というセリフがよく映画では出てきますね。トヨタさん頑張ってくださいよ。
2010年1月29日金曜日
米国 PTAにUSPTOが無償対応
(PatentlyO)
USPTOがWyeth v. Kapposの判決に承服することを決定し、PTAに対応することをアナウンスしました。計画によれば、2010年3月2日より前に発効された特許については無償で特許期間を再計算してくれるそうです。
[T]he USPTO will be processing recalculation requests under an interim procedure that is available to a patentee whose patent issues prior to March 2, 2010, and who requests it no later than 180 days after the issue date. This procedure is available only for alleged errors in calculation that are specifically identified in Wyeth. A copy of the notice submitted to the Federal Register for publication and the form for patentees to use in requesting a recalculation of patent term is on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/pta_wyeth.pdf.
私の会社では権利消滅まで特許を維持することはまれなので、今日も米国特許認可後の処理作業で、PTA再計算不要との事務所指示レターを作成してきました。はっはっは。
さらに詳しくは (Patent Docs) 参照ください。
RPXが新メンバー獲得。今度はマイクロソフトも
Iamマガジンからの情報です。
RPXが新しいメンバーを獲得しました。日本からはシャープが参加。マイクロソフト、シマンテック、マカフィー、それにスウェーデン企業の米国個会社だそうです。
私はRPXの商売がなりたつはずがないと思っていたのですが認識を改めなければならないようです。
Reduce Patent Litigation Risks and Costs
Protecting your company against patent assertions by non-practicing entities (NPEs) has become a high-cost, high-risk responsibility for patent counsel and litigation management. RPX was formed to help you mitigate this growing problem by enabling you to incorporate defensive patent purchasing into your patent strategy. Patent litigation by non-practicing entities has increased dramatically in the last decade, driven by a major influx of investment that has allowed NPEs to acquire a growing number of patent rights to use offensively. RPX’s response is to fight fire with fire. We put our capital to work in your defense, buying patent rights that could otherwise be asserted against you. For a modest annual fee - often less than the cost of a single patent assertion defense - RPX members will have a license to all of the patent rights we have aggregated, thus reducing their exposure to NPE assertions and costs. RPX has pioneered a new and effective way to address the NPE problem. Find out how we can help your company with our RPX services. |
米国 特許訴訟レポート
271にてPriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC)の特許訴訟レポートが紹介されていました。
今年のレポートでは特にパテント・ト○ール、もとい、NPEs (nonpracticing entities - companies that do not design, manufacture, or distribute products)の訴訟戦略にスポットを当てています。
NPEsが裁判で得る賠償額は近年かなり増加しているようです。
Damage awards for NPEs have risen considerably in recent years. In fact, the median damages award for NPEs was more than triple the award for practicing entities over the last seven years ($12 million for NPEs, and $3.4 million for practicing entities). Contrasted with 1995-2001, the median damages award for NPEs was about the same when compared with practicing entities (roughly $5 million).
特に、陪審裁判はNPEsに有利に働くとのことらしいです。
NPEs like juries - trial success rates for patent holders are much higher when decided by juries as compared to bench trials. In fact, jury success rates have consistently outperformed their bench counterparts every year since 1995. Since 1995, 55 percent of trials involving NPEs have been jury trials, as compared to only 41 percent of trials involving practicing entities. In addition to the rate of success at trial, recent awards by juries have been significantly greater, running several multiples of the amounts awarded by judges.
The most "patent friendly" jurisdictions (considering time-to-trial + overall success rate + median damage award) for 2009 were:
1 Virginia Eastern District Court
2 Texas Eastern District Court
3 Delaware District Court
4 Wisconsin Western District Court
5 California Central District Court
6 Florida Middle District Court
7 Texas Southern District
8 New Jersey District Court
9 Colorado District Court
10 Texas Northern District Court
10 Ohio Northern District Court (tie)
特許検索の強い味方か
以前、ちらりと紹介しましたこのサイト（Intellogist）が、ブログをはじめたそうです。（via :: The Patent Librarian's Notebook ::）
さっそく、Googleリーダーに登録してしまいました。
<ブログより抜粋>
We’re starting our new Intellogist blog with a call to action for the patent community! We’ve been pondering the decision to start a blog for a while, but recently an event occurred which made us realize the time was right. On Friday January 15th, we received the following message from the Boliven Innovation Network team:
After approximately a year of beta product releases and extensive user feedback, the Board of the company has determined that it no longer makes good business sense to continue to operate the Boliven website and associated services. We were happy that over 100,000 unique monthly visitors and over 6,000 registered members found utility from Boliven, but as of the end of last year we had fallen short of some of our other operational and financial goals.
There is no doubt that these are challenging economic times, but it’s still a real shock to see that Boliven has to cease supporting its community of patent professionals despite its apparent success and high registration. The Intellogist staff has always believed that patent information professionals have the potential to create extremely active online communities, but obviously Boliven was unable to create a profitable venture out of supporting one. In the wake of this surprising event, it’s worth asking what they did right, as well as what they did wrong. Did you have a Boliven account? If so, what will you miss about the service? Let us know in our comments section – we want to hear your thoughts!
私もBolivenに登録してよく使っていましたから終了のメールを受け取ったときは非常に残念でした。まだ検索可能なので右側→に検索ボックスは残しています。でも、データ更新は2009年の12月31日で止まったままです。
さっそく、Googleリーダーに登録してしまいました。
<ブログより抜粋>
We’re starting our new Intellogist blog with a call to action for the patent community! We’ve been pondering the decision to start a blog for a while, but recently an event occurred which made us realize the time was right. On Friday January 15th, we received the following message from the Boliven Innovation Network team:
After approximately a year of beta product releases and extensive user feedback, the Board of the company has determined that it no longer makes good business sense to continue to operate the Boliven website and associated services. We were happy that over 100,000 unique monthly visitors and over 6,000 registered members found utility from Boliven, but as of the end of last year we had fallen short of some of our other operational and financial goals.
There is no doubt that these are challenging economic times, but it’s still a real shock to see that Boliven has to cease supporting its community of patent professionals despite its apparent success and high registration. The Intellogist staff has always believed that patent information professionals have the potential to create extremely active online communities, but obviously Boliven was unable to create a profitable venture out of supporting one. In the wake of this surprising event, it’s worth asking what they did right, as well as what they did wrong. Did you have a Boliven account? If so, what will you miss about the service? Let us know in our comments section – we want to hear your thoughts!
私もBolivenに登録してよく使っていましたから終了のメールを受け取ったときは非常に残念でした。まだ検索可能なので右側→に検索ボックスは残しています。でも、データ更新は2009年の12月31日で止まったままです。
2010年1月26日火曜日
2010年1月25日月曜日
中国 特許法実施細則の最終版が出ましたね
SIPOへのリンクです。
国务院关于修改《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》的决定
名称が「実施条例」ではなく、「実施細則」に戻っているのですが。。。また変わったの？
また、審査指南の2010年版も出ています。これが最終版なのかな？
专利审查指南（2010，PDF）
本指南是在２００６年版的基础上，根据２００８年１２月２７日颁布的《中华人民共和国专利法》和２０１０年１月９日颁布的《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》以及实际工作需要修订而成，作为国家知识产权局部门规章公布
国务院关于修改《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》的决定
名称が「実施条例」ではなく、「実施細則」に戻っているのですが。。。また変わったの？
また、審査指南の2010年版も出ています。これが最終版なのかな？
专利审查指南（2010，PDF）
本指南是在２００６年版的基础上，根据２００８年１２月２７日颁布的《中华人民共和国专利法》和２０１０年１月９日颁布的《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》以及实际工作需要修订而成，作为国家知识产权局部门规章公布
米国 TIPS Reissue
(271) (PatentlyO) (BPAI)
私はまだReissue使ったことありませんが、この事例を教訓に
気をつけようと思います。
しかし、この案件の担当者はこのケースがこうも話題になっていると
気がついているのでしょうかね？
MPEP § 1402
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 251, the error upon which a reissue is based must be one which causes the patent to be "deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent."
上記のようにReissueを請求するには特許に欠陥がなければなりません。
September 24, 2007 づけデクラレーションには以下の記載
The inventor asserted that he believed that “the original patent is at least partially inoperative by reason of claiming more or less than [he] had a right to claim in the original patent.”
The inventor further asserted:
That while I recognize the importance of the aspects of the invention disclosed in the original patent, I did not fully understand the scope of the claims under U.S. law, and thus, when the original application was prepared, I failed to recognize that the disclosed invention was not fully covered by the original claims.
ところがReissue明細のクレームにはオリジナルのクレームがすべて残され、
変更点は従属クレームが1個追加されたのみ。発明者としてはオリジナルクレーム
は潜在的にinvalidかもしれないがvalidの可能性もあるとしてオリジナルクレームを
すべて残したものの、審査官はthe reissue declaration cannot satisfy the error required under 35 U.S.C. § 251 because it cannot properly allege that the patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent.
として拒絶。BPAIも審査官の判断を追認しました。
どういう対応策をとるべきかということについてはこの文献が役立つかもしれません。
私はまだReissue使ったことありませんが、この事例を教訓に
気をつけようと思います。
しかし、この案件の担当者はこのケースがこうも話題になっていると
気がついているのでしょうかね？
MPEP § 1402
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 251, the error upon which a reissue is based must be one which causes the patent to be "deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent."
上記のようにReissueを請求するには特許に欠陥がなければなりません。
September 24, 2007 づけデクラレーションには以下の記載
The inventor asserted that he believed that “the original patent is at least partially inoperative by reason of claiming more or less than [he] had a right to claim in the original patent.”
The inventor further asserted:
That while I recognize the importance of the aspects of the invention disclosed in the original patent, I did not fully understand the scope of the claims under U.S. law, and thus, when the original application was prepared, I failed to recognize that the disclosed invention was not fully covered by the original claims.
ところがReissue明細のクレームにはオリジナルのクレームがすべて残され、
変更点は従属クレームが1個追加されたのみ。発明者としてはオリジナルクレーム
は潜在的にinvalidかもしれないがvalidの可能性もあるとしてオリジナルクレームを
すべて残したものの、審査官はthe reissue declaration cannot satisfy the error required under 35 U.S.C. § 251 because it cannot properly allege that the patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent.
として拒絶。BPAIも審査官の判断を追認しました。
どういう対応策をとるべきかということについてはこの文献が役立つかもしれません。
2010年1月22日金曜日
2010年1月21日木曜日
米国 笑えるけど当事者には深刻だよね
(LINK)
Dear Mr. Kappos,
I have been practicing before the USPTO for 12 years now and have seena lot of ridiculous stuff, but this takes the cake. Note the attached"Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment" and the grounds therefore -- theperiod at the end of claim 1 was accidentally caught in the underlineof the word processing selection when indicating the amended language.
クレーム末のピリオドにアンダーラインを引いただけなのに・・・
弁護士の怒りもわかりますが長官にメールを送るのはやりすぎ
かなあ。。。。あの日だった？
Dear Mr. Kappos,
I have been practicing before the USPTO for 12 years now and have seena lot of ridiculous stuff, but this takes the cake. Note the attached"Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment" and the grounds therefore -- theperiod at the end of claim 1 was accidentally caught in the underlineof the word processing selection when indicating the amended language.
クレーム末のピリオドにアンダーラインを引いただけなのに・・・
弁護士の怒りもわかりますが長官にメールを送るのはやりすぎ
かなあ。。。。あの日だった？
米国 損害賠償額計算ガイド
（LINK)
INTRODUCTION
Chief Judge Paul R. Michel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitasked the members of this Project to come together to develop a handbook for trial courts toconsult when deciding issues of compensatory damages in patent infringement cases. The goalwas to create a handbook drafted by a committee, national in scope, with members from thebench, bar and academia, including in-house counsel from a variety of industries, and patentdamages experts. The underlying idea was to benefit from the collective experience of judges,attorneys, academics and economists in how best to achieve the “just, speedy and inexpensivedetermination”1 of patent damages. Recognizing that patent damages law is an area thatcontinues to evolve, this handbook is not an attempt to restate substantive damages law or predictits future evolution but is instead focused on procedural practices that may be helpful in theadjudication of patent damages.
ずいぶん長いことこのブログを放置してしまった。
次の更新はいつになることやら。。。
INTRODUCTION
Chief Judge Paul R. Michel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitasked the members of this Project to come together to develop a handbook for trial courts toconsult when deciding issues of compensatory damages in patent infringement cases. The goalwas to create a handbook drafted by a committee, national in scope, with members from thebench, bar and academia, including in-house counsel from a variety of industries, and patentdamages experts. The underlying idea was to benefit from the collective experience of judges,attorneys, academics and economists in how best to achieve the “just, speedy and inexpensivedetermination”1 of patent damages. Recognizing that patent damages law is an area thatcontinues to evolve, this handbook is not an attempt to restate substantive damages law or predictits future evolution but is instead focused on procedural practices that may be helpful in theadjudication of patent damages.
ずいぶん長いことこのブログを放置してしまった。
次の更新はいつになることやら。。。
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
投稿
