in re bilski'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Big Baboon'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Amazon'/><title type='text'>Big Baboon Battles Bilski, Court Cites Morse Code</title><summary type='text'>
Debate over the patentability of process patents, particularly those having claims drawn to software inventions, continues to rage in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to accept certiorari in Bilski.  The state of the law is in flux.  Portfolios of patents hang in the balance while patent lawyers across the U.S. extend time on pending applications, waiting to see what the Supreme </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/9101434709605361852/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=9101434709605361852' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/9101434709605361852'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/9101434709605361852'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/11/big-baboon-battles-bilski-court-cites.html' title='Big Baboon Battles Bilski, Court Cites Morse Code'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-156999046932489061</id><published>2009-11-03T09:52:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-11-03T10:09:18.651-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Webxchange'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='declaratory judgment statute'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Microsoft Denied Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction a Second Time</title><summary type='text'>Microsoft was unable to sustain a declaratory action brought against WebXchange to invalidate three patents covering network services.  The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 5,778,178; 6,212,556; and 7,340,506. According to IP 360, the USPTO has agreed to re-examine the '178 and '556 patents and has canceled the claims of the '506 patent. 

On Friday U.S. District Judge Farnan sitting in </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/156999046932489061/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=156999046932489061' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/156999046932489061'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/156999046932489061'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/11/microsoft-denied-declaratory-judgment.html' title='Microsoft Denied Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction a Second Time'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5238427005865158019</id><published>2009-10-24T11:54:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-10-25T12:28:48.722-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CAFC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='design patent'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Egyptian Goddess v Swisa'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update Fall 2009</title><summary type='text'>Seeing that it has been almost a month since I last posted, I thought I needed to break the silence and provide an update on the world of Seattle patent litigation.

For my part, things have been extremely busy over the last 30 days, which included a trip back to the CAFC to argue a design patent case, one of the first that might extend the Egyptian Goddess holding into determinations of </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5238427005865158019/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5238427005865158019' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5238427005865158019'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5238427005865158019'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/10/seattle-patent-litigation-update-fall_24.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update Fall 2009'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8944140700529911493</id><published>2009-09-23T14:47:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-09-23T14:52:16.220-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Oral argument audio available in i4i v. Microsoft</title><summary type='text'>Audio files of today's merits argument in the i4i v. Microsoft appeal are available at the CAFC's website by following this link and this link.</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8944140700529911493/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8944140700529911493' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8944140700529911493'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8944140700529911493'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/09/oral-argument-audio-available-in-i4i-v.html' title='Oral argument audio available in i4i v. Microsoft'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6536837552462681276</id><published>2009-09-14T17:40:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-09-14T18:03:30.910-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Microsoft Files Reply in i4i Case</title><summary type='text'>Microsoft filed its reply today to i4i's Brief in opposition to Microsoft's appeal. This brief does a good job trying to refocus attention to Microsoft's most winnable issues: (1) claim construction, (2) jury instructions, and (3) damages.  The brief (correctly in my opinion) retreats from (abandons?) the "gatekeeper" theme that was so prevalent in Microsoft's opening brief.From the brief:i4i </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6536837552462681276/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6536837552462681276' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6536837552462681276'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6536837552462681276'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/09/microsoft-files-reply-in-i4i-case.html' title='Microsoft Files Reply in i4i Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3650140970963135014</id><published>2009-09-11T09:10:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-09-11T10:04:20.405-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Lucent'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='entire market value rule'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>CAFC: Jury's $360 M Damages Award Against Microsoft, In Favor of Lucent, Not Supported by Evidence</title><summary type='text'>In a decision affirming the jury's finding of Microsoft's liability for infringement of Lucent's U.S. Patent No. 4,763,356, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") reversed and remanded the damages award, which the jury had calculated to the penny, in the amount of $357,693,056.18.  This decision represents a rejection of the the "entire market value" approach to patent damages, </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3650140970963135014/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3650140970963135014' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3650140970963135014'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3650140970963135014'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/09/cafc-jurys-360-m-damages-award-against.html' title='CAFC: Jury&apos;s $360 M Damages Award Against Microsoft, In Favor of Lucent, Not Supported by Evidence'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4490289876229166324</id><published>2009-09-10T10:18:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-09-10T10:43:05.848-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>i4i Files Response Brief at CAFC</title><summary type='text'>Software maker and recently successful patent enforcer, i4i, filed its responsive brief yesterday in the appeal filed by Microsoft.  In this high profile patent infringement case, Microsoft was found by a Texas jury to have infringed US Patent No. 5,787,449 on a method for reading XML, and ordered to pay over $280 M in damages for willful infringement.  Microsoft was also ordered to stop selling </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4490289876229166324/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4490289876229166324' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4490289876229166324'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4490289876229166324'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/09/i4i-files-response-brief-at-cafc.html' title='i4i Files Response Brief at CAFC'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2862261675852234669</id><published>2009-09-03T15:33:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-09-03T15:42:45.056-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>i4i v. Microsoft: Injunction Stayed</title><summary type='text'>Hal Wegner just reported that the CAFC will stay an injunction entered last month by Judge Leonard Davis of the ED of Texas.  The injunction was to take effect October 10, 2009 and it was to apply against all copies of MS WORD currently being sold.  The stay will be in place during the CAFC's consideration of Microsoft's appeal.  No reasons were given for the stay, other than that "the court </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2862261675852234669/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2862261675852234669' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2862261675852234669'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2862261675852234669'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/09/i4i-v-microsoft-injunction-stayed.html' title='i4i v. Microsoft: Injunction Stayed'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-7218037730525176242</id><published>2009-08-26T18:20:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-08-27T11:22:11.449-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Microsoft Submits Opening Brief in i4i Appeal</title><summary type='text'>Microsoft submitted its opening appeal brief on Tuesday and the CAFC set oral argument on its motion to stay Judge Davis' order enjoining further distribution of infringing copies of Microsoft's multi-Billion dollar WORD product. Oral argument on Microsoft's motion to stay and on Microsoft's motion for an expedited consideration of the appeal is set for September 23, 2009.An East Texas jury found</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/7218037730525176242/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=7218037730525176242' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/7218037730525176242'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/7218037730525176242'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/08/microsoft-submits-opening-brief-in-i4i.html' title='Microsoft Submits Opening Brief in i4i Appeal'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3812983229694963332</id><published>2009-08-25T08:47:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-08-25T09:18:19.120-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nintendo'/><title type='text'>Nintendo Settles Patent Suit with Hillcrest</title><summary type='text'>Nintendo has reached an agreement with Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc, signing a license agreement under three patents that are currently the subject matter of an ITC investigation. (For more, see my previous post here) On Friday, the companies filed a joint motion with the ITC, requesting dismissal in view of a settlement that resolved the ongoing dispute between them.According to Hillcrest's </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3812983229694963332/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3812983229694963332' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3812983229694963332'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3812983229694963332'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/08/nintendo-settles-patent-suit-with.html' title='Nintendo Settles Patent Suit with Hillcrest'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6885180030203805455</id><published>2009-08-22T09:26:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-08-22T10:39:31.177-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='written description'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Ariad v. Eli Lilly'/><title type='text'>Ariad v. Lilly: Written Description Showdown at the CAFC</title><summary type='text'>Yesterday the CAFC granted rehearing en banc in Ariad v. Lilly.  The order poses two questions: 1. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, contains a written description requirement separate from an enablement requirement? and 2. If a separate written description requirement is set forth in the statute, what is the scope and purpose of the requirement?The debate at the CAFC centers around whether </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6885180030203805455/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6885180030203805455' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6885180030203805455'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6885180030203805455'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/08/ariad-v-lilly-written-description.html' title='Ariad v. Lilly: Written Description Showdown at the CAFC'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2473315726319443080</id><published>2009-08-13T15:13:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-08-22T09:13:39.080-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Judge Davis Orders Microsoft to Stop Selling Word</title><summary type='text'>As many of you undoubtedly already know, Judge Leonard Davis granted plaintiff i4i's motion for a permanent injunction following a jury verdict in the case for infringement of US Patent No. 5,787,499, which covers software controlling document architecture and content and enables individuals to manipulate electronic documents without using manually embedded command codes (i.e., A/K/A "XML").  (</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2473315726319443080/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2473315726319443080' title='2 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2473315726319443080'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2473315726319443080'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/08/judge-davis-orders-microsoft-to-stop.html' title='Judge Davis Orders Microsoft to Stop Selling Word'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>2</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8122691049105413174</id><published>2009-08-08T09:22:00.001-07:00</published><updated>2009-08-08T09:29:21.820-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='USPTO'/><title type='text'>Section 293 and Baseball</title><summary type='text'>The following was written by my colleague, Darby &amp; Darby principal, Steve Lipman.In my recent efforts to learn the name of the “Section 293 Notice” representative of a client’s U.S. patent, I came upon the following incredible story.  By the way, for those of you who may not know about a “Section 293 Notice,” it is a provision of Title 35 that gives a foreign owner of a U.S. patent the option of </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8122691049105413174/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8122691049105413174' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8122691049105413174'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8122691049105413174'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/08/section-293-and-baseball.html' title='Section 293 and Baseball'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-181813476852662735</id><published>2009-08-06T09:10:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-08-06T09:42:54.171-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litgiation Update: July 2009</title><summary type='text'>There were three patent cases filed in July.  Here they are.July 27, 2009F5 Networks Inc v. Kemp Technologies Inc. (Judge Jones) July 23, 2009Sharafabadi v. University of Idaho et. al. (Judge Robart) July 22, 2009Avtech Corporation v. Day-Ray Products Inc. (Judge Pechman) Th F5 case is another action to enforce US Pat. No. 6,473,802 entitled "Method and System for Storing Load Balancing </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/181813476852662735/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=181813476852662735' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/181813476852662735'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/181813476852662735'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/08/seattle-patent-litgiation-update-july.html' title='Seattle Patent Litgiation Update: July 2009'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4001346995754721744</id><published>2009-08-04T10:30:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-08-22T08:58:35.932-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='estoppel'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='inter partes reexamination'/><title type='text'>Inter Partes Reexamination: When is a Final Ruling "Finally Determined"</title><summary type='text'>The following case addresses the under appreciated concept of estoppel from so-called "final" rulings in an inter partes reexamination.  In Safoco, Inc v. Cameron Int. Corp. (USDC SD Texas H-05-0739), the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas addressed when estoppel attaches to a "final" ruling at the PTO in an proceeding for inter partes reexamination. This case interprets the </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4001346995754721744/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4001346995754721744' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4001346995754721744'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4001346995754721744'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/08/inter-partes-reexamination-when-is.html' title='Inter Partes Reexamination: When is a Final Ruling &quot;Finally Determined&quot;'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5703105989696830809</id><published>2009-07-31T09:29:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-07-31T10:04:33.272-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='vacate'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='claim construction'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='unigen'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='walgreens'/><title type='text'>Court Refuses to Vacate Markman Ruling Following Settlement</title><summary type='text'>In the case Unigen Pharmaceuticals v. Walgreen Co. (07-471 RAJ), which is actually a consolidation of three cases brought by plaintiff Unigen, asserting infringement of US Patent No. 7,192,611 (for more on the consolidation, click here), the parties recently settled and approached the court jointly to dismiss the case and to also vacate a prior claims construction ruling.  The claims of the '611 </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5703105989696830809/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5703105989696830809' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5703105989696830809'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5703105989696830809'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/court-refuses-to-vacate-markman-ruling.html' title='Court Refuses to Vacate Markman Ruling Following Settlement'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6275220125356894886</id><published>2009-07-29T09:35:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-07-29T11:33:23.288-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='B2B'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Big Baboon'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Dell'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='HP'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Amazon'/><title type='text'>Who Is Big Baboon Inc.?</title><summary type='text'>A number of my readers have contacted me looking for information about Big Baboon, Inc. Here is what I know. According to its complaint filed against Dell, Amazon, HP, Fed Ex, Honda, and others, it owns 6,115,690 and 6,343,275, patents for "Integrated Business-to-Business Web Commerce and Business Automation."  The drawing depicted here is one of over 300 contained in each asserted Big Baboon </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6275220125356894886/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6275220125356894886' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6275220125356894886'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6275220125356894886'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-is-big-baboon-inc.html' title='Who Is Big Baboon Inc.?'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1340256544049345443</id><published>2009-07-28T08:56:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-07-28T09:29:31.315-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Cordance'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Amazon'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='one-click'/><title type='text'>Cordance v. Amazon: Summary Judgment a Mixed Bag</title><summary type='text'>Amazon recently lost its motion for summary judgment on several patent infringement claims brought by Cordance Corp. in the companies’ dispute over online purchasing technology. Cordance’s patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 6,757,710; 6,044,205; 5,862,325; and 6,088,717. Amazon’s patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 6,269,369.In what was described as a classic “battle of the experts," </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/1340256544049345443/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=1340256544049345443' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1340256544049345443'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1340256544049345443'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/cordance-v-amazon-summary-judgment.html' title='Cordance v. Amazon: Summary Judgment a Mixed Bag'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1248657787393143398</id><published>2009-07-26T16:30:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-07-26T18:45:10.560-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ADC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nintendo'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Sony'/><title type='text'>ADC v. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony Stayed Pending Reexamination</title><summary type='text'>ADC Technology Inc, a Japanese corporation that owns several gaming patents related generally to music/karaoke-style video games, filed suit last October in Seattle against Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony.  The patents in suit include:U.S. Patent 5,775,995, titled "Interactive Communication System forCommunicating Video” filed May 3, 1996 and issued July 7, 1998; U.S. Patent 6,193,520, titled “</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/1248657787393143398/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=1248657787393143398' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1248657787393143398'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1248657787393143398'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/adc-v-nintendo-microsoft-and-sony.html' title='ADC v. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony Stayed Pending Reexamination'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2607018152093143676</id><published>2009-07-10T09:50:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-07-10T09:55:10.763-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Microsoft Seeks JMOL in i4i Patent Case</title><summary type='text'>From Bloomberg.com"[T]he world’s largest software maker asked a U.S. judge to throw out a $200 million verdict after a jury found that the company’s Word products violated a patented way to process electronic documents. Microsoft is also seeking a ruling that it didn’t use a patent owned by closely held i4i LP. U.S. Judge Leonard Davis in Tyler, Texas, didn’t rule on the motion today. 'There is </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2607018152093143676/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2607018152093143676' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2607018152093143676'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2607018152093143676'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/microsoft-seeks-jmol-in-i4i-patent-case.html' title='Microsoft Seeks JMOL in i4i Patent Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8342934176230129933</id><published>2009-07-03T22:37:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-07-03T22:55:54.893-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='microscan'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='bar-code'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='motion for summary judgment'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='cognex'/><title type='text'>Cognex Can't Seek Early Summary Judgment in Bar-Code Reader Case</title><summary type='text'>In this suit involving bar-code reader technology, Renton-based Microscan asserts US Patent No. 6,105,869 against Cognex, an international company with US headquaters in Massachusettes. In its Complaint, Microscan alleges that Cognex has been and is infringing at least claims 1, 7, 12 and 16 of the ’869 patent by manufacturing, using, selling and/or offering for sale at least its DataMan 100X, </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8342934176230129933/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8342934176230129933' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8342934176230129933'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8342934176230129933'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/cognex-cant-seek-early-summary-judgment.html' title='Cognex Can&apos;t Seek Early Summary Judgment in Bar-Code Reader Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6367333566815771445</id><published>2009-07-01T09:58:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-07-01T10:33:32.546-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='international patent exhaustion'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Hal Wegner'/><title type='text'>Supreme Court denies Certiorari in Quanta v. Ricoh</title><summary type='text'>Does the unconditional sale of a patented item overseas result in a forfeiture of rights to enforce patent rights in the United States?  Federal Circuit precedent has answered this question in the negative; see Harold C. Wegner, Post-Quanta, Post-Sale Patentee Controls, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 682, 698 (2008).  So called "international patent exhaustion" was the focal point of a </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6367333566815771445/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6367333566815771445' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6367333566815771445'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6367333566815771445'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in.html' title='Supreme Court denies Certiorari in Quanta v. Ricoh'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6996761405087740935</id><published>2009-06-24T09:09:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-06-24T09:13:34.321-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='China'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='report on china patent litigation'/><title type='text'>Chinese High Court Comments on Patent Law</title><summary type='text'>Supreme People’s Court Justice HE Zhonglin of the People’s Republic of China introduced the draft of Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Applicable Laws to the Trial of Patent Infringement Controversies (the “Judicial Interpretations”). The Judicial Interpretations keyed to parallel the implementation of the recent Third Amendment to the Patent Law. Justice He </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6996761405087740935/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6996761405087740935' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6996761405087740935'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6996761405087740935'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/06/chinese-high-court-comments-on-patent.html' title='Chinese High Court Comments on Patent Law'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4843918573968911013</id><published>2009-06-17T09:41:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-06-17T09:58:53.485-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='aines'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='declaratory judgment statute'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='fluke'/><title type='text'>Fluke Files Declaratory Judgment Action Against Competitor</title><summary type='text'>Local manufacturer of electronic test tools (among other products in the largely "wired" electronics space reminiscent of last century), Fluke Products, filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that certain Modular Telephone Plugs do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,562,475, allegedly owned by Aines Manufacturing Corp. of Ronkonkoma, NY.  Fluke also alleges that the '475 patent is invalid. As </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4843918573968911013/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4843918573968911013' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4843918573968911013'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4843918573968911013'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/06/fluke-files-declaratory-judgment-action.html' title='Fluke Files Declaratory Judgment Action Against Competitor'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-9082914512573546764</id><published>2009-06-10T22:42:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-06-11T09:22:27.345-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Amazon'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent reform'/><title type='text'>Patently Challenging Road for Amazon</title><summary type='text'>By all accounts, Amazon.com is an innovator. It pioneered online commerce in the 1990s and it was an early adopter of aggressive IP strategies, including the much maligned "one-click" patent, which was unsuccessfully enforced against Barnesandnoble.com in 2000 and is still suffering through reexamination at the request of a part time actor from New Zealand.  Recently, Amazon was back on the </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/9082914512573546764/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=9082914512573546764' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/9082914512573546764'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/9082914512573546764'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/06/patently-challenging-road-for-amazon.html' title='Patently Challenging Road for Amazon'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6498347529077182036</id><published>2009-05-21T08:38:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-05-21T11:47:16.923-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='i4i'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Texas Jury Stings Microsoft for $200M</title><summary type='text'>I guess the third trial's the charm for patent holders looking to collect big money from Microsoft for patent infringement.  After winning one case on summary judgment on the eve of trial, and settling another one mid-way through, Microsoft decided to gamble on the jury yesterday and lost.  Here is a snippet of today's article from IP 360:"A federal jury on Wednesday found that Microsoft Corp. </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6498347529077182036/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6498347529077182036' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6498347529077182036'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6498347529077182036'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/05/texas-jury-stings-miscrosoft-for-200m.html' title='Texas Jury Stings Microsoft for $200M'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3588557322815846259</id><published>2009-05-19T11:05:00.001-07:00</published><updated>2009-05-19T11:24:36.882-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Discovery Communications'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Amazon'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Kindle'/><title type='text'>Amazon.com Strikes Back at Discovery Communications</title><summary type='text'>Amazon.com asserted three patents against Discovery Communications, owner of the well known cable TV brand, the Discovery Channel, as well as other goods and services sold under the Discovery name and mark. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Nos. 6,006,225 ("Refining Search Queries by Suggestion of Correlated Terms from prior Searches"); 6,169,986 ("System and method for Refining Search Queries"); </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3588557322815846259/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3588557322815846259' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3588557322815846259'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3588557322815846259'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/05/amazoncom-strikes-back-at-discovery.html' title='Amazon.com Strikes Back at Discovery Communications'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4834703403390737899</id><published>2009-05-18T09:07:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-05-18T09:50:15.534-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='bamboo flooring'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Plyboo'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='teragren'/><title type='text'>Claim Construction Sticks in Bamboo Flooring Case</title><summary type='text'>Judge Leighton resolved a motion for reconsideration of an order construing the terms "random orientation" as used in U.S. Patent No. 5,543,197, in an order that was issued over four months ago (previous posts here and here).  The primary bone of contention was that the Court had construed these terms to require not only random orientation of the individual bamboo strands, but also random, "not </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4834703403390737899/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4834703403390737899' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4834703403390737899'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4834703403390737899'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/05/claim-construction-sticks-in-bamboo.html' title='Claim Construction Sticks in Bamboo Flooring Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4410706311945956337</id><published>2009-05-11T09:40:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-05-11T10:21:31.611-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Synbone AG'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Summary Judgment'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Simulab Corporation'/><title type='text'>Surgical Trainer Patent Case Headed for Trial in October</title><summary type='text'>Simulab Corp. will get a jury this fall to decide claims for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,780,016, a patent for a "Human Surgical Trainer and Methods for Training." Infringement claims are being asserted against Synbone AG, a Swiss company.  My previous posts here and here, discussed Judge Zilly's summary judgment rulings, expressing skepticism that "Simulab can demonstrate the requisite </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4410706311945956337/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4410706311945956337' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4410706311945956337'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4410706311945956337'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/05/surgical-trainer-patent-case-headed-for.html' title='Surgical Trainer Patent Case Headed for Trial in October'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6731056734495855800</id><published>2009-05-05T11:04:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-05-05T11:40:33.425-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='fees'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='judge lasnik'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='285'/><title type='text'>Fees Denied to K2 in Short Fat Ski Case</title><summary type='text'>The case is Paul N. Nelson v. K2 Inc., Cause No. C07-1660RSL.  My previous posts, explain that plaintiff Nelson lost his priority date claimed in U.S. Patent No. 5,603,522 on written description grounds, and then lost summary judgment on his invalidity defense based on allegedly "experimental sales."  K2 moved for attorneys fees.  In an order denying fees, Judge Lasnik reasoned as follows:"Prior </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6731056734495855800/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6731056734495855800' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6731056734495855800'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6731056734495855800'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/05/fees-denied-to-k2-in-short-fat-ski-case.html' title='Fees Denied to K2 in Short Fat Ski Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1622994438844700830</id><published>2009-04-30T10:20:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-04-30T13:54:19.511-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Ancora'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update: May 2009</title><summary type='text'>What recession?  Seattle patent cases exploded during the months of February, March and April 2009 (list included in this post).  Note that I've done something a little different for this post, I've included the patent number and the name of the plaintiff's lawyer and law firm. While the number of cases increased over the last few months, most of these cases remain idle, without even an </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/1622994438844700830/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=1622994438844700830' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1622994438844700830'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1622994438844700830'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/04/seattle-patent-litigation-update-may.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update: May 2009'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4026870114223054767</id><published>2009-04-21T09:13:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-04-22T10:38:16.795-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='transfer of venue'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='judge martinez'/><title type='text'>Data Retrieval Patent Case Transferred</title><summary type='text'>As a counterpoint to my previous post, regarding an order denying a defendant's motion to transfer patent litigation out of the WD of Wash., this post features the opposite result, a defendant winning a transfer to the N.D. of California. The case is Data Retrieval Tech v. SybaseC08-1702-RSM.There are key differences that made this case susceptible to transfer.  Judge Martinez explained in his </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4026870114223054767/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4026870114223054767' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4026870114223054767'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4026870114223054767'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/04/data-retrieval-patent-case-transferred.html' title='Data Retrieval Patent Case Transferred'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1547521167907728278</id><published>2009-04-16T10:27:00.001-07:00</published><updated>2009-04-16T13:36:41.550-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='transfer of venue'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='judge lasnik'/><title type='text'>Potato Case Stays in Seattle</title><summary type='text'>In the case Pace International LLC v. Industrial Ventilation, Inc., 08-1822-RSL, Judge Lasnik recently denied the Defendant's motion to transfer the case to the District of Idaho.This case involves allegations of infringement of a patent owned by Xeda International, S.A., a French Corporation (also a plaintiff).  Defendants in this case provide sprout-inhibiting products and services to potato </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/1547521167907728278/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=1547521167907728278' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1547521167907728278'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1547521167907728278'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/04/potato-case-stays-in-seattle.html' title='Potato Case Stays in Seattle'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1701251038458066473</id><published>2009-03-30T21:16:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-03-30T22:40:37.665-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Hal Wegner'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent reform'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='alcatel-lucent'/><title type='text'>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft: A Reason to Delay Congressional Patent Reform?</title><summary type='text'>The damages issue has been hotly debated among those supportive of congressional patent reform, including so-called "damages apportionment" and damages keyed to the "whole market value" of a device.According to noted patent commentator, Hal Wegner, the case brought by Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft embodies these damages "reform" issues and provides an opportunity for the Federal Circuit (and </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/1701251038458066473/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=1701251038458066473' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1701251038458066473'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1701251038458066473'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/03/alcatel-lucent-v-microsoft-reason-to.html' title='Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft: A Reason to Delay Congressional Patent Reform?'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8498603651013548941</id><published>2009-03-20T13:00:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-03-20T13:18:31.121-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CAFC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Darby and Darby'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='USPTO rule changes'/><title type='text'>USPTO Acted Within its Rulemaking Authority</title><summary type='text'>The following summary was provided by Joseph R. Robinson of Darby &amp; Darby, New York, NY.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its opinion in the lawsuit challenging the implementation of the proposed USPTO rules on continuation applications and other USPTO  procedures.  Tafas v. Doll, Appeal No. 2008-1352 (Fed. Cir. March 20, 2009). The Federal Circuit has held that Final </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8498603651013548941/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8498603651013548941' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8498603651013548941'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8498603651013548941'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/03/uspto-acted-within-its-rule-making.html' title='USPTO Acted Within its Rulemaking Authority'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5580077737465111474</id><published>2009-03-17T09:00:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-03-17T09:36:09.397-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='fenner investments'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nintendo'/><title type='text'>Nintendo Prevails Over Fenner Investments in East Texas Patent Suit</title><summary type='text'>Literally on the "eve of trial," Judge Leonard Davis dismissed claims for patent infringement against Nintendo that were brought by Fenner Investment in East Texas. Fenner had alleging that the Wii console and its controllers along with the GameCube infringed on a patent held by Fenner. Judge Davis dismissed the case Monday citing that no jury trial was needed. From Judge Davis' order:Following </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5580077737465111474/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5580077737465111474' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5580077737465111474'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5580077737465111474'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/03/nintendo-prevails-over-fenner.html' title='Nintendo Prevails Over Fenner Investments in East Texas Patent Suit'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-7757346516892134131</id><published>2009-03-10T17:46:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-03-10T18:09:55.233-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='chain saw'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent infringement'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Judge Anna J. Brown'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Blount'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='TriLink'/><title type='text'>Portland Chain-maker Makes it Rain, Winning $2-million in Patent Infringement Damages</title><summary type='text'>A Portland jury recently found in favor of Blount, Inc., a maker of chainsaw chain, bar, and accessories under its Oregon brand, in a patent infringement action against TriLink Saw Chain, LLC, TriLink Global, LLC, Jinhua TriLink Huihuang Co., and Jinhua Huihuang Hardware Co. The jury found claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,136,783 to be valid and infringed and awarded Blount nearly two million dollars</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/7757346516892134131/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=7757346516892134131' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/7757346516892134131'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/7757346516892134131'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/03/portland-chain-maker-makes-it-rain.html' title='Portland Chain-maker Makes it Rain, Winning $2-million in Patent Infringement Damages'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1307045140811523898</id><published>2009-02-25T16:20:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-02-25T16:50:33.891-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='GPS'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='TomTom'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><title type='text'>Microsoft Goes on the Offensive Against TomTom</title><summary type='text'>Ben Romano from the Seattle Times reported today that Microsoft filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Seattle and the International Trade Commission against TomTom, the Amsterdam-based maker of portable GPS systems for in-car navigation, after more than a year of trying to reach a licensing arrangement.  According to a company spokesperson, the patents cover "inventions that enable a vehicle </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/1307045140811523898/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=1307045140811523898' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1307045140811523898'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1307045140811523898'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/02/microsoft-goes-on-offensive-against.html' title='Microsoft Goes on the Offensive Against TomTom'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2679969622480956850</id><published>2009-02-12T10:43:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-02-12T11:13:27.374-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='6976248'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='sun'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='applet patents'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='6324685'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Implicit Networks'/><title type='text'>Implicit Networks Sued by Sun</title><summary type='text'>It's been a bad month for local patent licensing company, Implicit Networks. Its case against Intel, Sun, Real, and AMD was stayed in view of reexamination, and now, it has been DJed (pronounced "dee-jay-ed," yes, it can be a verb, meaning "to sue for a declaratory judgment") by Sun.Sun filed a complaint on January 15, 2009, asking for an order invalidating US Patent Nos. 6,324,685 and 6,976,248,</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2679969622480956850/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2679969622480956850' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2679969622480956850'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2679969622480956850'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/02/implicit-networks-sued-by-sun.html' title='Implicit Networks Sued by Sun'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3938826940151291541</id><published>2009-02-12T10:21:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-02-12T10:41:32.495-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Synbone AG'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='judge zilly'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='surgical trainer'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Simulab Corporation'/><title type='text'>Simulab Survives Summary Judgment (Barely) In Surgical Trainer Patent Case</title><summary type='text'>Following up on my recent post about this case involving a patent owned by Simulab Corp. for a surgical trainer (U.S. Patent No. 6,780,016 "Human Surgical Trainer and Methods for Training"), Judge Zilly granted in-part and denied in-part Defendant's motion for summary judgment.  In denying part of the motion, Judge Zilly asked for a proffer from Simulab to see if there was a need to go to </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3938826940151291541/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3938826940151291541' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3938826940151291541'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3938826940151291541'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/02/simulab-survives-summary-judgment.html' title='Simulab Survives Summary Judgment (Barely) In Surgical Trainer Patent Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-1846281622358547559</id><published>2009-02-11T10:22:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-02-11T10:57:45.226-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Real Networks'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Reexamination'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Implicit Networks'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='motion to stay'/><title type='text'>Implicit Networks Case Stayed Pending Reexamination</title><summary type='text'>Local patent licensing company, Implicit Networks, was dealt a blow recently in its bid to enforce patent rights against Intel, AMD, Real Networks, and Sun.  Implicit Sued back in February 2008 on U.S. Patent No. 6,629,163, a patent covering various encryption methods using demultiplexing technology for data processing.  Implicit Networks alleges Intel uses this patented technology in its </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/1846281622358547559/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=1846281622358547559' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1846281622358547559'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/1846281622358547559'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/02/implicit-networks-case-stayed-pending.html' title='Implicit Networks Case Stayed Pending Reexamination'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-7973051833458257305</id><published>2009-02-05T14:37:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-02-05T15:58:13.692-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='K2'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Paul Nelson'/><title type='text'>K2 Wins Summary Judgment in Wide Short Ski Case</title><summary type='text'>Some of you may remember an earlier post of mine about this case.  Individual inventor, Paul Nelson, sued K2 on claims involving U.S. Patent No. 5,603,522 covering a "Wide Short Ski." The specification was drawn to a shaped ski having a range of dimensions in length, side-cut radius, shovel width, and tail width. The claims at issue (added in a CIP) were for much narrower ranges than what was </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/7973051833458257305/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=7973051833458257305' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/7973051833458257305'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/7973051833458257305'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/02/k2-wins-summary-judgment-in-wide-short.html' title='K2 Wins Summary Judgment in Wide Short Ski Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-7118822752071583724</id><published>2009-02-04T10:52:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-02-04T16:03:21.197-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='chen'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='star trac'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Paltalk Holdings Inc.'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nintendo'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update January 2009</title><summary type='text'>The Western District saw just one patent case filed last month, Chen v. Unisen, Inc. (2:2009cv00128, assigned to Judge Lasnik).  Unisen does business under the name Star Trac.  According to the Star Trac web site, Star Trac is "proud to be an international leader in commercial quality fitness equipment. But [it is] far from satisfied."  The patent at issue is U.S. 6,745,873 covering a braking </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/7118822752071583724/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=7118822752071583724' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/7118822752071583724'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/7118822752071583724'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/02/seattle-patent-litigation-update.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update January 2009'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2945098230460952505</id><published>2009-01-27T13:35:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-01-28T10:50:06.821-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Synbone AG'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='surgical trainer'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Simulab Corporation'/><title type='text'>Court Hears Arguments for Summary Judgment in Surgical Trainer Patent Case</title><summary type='text'>Judge Zilly heard arguments recently on a pending motion for summary judgment in a case brought by Simulab Corp. involving U.S. Patent No. 6,780,016 for a Human Surgical Trainer and Methods for Training.  The accused infringer is Synbone AG, a Swiss company.  A claims construction order was issued by the court back in September after the parties agreed no Markman hearing was necessary.  The </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2945098230460952505/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2945098230460952505' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2945098230460952505'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2945098230460952505'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/01/court-hears-arguments-for-summary.html' title='Court Hears Arguments for Summary Judgment in Surgical Trainer Patent Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3141627317828358001</id><published>2009-01-13T09:02:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-01-13T09:09:11.773-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CAFC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Hal Wegner'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patentable subject matter'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='in re comiskey'/><title type='text'>In Re Comiskey: Fed. Cir. Narrowly Denies Rehearing En Banc</title><summary type='text'>Rehearing en banc was denied today in the closely watched case dealing with patentable subject matter under 35 USC Section 101, In re Comiskey. The petition for rehearing en banc failed by two votes, (failing to achieve a majority of seven judges) as only Newman, Mayer, Rader, Bryson, Moore, JJ., voted to rehear the case en banc.  Hal Wegner, gave a great summary of the decision today:"The nub of</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3141627317828358001/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3141627317828358001' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3141627317828358001'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3141627317828358001'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-re-comiskey-fed-cir-narrowly-denies.html' title='In Re Comiskey: Fed. Cir. Narrowly Denies Rehearing En Banc'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3502599921201685577</id><published>2009-01-12T11:31:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-01-12T11:45:16.876-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation tacoma'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Plyboo'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='teragren'/><title type='text'>Plyboo Claims Construction Order Issued</title><summary type='text'>Judge Leighton (Tacoma) recently construed the claim terms of U.S. Patent No. 5,543,197, a patent including claims for "parallel, randomly stacked, stranded, laminated bamboo beams and boards."  According to the order, the term "beam" as used in the claims is not necessarily limited to something of sufficient size and strength to serve as a structural support.  Further, the term "random </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3502599921201685577/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3502599921201685577' title='2 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3502599921201685577'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3502599921201685577'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/01/plyboo-claims-construction-order-issued.html' title='Plyboo Claims Construction Order Issued'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>2</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8650992518650894190</id><published>2009-01-07T10:59:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-01-07T11:16:23.380-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Inc.'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CAFC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='RAM'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='National Products'/><title type='text'>National Products, Inc. Wins at Federal Circuit</title><summary type='text'>National Products Inc., a local maker of mounting products under the trademark RAM, won a victory at the CAFC yesterday. The opinion, authored by Chief Judge Michel, affirmed an order from the USDC in the Central District of California (Judge Audrey B. Collins) dismissing an action for declaratory judgment that was filed against NPI about a year ago by Panavise, Inc.  Because NPI is a Darby </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8650992518650894190/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8650992518650894190' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8650992518650894190'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8650992518650894190'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2009/01/national-products-inc-wins-at-federal.html' title='National Products, Inc. Wins at Federal Circuit'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2337289139926382092</id><published>2008-12-29T10:23:00.001-08:00</published><updated>2008-12-29T10:38:14.219-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='transfer of venue'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CAFC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ED of Texas'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='forum non conveniens'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='judge ward'/><title type='text'>Federal Circuit Grants Mandamus, Transfers Case Out of E.D. of Texas</title><summary type='text'>It was bound to happen sooner or later.  Initiating patent litigation in East Texas--and keeping it there--just got a littler harder.  Today, the CAFC granted an extraordinary writ of mandamus filed by TS Tech. USA Corporation, transferring a patent case out of the E.D. of Texas that was filed by Lear Corp., No. 2:07-CV-406.  Applying Fifth Circuit law, Judge Rader wrote for the panel (Rader, </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2337289139926382092/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2337289139926382092' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2337289139926382092'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2337289139926382092'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/12/federal-circuit-grants-mandamus.html' title='Federal Circuit Grants Mandamus, Transfers Case Out of E.D. of Texas'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3955753757203207425</id><published>2008-12-20T21:30:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2009-01-01T23:03:42.728-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation statistics'/><title type='text'>Patent Litigation Statisitics in Washington State 2008</title><summary type='text'>Looking back on another year of patent litigation in Washington State, 2008 started out with a bang but fizzled to end the year down about 15% from last year , with just 42 cases through December.    Washington had more patent cases this year than its neighboring states, Oregon (19); Idaho (3); and Alaska (0), but its patent docket in 2008 was still considerably smaller than California's (413), </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3955753757203207425/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3955753757203207425' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3955753757203207425'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3955753757203207425'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/12/patent-litigation-statisitics-in.html' title='Patent Litigation Statisitics in Washington State 2008'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4286182060499792059</id><published>2008-12-17T08:45:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2008-12-17T09:23:11.700-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Judge Pechman'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Trudeau'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Chef&apos;n'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Egyptian Goddess v Swisa'/><title type='text'>Chef'n Can't Halt Sales of Trudeau's Vegetable Steamer</title><summary type='text'>In a case testing the scope of a design patent after the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, local food-appliance innovator, Chef'n Corporation, was recently unsuccessful in obtaining a preliminary injunction against competitor, Trudeau Corporation of Boucherville, Quebec, Canada.From Judge Pechman's order:"A visual comparison of the ‘503 design and the Trudeau </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4286182060499792059/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4286182060499792059' title='5 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4286182060499792059'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4286182060499792059'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/12/chefn-cant-halt-sales-of-trudeaus.html' title='Chef&apos;n Can&apos;t Halt Sales of Trudeau&apos;s Vegetable Steamer'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>5</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5366915156102602478</id><published>2008-12-12T15:07:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2008-12-15T13:40:41.028-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='WDWA'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='local rules'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='supplemental patent rules'/><title type='text'>Local Rule Changes USDC WDWA</title><summary type='text'>As many of you already know, substantial changes to the local rules have been approved and will become effective January 1, 2009.  In addition to these changes in local rules, which apply to everyone practicing in the WDWA, the district has adopted Supplemental Patent Rules that apply in all patent cases filed in this district.  The purpose of this post is to highlight what I see as the most </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5366915156102602478/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5366915156102602478' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5366915156102602478'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5366915156102602478'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/12/local-rule-changes-usdc-wdwa.html' title='Local Rule Changes USDC WDWA'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4849036627033796623</id><published>2008-12-10T14:49:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2008-12-10T15:31:38.093-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='NIVIDIA'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Implicit Networks'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='AMD'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Intel Corp.'/><title type='text'>NVIDIA Settles Patent Dispute with Implicit Networks</title><summary type='text'>Santa Clara-based NVIDIA Corporation,  manufacturer of graphics-processor technologies for workstations, desktop computers,  and mobile devices, settled a patent dispute today with Implicit Networks.  Implicit is a small, Seattle-based company involved in computer software and licensing.  Implicit is taking on some of technology's biggest companies, including the likes of Intel and AMD.Implicit's</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4849036627033796623/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4849036627033796623' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4849036627033796623'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4849036627033796623'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/12/nividia-settles-patent-dispute-with.html' title='NVIDIA Settles Patent Dispute with Implicit Networks'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5562099449059269064</id><published>2008-12-05T14:25:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2008-12-05T14:58:09.105-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='WDWA'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='local patent rules'/><title type='text'>Western District Adopts Supplemental Patent Rules</title><summary type='text'>From the Court's ECF system today:Please be advised that the court has adopted changes to its local general and civil rules.  The court has also adopted supplemental patent rules.   These changes to the local rules, as well as the supplemental patent rules, will take effect at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2009, and will apply to cases then pending and to cases filed after January 1st. Please visit </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5562099449059269064/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5562099449059269064' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5562099449059269064'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5562099449059269064'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/12/western-district-adopts-supplemental.html' title='Western District Adopts Supplemental Patent Rules'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3339264148340404474</id><published>2008-11-26T08:06:00.001-08:00</published><updated>2008-11-26T08:38:01.501-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='preliminary injunction'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='loops'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='judge martinez'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='amercare'/><title type='text'>Local Tooth Brush Maker Loses Motion for Preliminary Injunction</title><summary type='text'>Apparently tooth brushes with rigid handles are a big problem for correctional facilities. Inmates routinely sharpen them into weapons to be used to stab and slash fellow inmates.  Loops, LLC, solved this problem by developing a flexible toothbrush. (law professors take note, people are still coming up with new ways to make a toothbrush).  Loops asserted infringement of US Patent No. 7,334,286 </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3339264148340404474/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3339264148340404474' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3339264148340404474'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3339264148340404474'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/11/local-tooth-brush-maker-looses-motion.html' title='Local Tooth Brush Maker Loses Motion for Preliminary Injunction'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3538698637923841559</id><published>2008-11-12T07:31:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2008-11-12T07:46:48.240-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent reform'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='FTC'/><title type='text'>FTC to Hold Public Hearings on IP</title><summary type='text'> The Federal Trade Commission will hold a series of public hearings beginning on December 5 "to explore the evolving market for intellectual property." The FTC conducted a series of 24 hearings in 2002-03, leading up to its October, 2003 Report, "To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy." The Notice for the new series of hearings states that there have </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3538698637923841559/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3538698637923841559' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3538698637923841559'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3538698637923841559'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/11/ftc-to-hold-public-hearings-on-ip.html' title='FTC to Hold Public Hearings on IP'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4930581180711663903</id><published>2008-11-01T09:11:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-11-01T10:06:26.298-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='software patents'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='in re bilski'/><title type='text'>In Re Bilski Decided</title><summary type='text'>As many of you already know, the CAFC decided In Re Bilski this week.  Some, including the PLI, claim that the decision spells the end of software patents.  I completely disagree.  In fact, the majority addressed the continued patentability of software specifically:"although invited to do so by several amici, we [also] decline to adopt a broad exclusion over software or any other such category of</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4930581180711663903/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4930581180711663903' title='2 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4930581180711663903'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4930581180711663903'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/11/in-re-bilksi-decided.html' title='In Re Bilski Decided'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>2</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8599172684544267162</id><published>2008-10-29T17:09:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-29T17:25:35.139-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Bristol-Myers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ZymoGenetics'/><title type='text'>ZymoGenetics Settles Patent Spat with Bristol-Myers</title><summary type='text'>This week in Seattle Biotech news, it was the best of times and the worst of times for ZymoGenetics (ZGEN).  On Thursday last week, filings from the SEC reported that it had reached a settlement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. over a patent infringement suit concerning the rheumatoid arthritis drug, Orencia. That suit was set to begin trial later this week. Under the terms of the settlement, </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8599172684544267162/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8599172684544267162' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8599172684544267162'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8599172684544267162'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/10/zymogenetics-settles-patent-spat-with.html' title='ZymoGenetics Settles Patent Spat with Bristol-Myers'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2998700247665239111</id><published>2008-10-20T16:36:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-22T09:34:29.413-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CAFC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Summary Judgment'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='written description'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='K2'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='wide short ski'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Paul Nelson'/><title type='text'>K2 Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Wide Short Ski Case</title><summary type='text'>Inventor Paul Nelson sued K2 for infringement of his US Patent No. 5,603,522 covering a "Wide Short Ski." The specification was drawn to a shaped ski having a range of dimensions in length, side-cut radius, shovel width, and tail width. The claims at issue (added in a CIP) were for much narrower ranges than what was disclosed in the parent application's specification. K2 moved for partial summary</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2998700247665239111/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2998700247665239111' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2998700247665239111'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2998700247665239111'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/10/k2-wins-partial-summary-judgment-in.html' title='K2 Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Wide Short Ski Case'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5717198135893542284</id><published>2008-10-15T09:36:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-15T15:59:38.813-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='TSR'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Judge Pechman'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='BBN'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='wistron'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='power management'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Kevin Zilka'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='hot keys'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update: September 2008</title><summary type='text'> Three new patent cases were filed in Seattle last month, all three assigned to Judge Pechman.September 26, 2008Amphipod Inc v. Penguin Brands IncPechmanSeptember 16, 2008Majestec 125 LLC v. Maritime Fabrications IncPechmanSeptember 12, 2008Wistron Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et alPechmanPerhaps the most interesting of the three is the Wistron case against Samsung, where Taiwanese </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5717198135893542284/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5717198135893542284' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5717198135893542284'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5717198135893542284'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/10/seattle-patent-litigation-update.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update: September 2008'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3344161243693542994</id><published>2008-10-07T09:48:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-07T10:12:31.733-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='271(f)'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ATT v. Microsoft'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent infringement overseas'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='extraterritoriality'/><title type='text'>Guest Column on Extraterritoriality</title><summary type='text'>This is the first in what I hope to be many guest columns. If you or anyone you know would like to post an article on WApatents.com, just send it to me for review. I reserve the right not to publish or to edit any articles you send me. Articles posted do not necessarily reflect my own views on the law; so if you disagree with something in a guest column, post a comment and contact the author.This</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3344161243693542994/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3344161243693542994' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3344161243693542994'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3344161243693542994'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/10/guest-column-on-extraterritoriality.html' title='Guest Column on Extraterritoriality'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2129519894803906899</id><published>2008-10-03T09:52:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-03T10:10:50.664-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='verimatrix'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Judge Robart'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='widevine'/><title type='text'>Widevine Successfully Opposes Transfer Motion: Congestion in ED of Texas Cited</title><summary type='text'>In a dispute between two competitors in the market for certain video encryption technology, Widevine v. Verimatrix (WDWA C08-1039 JLR), Judge Robart denied Verimatrix's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, where Judge Ward is already prosiding over a case involving the same companies and a separate patent. Citing congestion in the ED of Texas as a </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2129519894803906899/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2129519894803906899' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2129519894803906899'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2129519894803906899'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/10/widevine-successfully-opposes-transfer.html' title='Widevine Successfully Opposes Transfer Motion: Congestion in ED of Texas Cited'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3064893942953955540</id><published>2008-09-29T10:42:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-09-29T11:20:20.781-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='interference'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Judge Pechman'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='philips'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='cardiac science'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='146 action'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><title type='text'>Philips Electronics Can't Overturn Interference Ruling</title><summary type='text'>In the United States (at least for the time being), the first person to invent has superior rights in a dispute involving multiple claims covering the same subject matter.  According to a decision by the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, an inventor at Philips Electronics, Morgan, was not the first to invent certain defibrillator methods claimed in US Patent No. 6,241,751.The </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3064893942953955540/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3064893942953955540' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3064893942953955540'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3064893942953955540'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/09/philips-electronics-cant-overturn.html' title='Philips Electronics Can&apos;t Overturn Interference Ruling'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8861477955802040624</id><published>2008-09-22T12:09:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-09-22T12:29:16.310-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='personal jurisdiction'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CAFC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Judge Leighton'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='miale'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='campbell pet co'/><title type='text'>CAFC Reverses WDWA Decision on Personal Jurisdiction</title><summary type='text'>In Campbell Pet Co. v. Maile, the Federal Circuit reversed an order finding personal jurisdiction lacking over an out-of-state defendant who had attended a trade show in Seattle and made verbal threats of patent infringement litigation. This decision reverses Judge Leighton's decision finding personal jurisdiction absent under Federal Circuit law (see my previous post on this decision here, where</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8861477955802040624/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8861477955802040624' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8861477955802040624'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8861477955802040624'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/09/cafc-reverses-wdwa-decision-on-personal.html' title='CAFC Reverses WDWA Decision on Personal Jurisdiction'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6280847931914040372</id><published>2008-09-22T11:04:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-09-22T12:06:02.655-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ruling'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='en banc'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='design patent'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Egyptian Goddess v Swisa'/><title type='text'>CAFC Rules in Egyptian Goddess: Point of Novelty Test Gone (sort of)</title><summary type='text'> The Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision today in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (2006-1562). In a decision authored by Judge Bryson, the Court thoughtfully and carefully reviewed the history of the "point of novelty test," concluding that the test in its current incarnation "is of quite recent vintage" and holding that it "should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6280847931914040372/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6280847931914040372' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6280847931914040372'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6280847931914040372'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/09/cafc-rules-in-egyptian-goddess-point-of.html' title='CAFC Rules in Egyptian Goddess: Point of Novelty Test Gone (sort of)'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8874932127406716180</id><published>2008-09-19T09:56:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-09-19T10:49:57.397-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='NPI'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='voluntary dismissal'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent infringement'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Judge Jones'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='discovery'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='fees'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='subject matter jurisdiction'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Gamber-Johnson'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='285'/><title type='text'>Defendant Not "Entitled" to Discovery on Claim For Section 285 Fees</title><summary type='text'>In a case where the underlying claims of infringement were dismissed voluntarily under Rule 41, Judge Jones recently ordered that a defendant was not entitled to take discovery in order to support a theory that the case was "exceptional" under 35 USC Section 285.From Judge Jones' order:G-J appears to concede that it cannot substantiate its § 285 attorney fee requestwithout additional discovery. </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8874932127406716180/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8874932127406716180' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8874932127406716180'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8874932127406716180'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/09/defendant-not-entitled-to-discovery-on.html' title='Defendant Not &quot;Entitled&quot; to Discovery on Claim For Section 285 Fees'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2742558154769335531</id><published>2008-09-12T09:14:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-09-12T10:46:05.294-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Vonage'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Sprint'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='VoIP'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nortel'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Skype'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='tacoma patents'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nextel'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Flexiworld'/><title type='text'>Can You Hear me Now? The Next Big VoIP Patent Battle will be Fought in Tacoma</title><summary type='text'>It's been almost a year since Vonage, industry pioneer in VoIP and (after going from $17 at IPO to $1) current poster child for patent reform, settled allegations of patent infringement made by Sprint and Nortel (stories here and here) and more than a year since it was hit with a $58 M judgment following a jury's verdict of infringement and a potentially devastating injunction resulting from </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2742558154769335531/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2742558154769335531' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2742558154769335531'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2742558154769335531'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-you-hear-me-now-next-big-voip.html' title='Can You Hear me Now? The Next Big VoIP Patent Battle will be Fought in Tacoma'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6138510141545128550</id><published>2008-09-04T11:01:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-09-05T09:54:44.811-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Judge Jones'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='wii'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='immersion'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='hillcrest labs'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='haptic technology'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Game controller patents'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='unigen'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='walgreens'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nintendo'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update: August, 2008</title><summary type='text'>While August was a relatively slow month for new cases in Seattle (only one, Laughing Rabbit Inc. v. OpticsPlanet, Inc (08-01176 JLR), area technology companies were busy elsewhere dealing with a variety of patent issues. Notably, Microsoft settled its dispute with Immersion Corp, obtaining a one-time payment of $20.75 M. The settlement resolves a contract dispute stemming from patent litigation </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6138510141545128550/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6138510141545128550' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6138510141545128550'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6138510141545128550'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/09/seattle-patent-litigation-update-august.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update: August, 2008'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3562390048533548768</id><published>2008-08-26T10:13:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-27T09:13:17.091-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Boeing'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Lee Johnson'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='COJK'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Weyerhaeuser'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Amazon'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Microsoft'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nintendo'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Law Community Mourns the Passing of Lee Johnson</title><summary type='text'>Friends, family, and local patent practitioners met yesterday to mourn the loss of Lee Johnson, a talented engineer and patent lawyer who spent over 35 years as named partner of one of Seattle's oldest IP boutiques, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness (commonly referred to by the acronym COJK). Lee was an excellent lawyer and friend. Funeral services were held in Seattle's historic Plymouth </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3562390048533548768/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3562390048533548768' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3562390048533548768'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3562390048533548768'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/08/seattle-patent-law-community-mourns.html' title='Seattle Patent Law Community Mourns the Passing of Lee Johnson'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6134983552508525421</id><published>2008-08-24T08:32:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-24T20:46:58.030-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='TGN'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='TBS'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Time Warner'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Gametap'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='6073124'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='CRS LLC'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Turner Broadcasting System'/><title type='text'>Declaratory Judgment Case Against CRS LLC Dismissed on First to File Rule</title><summary type='text'>In a case for declaratory judgment styled TGN, Inc. v. CRS LLC (08-680MJP), plaintiff TGN sought an order invalidating US Pat. 6,073,124 and declaring that certain software does not infringe.   TGN is wholly owned by Turner Broadcasting System (TBS).  Among others, TGN and TBS own and operate a website, GameTap.com, which is alleged to infringe the '124 patent.  Allegations  of infringement were </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6134983552508525421/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6134983552508525421' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6134983552508525421'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6134983552508525421'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/08/declaratory-judgment-case-against-crs.html' title='Declaratory Judgment Case Against CRS LLC Dismissed on First to File Rule'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6173198780634721597</id><published>2008-08-12T14:43:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-12T15:51:55.019-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='6976248'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='6629163'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='6324685'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Implicit Networks'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update: July 2008</title><summary type='text'>It was a very busy month in July for patent litigation.  Here is the case list.July 29, 2008Chef'n Corporation v. Trudeau CorporationWA WesternPechmanPatentFederal QuestionPlaintiff: Chef'n Corporation; Defendant: Trudeau Corporation  July 23, 2008Northwest Agricultural Products, Inc. v. Emerald Bioagriculture CorpWA EasternSheaPatentFederal QuestionPlaintiff: Northwest Agricultural Products, Inc</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6173198780634721597/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6173198780634721597' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6173198780634721597'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6173198780634721597'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/08/seattle-patent-litigation-update-july.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update: July 2008'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2729908478940800355</id><published>2008-07-24T11:20:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-07-24T11:36:26.110-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='software patents'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ex parte langemyr'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='in re bilski'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='ex parte wasynczuk'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='John Duffy'/><title type='text'>BPAI Raises Stakes for In Re Bilksi and the Future of Software Patents</title><summary type='text'>An excellent article by John Duffy, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, explains that two recent decisions from the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), Ex parte Langemyr (May 28, 2008) and Ex parte Wasynczuk (June 2, 2008) substantially raise the stakes for all interested parties in the Federal Circuit's en banc review of In re Bilski, a decision set</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2729908478940800355/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2729908478940800355' title='3 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2729908478940800355'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2729908478940800355'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/07/bpai-raises-stakes-for-in-re-bilksi-and.html' title='BPAI Raises Stakes for In Re Bilksi and the Future of Software Patents'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>3</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-8476186507061610177</id><published>2008-07-23T11:48:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-07-23T12:02:27.383-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='K2'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='wide short ski'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Paul Nelson'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='5603522'/><title type='text'>Claims Construction Order in Wide, Short Ski Case against K2</title><summary type='text'>Judge Lasnik recently construed claims for US Patent No. 5,603,522 for a "Wide, Short Ski." The case is one for infringement brought by inventor Paul Nelson against K2 Corporation. The parties disputed six claim terms from independent claim 1. Not surprisingly, the patent here uses words of approximation, like "about" and "approximately" to describe some numerical measurement ranges. Using the </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/8476186507061610177/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=8476186507061610177' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8476186507061610177'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/8476186507061610177'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/07/claims-construction-order-in-wide-short.html' title='Claims Construction Order in Wide, Short Ski Case against K2'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-9201418947969584533</id><published>2008-07-18T11:45:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-07-18T12:21:51.380-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='esquel apparel'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='5568779'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='inequitable conduict'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='exceptional case'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='abuts'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='taltech limited'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='wash and wear'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='shirts'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='inc'/><title type='text'>Federal Circuit Vacates Exceptional Case Finding and Over $6 million Dollar Award of Attorneys Fees</title><summary type='text'>Catching up on my reading, I notice that in May, the Federal Circuit affirmed in-part, remanded, and vacated in-part a judgment entered following a two-week bench trial here in Seattle between TALtech Limited and Esquel Apparel, Inc. involving US Patent No. 5,568,779, a patent covering a seam for "wash-and-wear" dress shirts that solved the problem of puckering when laundered (WDWa Case No. 04-cv</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/9201418947969584533/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=9201418947969584533' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/9201418947969584533'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/9201418947969584533'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/07/federal-circuit-vacates-exceptional.html' title='Federal Circuit Vacates Exceptional Case Finding and Over $6 million Dollar Award of Attorneys Fees'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-2994991381524987012</id><published>2008-07-13T19:56:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-07-13T20:21:21.098-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='USDC Western District of Washington'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent cases Western District of Washington'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Nintendo'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update (May-June 2008)</title><summary type='text'>So my trial is now over. My posts will pick up and be more frequent.  I'm happy to report a victory for one local inventor over Sears Roebuck and their advertising firm, Young &amp; Rubicam.  Jury returned a verdict for $1.7 million on Wednesday afternoon.  It's  a copyright case, so I won't go into detail here.  If you are interested, here is a link to today's story in the Seattle Times.May and June</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/2994991381524987012/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=2994991381524987012' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2994991381524987012'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/2994991381524987012'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/07/seattle-patent-litigation-update-may.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update (May-June 2008)'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-207055357214985912</id><published>2008-06-21T17:57:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-06-21T18:12:30.684-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='trainman lantern'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation tacoma'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><title type='text'>Trainman Lantern Company Wins Summary Judgment of Non-infringement</title><summary type='text'>Some of you may remember my post about this case in March involving US 7,118,245 for a Trainman Lantern.  The Plaintiff in this case, A.G. Design &amp; Associates, LLC, sells patented lanterns to Burlington Northern Santa Fe and other railroads for use by trainmen and engineers.   They sued Trainman Lantern Company and initially won a preliminary injunction from Judge Burgess, ordering TLC to cease </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/207055357214985912/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=207055357214985912' title='4 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/207055357214985912'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/207055357214985912'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/06/trainman-lantern-company-wins-summary.html' title='Trainman Lantern Company Wins Summary Judgment of Non-infringement'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>4</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3120526533783486322</id><published>2008-06-05T09:35:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-07-16T14:03:24.634-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Darby and Darby'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Seattle Patents'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='MDL 1948'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation seattle'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Vtran Media'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Update: May 2008</title><summary type='text'>Things finally slowed down last month in terms of new patent case filings in the Western District. There was just one new case hitting the electronic docket in May, and it was actually filed in April, so it really doesn't count as a May filing. Since it didn't make April's list, I'll post it here.The case is Vtran Media Technologies, LLC v. Astound Braodband LLC (C08-0650) (Pechman) This is the </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3120526533783486322/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3120526533783486322' title='2 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3120526533783486322'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3120526533783486322'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/06/seattle-patent-litigation-update-may.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Update: May 2008'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>2</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3456760704518731409</id><published>2008-05-21T08:05:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-05-21T08:21:49.298-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='proposed local patent rules WDWA'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='verimatrix'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='widevine'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='USDC Western District of Washington'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent cases Western District of Washington'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation News</title><summary type='text'>It's been a while since I've posted. I know both of you are disappointed (hi mom).  Reason for the hiatus is that I've been preparing for trial.  So expect my posts to be less frequent through about the end of July. There's still a lot to report on the local patent litigation front.  First, as I'm sure many of you already know, Nintendo was hit with a significant infringement verdict by a Texas </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3456760704518731409/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3456760704518731409' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3456760704518731409'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3456760704518731409'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/05/seattle-patent-litigation-news.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation News'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-5588340355332662075</id><published>2008-05-10T08:15:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-05-10T09:23:04.753-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent lawyers'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Seattle Patents'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent attorneys seattle'/><title type='text'>Seattle Patent Litigation Report: April 2008</title><summary type='text'>April was a very busy month for patent litigation in the Western District of Washington.    Wacom settled its patent dispute with competitor, Hanvon,  Microsoft and Veritas settled their decade old database dispute, and there were seven new cases filed.TGN, Inc v. CRS, LLC, (2:2008cv00680) (Pechman)VTran Media Technologies LLC v. Astound Broadband LLC et al                                    , (2</summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/5588340355332662075/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=5588340355332662075' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5588340355332662075'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/5588340355332662075'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/05/seattle-patent-litigation-report-april.html' title='Seattle Patent Litigation Report: April 2008'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3322691223350723404</id><published>2008-05-06T09:34:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-05-06T09:58:39.014-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='constitution'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Reexamination'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Hitachi'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='BPAI'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Supreme Court'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Translogic'/><title type='text'>All Eyes On Translogic's Patent Appeal to Supreme Court</title><summary type='text'>Normally, a party who loses its appeal at the Federal Circuit has little hope of the Supreme Court accepting its case on a petition for Certiorari.  Even with increased activity by the Supreme Court reviewing patent cases in the last two years, chances of having review granted by the Supreme Court are less than 1 in 1000.  Oregon maker of multiplexer integrated circuits, Transolgic Technologies </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3322691223350723404/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3322691223350723404' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3322691223350723404'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3322691223350723404'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/05/all-eyes-on-translogics-patent-appeal.html' title='All Eyes On Translogic&apos;s Patent Appeal to Supreme Court'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-4624118144536271247</id><published>2008-05-05T09:14:00.001-07:00</published><updated>2008-05-05T10:09:20.467-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='arthropathy'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Free-B-Ring flavanoids'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Univestin'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='osteoarthritis'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='cyclooxygenase enzyme (COX-2) mediated inflammation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='unigen'/><title type='text'>Unigen Agrees to Consolidate Three Pending Cases</title><summary type='text'>Unigen Pharmaceuticals, maker of an herbal supplement Univestin (a blend of flavans from Acacia catechu and flavanoids from Chinese Skullcap (Scutellaria Baicalensis)) agreed Friday to consolidate three pending cases for infringement of US Patent No. 7,192,611. The claims of the '611 patent are directed to a method for treating osteoarthritis using what is known as a Free-B-Ring flavonoid, which </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/4624118144536271247/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=4624118144536271247' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4624118144536271247'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/4624118144536271247'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/05/unigen-agrees-to-consolidate.html' title='Unigen Agrees to Consolidate Three Pending Cases'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-6514442064056814174</id><published>2008-04-30T13:47:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-05-10T09:04:48.942-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='David L. Schwartz'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='seattle patent litigation'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent litigation statistics'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='claim construction'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent cases Western District of Washington'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Michigan Law Review'/><title type='text'>New Study Says Western District's Claim Construction Decisions Get Reversed Nearly 40% of the Time</title><summary type='text'>A soon-to-be-published study in the Michigan Law Review says that claim construction decisions by the Western District of Washington were reversed by the CAFC 38.9 % of the time during the time period April 24, 1996 (the date of the Supreme Court's decision in Markman) and June 30, 2007. Presented by Professor David L. Schwartz, the study seeks to test the conventional wisdom that "[p]ractice </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/6514442064056814174/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=6514442064056814174' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6514442064056814174'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/6514442064056814174'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-study-says-western-districts-claim.html' title='New Study Says Western District&apos;s Claim Construction Decisions Get Reversed Nearly 40% of the Time'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4906465126850320499.post-3077869783564789340</id><published>2008-04-25T15:25:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-04-25T15:40:44.424-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='case or controversy'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='medimmune'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='article III'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='declaratory judgment statute'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='subject matter jurisdiction'/><title type='text'>Subject Matter Jurisdiction After MedImmune</title><summary type='text'>Yesterday, Judge Jones issued a decision that required the Court to "traverse uncharted territory between the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764 (2007), and the Federal Circuit’s decision in Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V., 514 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2008)."Because I'm personally involved in this case on behalf of National Products, Inc., I'll limit </summary><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/feeds/3077869783564789340/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4906465126850320499&amp;postID=3077869783564789340' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3077869783564789340'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/4906465126850320499/posts/default/3077869783564789340'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://wapatents.blogspot.com/2008/04/subject-matter-jurisdiction-after.html' title='Subject Matter Jurisdiction After MedImmune'/><author><name>Mark P. Walters</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/00858191651677917535</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='26' height='32' src='http://www.wapatents.com/uploaded_images/i522-Walters-Mark-QsN90P.PDF---Adobe-Reader-760821.bmp'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry></feed>
