Tanya Gaylord

Designing a New Framework: Federal Circuit Sets New Standards for Obviousness Test for Design Patents https://bit.ly/4e2lAhI #IntellectualProperty #Patents #Federal

The Federal Circuit’s decision in a patent infringement dispute has prompted not one but two District Court judges to recuse themselves from the matter. The case then was reassigned to a third judge, and then a fourth. How will the impasse at the heart of the case be resolved? The matter concerns a dispute between Teleflex and Medtronic over a catheter used in cardiology procedures. The main point with which the judges are struggling is the definition of the key phrase “substantially rigid portion." In our latest blog post, Panitch Schwarze attorneys John Simmons and Julianna Hunt explain the intricacies of the case. #PatentInfringement #PatentLaw #IPLaw

This is the court's summary table regarding "Patent Infringement Injunction Cases". ｜ YKUBOZON https://lnkd.in/dX83m_z9 https://lnkd.in/dqy5jNeR https://lnkd.in/dN9t79Nu First, let's look at the summary table 1. The handover date is five and a half years from January 1, 2008, to June 30, 2013. The mother set of research targets is 188 items. Then, we extracted a total of 139 cases, excluding duplicates between district court judgments and intellectual property high court judgments. As a result, there were 40 cases where the plaintiff's rights were invalidated, that is, the patents were invalidated, and the percentage was 29%. Next is the summary table 2. This is a judgment of the Intellectual Property High Court where the invalidity of patent rights was at issue. From April 1, 2005 (Heisei 17) to July 14, 2022 (Reiwa 4), about 17 years. The mother set for this investigation is 342 items. As a result, there were 129 cases in which the appellant's rights were invalidated, that is, the patents were invalidated, and the percentage was approximately 38%. Most of the content is due to the fact that the prior art (especially "Document X") could not be found during the examination stage of the Patent Office.

This is the court's summary table regarding "Patent Infringement Injunction Cases". ｜YKUBOZON https://lnkd.in/dgMSWsyZ https://lnkd.in/dqy5jNeR https://lnkd.in/dN9t79Nu This is the court's summary table regarding "Patent Infringement Injunction Cases". First, let's look at the summary table 1. The handover date is five and a half years from January 1, 2008, to June 30, 2013. The mother set of research targets is 188 items. Then, we extracted a total of 139 cases, excluding duplicates between district court judgments and intellectual property high court judgments. As a result, there were 40 cases where the plaintiff's rights were invalidated, that is, the patents were invalidated, and the percentage was 29%. Next is the summary table 2. This is a judgment of the Intellectual Property High Court where the invalidity of patent rights was at issue. From April 1, 2005 (Heisei 17) to July 14, 2022 (Reiwa 4), about 17 years. The mother set for this investigation is 342 items. As a result, there were 129 cases in which the appellant's rights were invalidated, that is, the patents were invalidated, and the percentage was approximately 38%. Most of the content is due to the fact that the prior art (especially "Document X") could not be found during the examination stage of the Patent Office.

① This is the court's summary table regarding "Patent Infringement Injunction Cases". ｜YKUBOZON https://lnkd.in/dKzywFTA https://lnkd.in/dqy5jNeR https://lnkd.in/dN9t79Nu This is the court's summary table regarding "Patent Infringement Injunction Cases". First, let's look at the summary table 1. The handover date is five and a half years from January 1, 2008, to June 30, 2013. The mother set of research targets is 188 items. Then, we extracted a total of 139 cases, excluding duplicates between district court judgments and intellectual property high court judgments. As a result, there were 40 cases where the plaintiff's rights were invalidated, that is, the patents were invalidated, and the percentage was 29%. Next is the summary table 2. This is a judgment of the Intellectual Property High Court where the invalidity of patent rights was at issue. From April 1, 2005 (Heisei 17) to July 14, 2022 (Reiwa 4), about 17 years. The mother set for this investigation is 342 items. As a result, there were 129 cases in which the appellant's rights were invalidated, that is, the patents were invalidated, and the percentage was approximately 38%. Most of the content is due to the fact that the prior art (especially "Document X") could not be found during the examination stage of the Patent Office.

Plaintiff's claim dismissed (plaintiff = Teraoka Seiko's rights invalidated). This is the 19th new case that ha https://lnkd.in/daSkjVNz https://lnkd.in/dgDaZuCD https://lnkd.in/dNJMb4mu Plaintiff's claim dismissed (plaintiff = Teraoka Seiko's rights invalidated). This is the 19th new case that has been declared "invalid" by the court. It is unclear whether the plaintiff Teraoka Seiko Co., Ltd., the patentee, has verified the "validity" of its patent No. 3,815,295 (water purification vending machine). ``Validity'' means, for example, that by conducting an ``invalidation document search'' on a patent, we can ensure that the patent is solid even if an ``invalidation trial'' is filed by a third party such as an interested party. Despite this, the company believed that the patent granted by the Japan Patent Office was valid and filed suit against Fukushima Kogyo Co., Ltd., accusing it of patent infringement. However, the Tokyo District Court ruled, ``Since the patented invention in question should be invalidated by a patent invalidation trial, the plaintiff cannot exercise the patent right against the defendant.'' In the end, the plaintiff lost the case. did. During the course of the trial, the defendant, Fukushima Kogyo Co., Ltd., presented a new prior art document (Otsu 2: "Utility Model Publication No. 63-39807"). Because of this novel prior art document, the plaintiff lost the case and the defendant won. This new prior art document (Otsu 2: "Utility Model Publication No. 63-39807") was not presented during the examination process. In addition, it was not presented in a separate invalidation trial (invalidation 2008-800029) filed by Fukushima Kogyo Co., Ltd. By the way, in the above invalidation trial (invalidation 2008-800029), the petitioner, Fukushima Kogyo Co., Ltd., lost. However, there is something strange about this prior art document (Otsu 2: "Utility Model Publication No. 63-39807"). During the examination process at the Japan Patent Office, Shigeru Takeda, a searcher at a registered search organization, found (Utility Model Application No. 59-160389) and reported it to the examiner as "Document A." Then, the examiner (Naoya Oku) presents this "Document A" (Utility Model Application Publication No. 59-160389) to the applicant as a cited document in the "Notice of Reasons for Refusal". The applicant submitted a "procedural amendment," and in the end, the examiner (Naoya Oku) made a "decision to register." This publication of the utility model (``Document A'' (Utility Model Publication No. 59-160389)) seems to have little evidence as a "prior art." However, the new prior art submitted to the Tokyo District Court (Otsu 2: "Utility Model Publication No. 63-39807") was a powerful "prior art document." 

This is the court's summary table regarding "Patent Infringement Injunction Cases". ｜Y.Kbozon https://lnkd.in/dNhkjHFT Examination by the Patent Office!! Will the examiner shine?!! What should the Patent Office do? Patents are granted based on sloppy and poor "examination" (search). It is unacceptable to grant a patent based on a sloppy search by the patent office examiner. I think examiners at the Patent Office need to relearn proper "prior art searches" rather than so-called(searches). We request disclosure of the [search logical formula] that the examiner seems to have created!! You must create a hybrid search formula that takes into account the "search term" to obtain the mother set. In other words, it is necessary to create a [search logical formula] using a hybrid search formula (search term + FI + F-term) for "technical subjects" in the same category to obtain the mother set of the research target. I think examiners at the Patent Office need to relearn proper "prior art searches" rather than so-called(searches). In particular, the creation of "search logical formulas" that examiners instruct searchers at registered search organizations to create, or that they appear to create themselves, should be fundamentally reformed. is. Furthermore, the ``administration''(patent office) should humbly reflect on the fact that the ``judiciary''(courts) pointed out the error and strive to correct the error. Technical personnel involved in intellectual property should become familiar with court precedents on a regular basis. I have received the following words from a respected senior of mine who was a director of a major Japanese company. I took a peek at "What to do with the Patent Office". It's a professional world, so I can hardly understand it, but there are many seeds of anger toward government officials, and the government officials do not admit their mistakes and do not improve. I hope that "What to do with the Patent Office" will act as a trigger for reforming the Patent Office in a positive direction. 我们从一位受人尊敬的前辈那里收到了以下的话，他是一家日本大公司的董事。 我看了一眼《专利局怎么办》。 这是一个职业世界，我很难理解，但对政府官员有很多愤怒的种子，政府官员不承认错误，不改进。 希望《专利局怎么办》能够成为专利局改革向积极方向发展的触发点。 Die „Verwaltung “(Patentamt) sollte demütig darüber nachdenken, dass von der „Judikative “(Gericht) auf einen Fehler hingewiesen wurde, und sich bemühen, den Fehler zu korrigieren. L'« administration » (bureau des brevets) devrait humblement réfléchir au fait que le « pouvoir judiciaire » (tribunaux) a signalé une erreur et s'efforcer de la corriger. http://note.com/ykbozon http://twitter.com/kbozon http://www.facebook.com/ https://linevoom.line.me/ LinkedIn