josaka

16 ms·

121.
by josaka 12y ago
> It surprises me why there aren't joint defense funding efforts in place to put these industry pests to bed... One barrier to collective action is that the courts only give you a limited number of attempts to kill a patent (usually
122.
by josaka 12y ago
The strongest reason, to my mind, is that we have a common law system, so the public can't fully and accurately comply with the law without access to the court records upon which the common law rulings are based.
123.
by josaka 12y ago
Regex is not necessarily the best intro to coding, but for a lawyer, it will animate much of what follows by quickly delivering value. At least in my practice, we'll commonly encounter terabyte-sized productions of data during litigat
124.
by josaka 12y ago
The patent-game fundamentally changed last year. New administrative law procedures are killing patents with about an 85% kill rate for 1/5 the cost of district court trials. It's the biggest patent law story right now. Many high
125.
by josaka 12y ago
In my experience, there's only a weak correlation. You're much better off looking at their repeat clients. If they serve sophisticated parties on a repeat basis, it's about the best indicator you'll get.
126.
by josaka 12y ago
It is. Just not on stated rates. Clients negotiate for lower budgets/rates more successfully now that a few years ago. Many firms keep their nominal rates high to maintain the appearance of demand and prestige.
127.
by josaka 12y ago
I suspect novel grammatical constructs in English would fail part one of the patent-eligibility test: does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See h
128.
by josaka 12y ago
For coarse data, the PricewaterhouseCoopers annual patent lit studies are pretty good: http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/2013... .
129.
by josaka 12y ago
The chart in the article, showing patent suits filed as a function of time, is a little misleading. It appears to hockey stick in 2011 (after a long upward trend). It's worth noting that in 2011, the rules on how many defendants you
130.
by josaka 12y ago
Unit cell is 5.43 Angstroms, according to this site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/sili2.html . Of course the bonds by which the cell is constructed are smaller.
131.
by josaka 12y ago
Unit cell of Silicon is about 5 angstroms (0.5 nm), so we'd be at about 7 atoms wide for a diamond cubic structure (I think).
132.
by josaka 12y ago
This is more true to the realities of this issue than anything else in these comments. We're still stuck with an "I know it when I see it rule" that depends on what the examiner/judge had for breakfast.
133.
by josaka 12y ago
This is an opinion everyone can love because the term "abstract idea" means something different to each reader. I think that's intentional. They're shifting authority from juries to judges. The wording gives judges a
134.
by josaka 12y ago
Even with dead on prior art, you're still out of pocket $500k to $1.5 million in legal fees before you can kill the patent in court, which is why cost-of-litigation settlements are common. Newer procedures (begun last year) are killin
135.
by josaka 12y ago
It's also the examiner's job to narrow the scope of rights granted by a patent to accord with the amount of innovation present. The output isn't binary, and there's some utility in letting weaker filings through the sys
136.
by josaka 12y ago
It doesn't fully contradict your point, but FWIW, Applicants do have to pay the USPTO $1,200 to $1,700 (with some exceptions) every other time they send the application back in. And of course, "changing some parts" typically
137.
by josaka 12y ago
I wonder if they made him sign an employment agreement as a condition of their acquisition. It's common for these agreements to confer all rights in anything developed or conceived, on the clock or off, with or without employer resour
138.
by josaka 12y ago
You'll need to look at the claims, the part at the end that defines the rights conferred by the patent. Titles just tell you the general area. The USPTO is likely still issuing patents titled "Wheel."
139.
by josaka 13y ago
An important distinction here is why the alleged invention should not be patentable: 1) because it is obvious in view of what was done before; or 2) solely because it is software, regardless of whether those in the field would regard it a
140.
by josaka 13y ago
That's a great point. If a broader claim is both supported by the specification and they could get it past the prior art, they could try for broader reach in a continuation patent application. To do so, though, they'd have to fi
141.
by josaka 13y ago
The claim says images must be captured "from a height of about three feet." Put your cameras at five feet or two feet and feel bad for these folks paying tens of thousands of dollars to own "about three feet."
142.
by josaka 13y ago
Patent holders can, in some cases, sue for damages for acts that occurred up to six years in the past. But there's no new infringement or damages accruing after expiration.
143.
by josaka 13y ago
I think the patent has expired. Patent apps issued before June 8, 1995 have a 17 year term from issuance. 35 U.S.C. 154. This patent issued in May 1995. See "date of patent" in upper right corner of the pdf doc.
144.
by josaka 13y ago
I think these patents have expired. US 7,620,565 and 7,222,078 date back to an August 1992 parent application, and were themselves filed in 1999, after the 20-years from priority date rule went into effect. Neither was granted patent term
145.
by josaka 14y ago
'first to file' is not quite right; it's 'first inventor to file.' You can show an earlier filing was derived from your disclosure and, thus, was not by an inventor. See http://www.aiarulemaking.com/rulemaking-topics/group-3/deriv... .
146.
by josaka 14y ago
The patent's claims are slightly more specific than the title would suggest, but are still absurdly broad. The patent appears to cover announcing, after a delay, a domain name registration on a social website using oauth.
147.
by josaka 14y ago
"It typically costs from 25,000 Euro (in the cheapest courts in Europe) to $250,000 (in the UK or USA) to defend or enforce a patent in court." Try $3 million per side through trial in US court. http://www.patentinsurance.com/iprisk/aipla-