It was a big win for a small company. On June 13, the district court issued a ruling on claim construction in C2 Global Technologies‘ ongoing patent infringement suit against a raft of telecommunications companies including (among others) AT&T, Qwest, Verizon, and Sprint after a Markman hearing. C2 has settled with AT&T netting a cash settlement and licensing agreement. It continues to pursue licensing agreements against other parties. C2 holds two patents in the VoIP technology area and also has investments in internet-based e-commerce concerns.

The company appears to do two things - own patents, and sue telecommunications companies to leverage settlement agreements and licenses. Some cynics might call them patent trolls. The more astute of us, however, realize that anyone - including AT&T and Sprint - can go bargain shopping for patents. One need merely to take advantage of the PTO’s 100% free search function. The job’s already half done since they are searching the prior art diligently when they pursue their own intellectual property anyway.

In a culture where we reward those who are able to recognize hidden value in things that would otherwise go unnoticed, it seems odd that some would malign those with keen aptitude despite limited resources. Sore losers.

C2 is a 92% subsidiary of Counsel Corporation. Counsel Corporation invests in small companies with potential for high return on investment, preferably with patent portfolios. Read into that what you will.

Veeco and Asylum Research, a company formed by former Veeco employees, have announced that they have reached a settlement in their infringement litigation. Veeco had sued Asylum for infringement and Asylum in turn filed counterclaims asserting its own patents. Under the agreement the parties will enter into a cross-licensing agreement. Asylum will pay and ongoing royalty and a net payment. The technology involved relates to atomic force and scanning probe microscopy.

Full story here.

There is a very high standard set for patenting novel chemical compounds. If the compound sought to be patented is structurally similar to a prior art compound, the PTO does not have to also show that there is prior art that teaches that the claimed compounds will have the same or similar activity, according to In re Dillon. That case involved the patenting of tetraorthoesters and their use in lowering soot emissions when added to gasoline. The prior art showed TRIorthoesters and their use as dewatering agents (i.e. they help remove water from the gasoline). It just so happens that the tetraorthoesters are also capable of acting as dewatering agents. Even though that wasn’t the claimed utility, the claims were still rejected as obvious because they just so happened to share that utility - whether anyone knew it or not.

Apparently the court thinks that the difference between tetraorthoesters and triorthoesters is the sort of difference that amounts to “structural similarity”. The difference between them is that tetraorthoesters have a carbon atom attached to four carbons. Guess how many oxygens are attached to carbon in triorthoesters? Three. See how easy that is? They must be structurally similar after all.

The problem is that what might appear to be small differences between structures to the layman might actually make a huge difference in properties. On the other hand, differences in structure that appear very great to the layman might have no effect whatsoever on the properties.

For example - take structural homologs (i.e. merely inserting an extra CH2 group somewhere.) For a compound that has to fit into a tiny pocket in an enzyme, an extra carbon atom might mean the difference between great activity and no activity. On the other hand, making a drastic change to a group of atoms that is on the other end of the molecule may make no difference at all to the ability of the compound to bind to the enzyme.

In re Deuel dealt with DNA molecules. Although the facts that gave rise to the obviousness issue were different, the Federal Circuit suggested that changing base pairs in a DNA molecule is not the sort of change that amounts to a compound that is “structurally similar”.

Look here for another post related to enzymes: Synthetic Compounds Emulate Enzymes.

Many people are hostile toward the notion of allowing businesses to patent their business methods. I’m not sure what the source of the hostility is. I can see why you’d be opposed to it if you don’t plan on obtaining any patents of your own and merely wish to practice whatever methods you choose without worrying about infringement. What about those businesses that want to develop innovative new models and reap the rewards by licensing them or assigning them to others - or practicing the method themselves exclusively? The Federal Circuit didn’t see anything wrong with it and in 1998, in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, the court held that business methods are patentable subject matter under US patent law. The business method involved a “hub and spoke” model of pooling assets between mutual funds. Naturally, the process involved using a computer. The issue was whether business methods satisfy the utility requirements under patent legislation. The court gave utility a broad interpretation and held the patent valid.

It all started with computer software patents. In 1981 the United States Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision Diamond v. Diehr. The facts are not particularly interesting - the claims dealt with a process for curing rubber. The twist was that the process included using a computer program to monitor the reaction.

Up until that time, mathematical equations and algorithms were not patentable subject matter under US patent legislation. They are still not patentable - at least in principle. Diamond v. Diehr changed the landscape in US patent law. Since the process itself was otherwise patentable without invoking the use of the computer program, why shouldn’t it be patentable since it was only using a program? After all, the claims weren’t to the computer program itself. This is exactly the way the Supreme Court saw it. It is hard to deny that the process was not “useful”, and as long as something is useful and it falls into a statutory class of patentable subject matter, the utility requirement is satisfied.

Since then, the slippery slope effect has been at work, and now one merely has to invoke a little bit of solid material that is involved somehow. Other than electrons I suppose, but then again…

Enzymes are catalysts and are useful for making large quantities of a substance or increasing the rate of a reaction.

Ohio State University chemists have created a synthetic catalyst that can fold its molecular structure into a specific shape for a specific job, similar to natural catalysts.

Being able to quickly produce a catalyst of a particular shape would be a boon for the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, said Jonathan Parquette, professor of chemistry at Ohio State.

A molecule’s shape and function are determined by the nature of the folds in a molecule. When scientists need a catalyst of a particular shape or function, they synthesize it through a process that involves a lot of trial and error.

“It’s not uncommon to have to synthesize dozens of different catalysts before you get the shape you’re looking for,” Parquette said. “Probably the most important contribution this research makes is that it might give scientists a quick and easy way to get the catalyst that they want.”

The catalyst in this study is just a prototype for all the other molecules that the chemists hope to make, said co-author and professor of chemistry T.V. RajanBabu.

For this study, Parquette, RajanBabu, and postdoctoral researcher Jianfeng Yu synthesized batches of a hydrogenation catalyst in the lab and coaxed the molecules to change shape.

The technique that the chemists developed amounts to nudging certain atoms on the periphery of the catalyst molecule in just the right way to initiate a change in shape. The change propagates to a key chemical bond in the middle of the molecule. That bond swings like a hinge, to initiate a twist in one particular direction that spreads throughout the rest of the molecule.

In tests, the chemists caused the catalysts to twist one way or the other, either to form one chemical product or its mirror image. They confirmed the shape of the molecules at each step using techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

That’s what the Ohio State chemists find most exciting: the molecule does not maintain only one shape. Depending on its surroundings — the chemical “nudges” that it receives on the outside — it will adjust.

“For many chemical reactions to work, molecules must be able to fit a catalyst like a hand fits a glove,” RajanBabu said. “Our synthetic molecules are special because they’re flexible. It doesn’t matter if the hand is a small hand or a big hand, the ‘glove’ will change its shape to fit it, as long as there is even a slight chemical preference for one of the hands. The ‘flexible glove’ will find a way to make a better fit, and so it will assist in specifically making one of the mirror image forms.”

Despite decades of research, scientists aren’t sure exactly how this kind of propagation works. It may have something to do with the polarity of different parts of the molecule, or the chemical environment around the edges of the molecule.

But Parquette says the new study demonstrates that propagation can be used to make synthetic catalysts change shape quickly and efficiently — an idea that wasn’t apparent before. The use of adaptable synthetic molecules may even speed the discovery of new catalysts.

Link to original story here.