PUBPAT News

PUBPAT Warns Congress of Harm From Proposed Change in False Marking Law

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:22:00 -0400

NEW YORK -- March 19, 2010 -- After a surprising proposal by the Senate Judiciary Committee to substantially eviscerate the current law against false patent marking that has been in place for over one hundred and fifty years, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) wr

PUBPAT Releases Free Claim Construction Dictionaries

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:44:00 -0500

NEW YORK -- March 1, 2010 -- The Public Patent Foundation, Inc. ("PUBPAT") is pleased to announce that Dr. David Garrod, PUBPAT's Senior Litigation Counsel, has decided to release his groundbreaking claim construction dictionaries free of charge through PUBPAT's web site. They are available for immediate download as PDF files, using the following links:

Glossary of Judicial Claim Constructions in the Electronics, Computer and Business Method Arts (v. 1.0.0, Q1 2010) (4610 pages, 39.5 Mb file) (Also available via Google Docs)
Glossary of Judicial Claim Constructions in the Mechanical, Electro-Mechanical and Medical Devices Arts (v. 1.0.0, Q1 2010) (4825 pages, 41.5 Mb file) (Also available via Google Docs)
Glossary of Judicial Claim Constructions in the Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Arts (v. 1.0.0, Q1 2010) (1842 pages, 15.9 Mb file) (Also available via Google Docs)

Commenting on the release, PUBPAT's Executive Director Dan Ravicher stated, "This is a huge contribution to the public knowledge about patents. No other tool, for example, allows one to locate the 30+ cases that construe the word 'coupled' in a matter of minutes, and for free, too. [See Sample Content, below] Dave's been a good friend of PUBPAT. I'm very happy that he's decided to release these documents to the public now and am confident that they will quickly become 'go-to' resources for anyone researching patent issues."

Each of the released volumes covers district and appellate court decisions in the indicated subject areas, starting with the Federal Circuit's 1995 Markman decision and running through the end of 2009. Content appears in an easy-to-read dictionary format, indexed by the exact claim language construed. Because the usefulness of any particular construction depends critically on the reason that the court adopted the construction in question (e.g., was it "plain meaning" or a definition in the patent), each entry is endnote-linked to the relevant decisional text, with the portions of the full-text that define the particular construction highlighted for easy reference.

We hope you will find these files useful. We'd be happy to receive your comments/feedback. If you have comments or questions, or would like to be notified when the Glossaries are updated, please write to info@pubpat.org, or feel free to contact Dave directly at garrod@pubpat.org.

Sample Content

As an example of the content, here is what the collective set of dictionaries provides for the term "coupled" (the endnote links that provide the full-text context are omitted):

"coupled to receive" — "capable of receiving." In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
"coupled" — "is not limited to a mechanical or physical coupling." Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corp., et al., 175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
"electrocardiograph module coupled to a handheld module by a cable" — "electrocardiograph (ECG) module that is external to and attached to the handheld module by a cable." General Electric Co., et al. v. Sonosite, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33223 (W.D. Wis., Jan. 8, 2008).
"coupled" — "adjacent and directly connected to." Boston Scientific SciMed, Inc., et al. v. ev3 Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 931 (D. Minn. 2007).
"coupled" — "connected, directly or indirectly." Biax Corp. v. Intel Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14250 (E.D. Tex., March 1, 2007).
"coupled to a telephone" — "connected to a telephone receiving an incoming call." Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57604 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 7, 2007).
"coupled to" — "Any further construction at this point would be both unnecessary and unhelpful. The terms 'direct' and 'indirect' are themselves ambiguous. Thus, adopting one of the parties' constructions would only invite further debate at summary judgment regarding the meaning of those terms." Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86568 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 21, 2007).
"coupled" — "connected without an intervening valve that may impede flow to the first condenser during normal operation." Desert Aire Corp. v. AAON, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 369 (D. Md. 2006).
"coupled" — "two circuits are coupled when they are connected such that voltage, current or control signals pass from one to another. ... the Court's construction ... should not be read to imply or necessitate a direct connection, as the Court does not read the patent to require a direct connection or to preclude the use of intermediate circuit elements." Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., 422 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Del. 2006).
"a control coupled only to said preprogrammed memory for selectively communicating said preprogrammed memory to said electronic control module" — "a control coupled to the preprogrammed memory for the sole purpose of permitting the transfer of information from the preprogrammed memory to the electronic control module at different times and for different purposes." Adrain v. Superchips, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25212 (S.D. Tex., March 14, 2006). "This term means that the external module includes a control circuit that is connected only to the preprogrammed memories and to nothing else. The control circuit is used to regulate or guide the operation of the vehicle. The control circuit regulates or guides the operation of the vehicle according to the additional program within the preprogrammed memory in lieu of, that is, instead of, the original program within the fixed system's memory." Adrain v. Hypertech, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3732 (D. Utah, Mar. 6, 2002).
"a device coupled to the local bus" —"device directly connected to the local bus." PCTEL, Inc. v. Agere Systems, Inc., et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25943 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2006).
"coupled between" — "While the court cannot disagree with Hynix's tautological reasoning, Hynix has not provided any reason why its far more cumbersome construction would assist a jury perform its duties better than the simple term 'coupled between.' Accordingly, the court declines to construe this term." Toshiba Corp. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63313 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2006).
"coupled to" — "linked together, connected, or joined." Bradford Co. v. Afco Manufacturing, et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88547 (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 5, 2006).
"coupled to" — "joined or connected to during performance of the algorithm." Roche Diagnostics Corp., et al. v. Apex Biotechnology Corp., et al., 455 F. Supp. 2d 840 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
"coupled" ― "connected, directly or indirectly, to allow the transfer of signals or information." WeddingChannel.com, Inc. v. Knot, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 991 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2005).
"a printer ... coupled to the money order dispenser" ― "cover[s] a printer that is mechanically or physically connected to the dispenser, rather than merely electrically connected." Travelers Express Company, Inc. v. Transaction Tracking Technologies, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46009 (D. Minn., May 2, 2005).
"coupled" ― "directly or indirectly connected." Foundry Networks v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46840 (E.D. Tex., May 24, 2005).
"coupled" — "describ[es] a direct connection, specifically, a connection between subsystems without intervening subsystems, a connection between components without intervening components, and a connection between components and subsystems without any intervening components." Zoran Corp., et al. v. Mediatek, Inc., et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34422 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2005).
"coupled" ― "the transfer of energy over a conductive or dielectric medium, such as an optical waveguide or wire." CIENA Corp., et al. v. Corvis Corp., 334 F. Supp. 2d 598 (D. Del. 2004).
"connected"; "coupled" ― "directly united, joined, or linked together." Mosaid Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27636 (D.N.J., Mar. 23, 2004).
"coupled" ― "electrically connected, directly or indirectly." Intergraph Hardware Technologies Co. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31055 (E.D. Tex., Jun. 30, 2004).
"coupled to" ― "directly connected to or attached to." Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, et al., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13415 (C.D. Cal., Jul. 12, 2004).
"coupled" ― "associated in such a way that power or signal information may be transferred from one to another." Verizon California Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
"coupled to the independent poles and rebounding mat" — "connected to the independent poles and to the rebounding mat, either directly or through a discrete coupling device that is not an element of the trampoline or enclosure." Jumpsport, Inc. v. Jumpking, Inc., et al., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27261 (N.D. Cal., Jun. 2, 2003).
"coupled"; "coupled to" ― "linked together." Citec, Inc. v. Romtec, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27833 (D. Md., Dec. 5, 2003).
"coupled" ― "connected, directly or indirectly, by a communication path." EMC Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27824 (D. Mass., Sept. 12, 2003).
"coupled to" — "connected, not through an impedance matching network, but in a fashion that allows for the transfer of power." Applied Science and Technology, Inc. v. Advanced Energy Industries, Inc., 204 F. Supp. 2d 712 (D. Del. 2002).
"coupled" — "connected, directly or indirectly." Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27117 (E.D. Tex., Jun. 3, 2002).
"a drain electrode coupled to said drain conductive region" — "This 'coupling' is properly construed to indicate device current flowing through both the drain conductive region and the electrode." International Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25711 (C.D. Cal., Jul. 16, 2001).
"coupled" — "The court finds no reason not to apply the ordinary meaning of the term 'couple,' and determines that the ordinary meaning in this context is 'coupled or connected, directly or indirectly.'" Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp., 58 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Del. 1999).
"coupled" — "signifies direct contact between two objects." Biomedical Polymers, Inc. v. Evergreen Industries, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 98 (D. Mass. 1997).

Claims in Silvers Photomosaic Patent Receive Final Rejection By Patent Office after PUBPAT Request

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:31:00 -0500

New York, NY -- February 16, 2010 -- The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has issued a final rejection of the vast majority of claims in a patent relating to photomosaics (large pictures made up of many smaller pictures) assigned to Mr. Robert Silvers, who had been aggr

PUBPAT and ACLU Argue Today That Patents on Breast Cancer Genes Are Unconstitutional and Invalid

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:18:00 -0500

NEW YORK -- February 2, 2010 -- In the first hearing in federal court about the patentability of human genes, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the court today to rule that patents on two human genes associated with brea

NPR Hosts Discussion of Breast Cancer Genes Patent Case with PUBPAT Executive Director, Dan Ravicher

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:56:00 -0500

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200912112

PUBPAT Files Brief Defending Written Description Requirement

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:34:00 -0500

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- November 19, 2009 -- The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) — through the pro-bono efforts of Professor Josh Sarnoff and law students at Washington College of Law — filed a friend-of-the-court brief (PDF; 94KB)

Court Upholds Right Of Scientists And Patients To Challenge Gene Patents

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:54:00 -0500

NEW YORK -- November 2, 2009 -- A federal district court ruled today that patients and scientists can challenge patents on human genes in court, allowing a lawsuit challenging patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to move forward.

AMA, March Of Dimes And Others Support PUBPAT/ACLU Challenge To Patents On Breast Cancer Genes

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:14:03 -0400

NEW YORK -- August 27, 2009 -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a not-for-profit organization affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, filed a motion asking a district court to rule that patents on two human genes ass

Claims in Silvers Photomosaic Patent Rejected By Patent Office after PUBPAT Request

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:07:46 -0400

New York, NY -- June 11, 2009 -- The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has issued a rejection of the vast majority of claims in a patent relating to photomosaics (large pictures made up of many smaller pictures) assigned to Mr. Robert Silvers, who had been aggressively a

ACLU and PUBPAT Challenge Patents on Breast Cancer Genes

Tue, 12 May 2009 19:14:03 -0400

NEW YORK -- May 12, 2009 -- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a not-for-profit patent reform organization affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, filed a lawsuit today charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer stifle research that could lead to cures and limit women's options regarding their medical care. Mutations along the genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. The lawsuit argues that the patents on these genes are unconstitutional and invalid.

PUBPAT Joins Brief Asking Supreme Court to Review Lower Court Decision Upholding Exclusion Payments

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:05:55 -0400

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- April 24, 2009 -- The Public Patent Foundation announced today that it joined with AARP, the American Antitrust Institute and 54 intellectual property, antitrust law, economics and business professors in filing an amici brief (PDF; 171kb)

'Fair Use for Patents' Proposed by PUBPAT Executive Director at Fordham IP Conference in Cambridge

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:26:06 -0400

NEW YORK -- April 15, 2009 -- The Public Patent Foundation's ("PUBPAT") Executive Director, Dan Ravicher, proposed the concept of a Fair Use doctrine for patents this afternoon at the Fordham Intellectual Property Law Institute's Seventeenth Annual Conference on Intellectual property Law & Policy held in Cambridge, England.

In his presentation, Mr. Ravicher made the following general points. First, while both copyright and trademark law have a defense of fair use to protect societal interests believed to be more important than those served by intellectual property, patent law has no such exception to infringement. This begs the question of whether patents can restrict the exercise of civil liberties or other activity that infringes patents but nonetheless is of positive net social value. If a fair use defense for patents makes sense, the next - and perhaps harder - step is to address the definition and implementation of such a doctrine.

Mr. Ravicher then suggested research on (not merely with) patented things should be a fair use for both economic and civil liberty reasons, including allowing for advancement of science and independent testing of patented things for critique or commentary purposes. In addition, Mr. Ravicher cited three patents as examples to identify other potential civil liberty concerns that patents may raise. One - on jury selection - could impact due process rights of clients whose attorneys are prohibited from most effectively representing them at trial. Another - on RU486 - relates to the right of privacy and particularly a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. The third - impacting political advocacy - directly relates to the exercise of free speech.

Mr. Ravicher closed by posing the question of how a potential fair use doctrine should be crafted to protect any of these liberties while also not vitiating the economic incentives to innovate in fields potentially impacting on civil rights.

After presenting his proposal, Mr. Ravicher's proposal received comments from Trevor Cook of Bird & Bird in London, and David Perkins of Milbank in London and then answered questions from the audience.

Appeals Court Rules in Favor of New U.S. Patent Office Rule Supported by PUBPAT

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:44:51 -0400

NEW YORK, NY – March 20, 2009 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC (CAFC), today ruled in favor of a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) regulation supporte

University of Virginia Law School Hosts PUBPAT Executive Director Speech Against Patent Injunctions

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:59:03 -0500

NEW YORK -- February 12, 2009 -- The University of Virginia School of Law welcomed Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") Executive Director, Dan Ravicher, to its campus this afternoon to speak on the topic of whether injunctions should ever be granted against patent infringement.

In his speech, titled "Eliminating Injunctions in Patent Cases: Why Efficient Infringement and Civil Liberties Trump Property Rights," Mr. Ravicher argued that injunctions in patent cases should be eliminated because they restrict public access to technology and undermine economic productivity. “I'm all about patentees getting paid. I just don't think they should be allowed to restrict public access to technology if they don't make it available,” Ravicher said.

For more information about Mr. Ravicher's speech against patent injunctions, see the University of Virginia School of Law's coverage of the event.

PUBPAT Executive Director Speaks on Patent Reform at Carnegie Institution

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:15:26 -0500

NEW YORK -- January 13, 2009 -- The Public Patent Foundation's ("PUBPAT") Executive Director, Dan Ravicher, spoke this morning on the topic of patent reform at the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) Workshop Patents, Copyrights and Knowledge Governance: The Next Four Years held at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, DC.

Mr. Ravicher was asked to make three proposals for making a better patent system. His proposals were:

1. From a procedural perspective, all interests affected by the patent system should be fairly represented at each place of patent policy or decision making. Listening to only the interests of patent holders and patent attorneys assures a result that is skewed in their favor to the disadvantage of the public. Specifically, for one, this means inviting persons who represent the public interest to participate in patent policy discussions and deliberations.

2. Make patent quality the number one priority for the patent system. Part of achieving this goal would include eliminating the quota system placed on examiners which disincentivizes them from spending as much time as necessary on examination. Another part would be to eliminate - or curtail - unlimited continuations and unlimited claiming. A last part could also include a more robust and complete post-grant opposition system than the current reexamination options (or simply strengthening the current reexamination options).

3. Create a fair use exemption for patent infringement as there is for copyright and trademark. For example, performing research and exercising civil liberties should both constitute fair uses of patents that are allowed by the law.

After presenting his proposals, Mr. Ravicher and the other member of the Patent Reform panel, Prof. Josh Lerner of Harvard Business School and Philippe Aigrain, CEO of Sopinspace, answered questions from the audience.