In March 2006, not only the fate of the use of an injunction in patent infringement litigation or a discussion of NTP vs. RIM (BlackBerry) incident resolved at $ 612.5 million, as well as the Supreme Court to review on eBay v. MercExchange . The Wall Street Journal says that the US Patent Law "worsens research and imposes penalties on innovation," and the patent system "is not only fundamental fairness but also impairs the competitiveness of the United States" Stated. The idea that patents are not the center of innovation is also seen in the philosophy of venture capitalists. The venture capitalist says directly, "Why are we investing in patents?"
People like Adam B. Jaffe and Josh Lerner suggest that the patent problem is a recent origin, but this has led to a decline in the quality of the patent in the past 20 years, but has led to the strengthening of patent rights Proof of Evidence This is because it is thin. Many of the problems we are looking at lasted for a long time.
Below we discuss aspects of the history of light bulbs. Along the venture capital perspective, JP Morgan invested in Edison before Edison's main patent
issued. In order to draw attention from influential people, Edison established the first commercial power plant near Wall Street to maximize the charm of RIM (BlackBerry).
That customer. After a commercial bridgehead was established, a patent war began. Edison's ultimate success in patent warfare is established aggressively and defensively, and very
I was saved by his high profile. It is suggested that certain legal problems faced Thomas Edison in the 19th century will soon appear amongst stem cell workers in the 21st century. [Of various suggestions that Edison was troll-like in his behavior in not making product, one observes that Edison himself obtained the funds from investors to set up the first electric power plant, and then created the power plant. He made product. Whatever he was actually the inventor of the light bulb is a different story.]
Did EDIDON issue the light bubble?
Although not widely discussed, the application to Edison's famous US Pat. No. 223,898, granted January 27, 1880, is based on a competitive inventor Sawyer and
Men and Edison lost in terms of fighting.
After that, Soyer and the successor of Man challenged Edison's patent. Edison's basic claim: an incandescent light bulb made of filaments of high resistant carbon, made as described and fixed in metal wire, light for light. The trial court stated that Edison said, "The first time we have manufactured carbons of materials and that they are manufactured in a special way for the first time through a process specially designed to demonstrate special resistance, We will first combine it with the accessories of the lamp structure necessary to prevent its collapse and provide a sufficient long life. "
"There are many ruled cases that seem to be superior to what the inventor knew better.Patent is continued for inventions whose invention was not recognized when the invention was invented. Although there was plenty of doubt as to where the telephone which was talking about when Bell filed a patent was considered was anywhere, the court said, "Edison which Mr. Bell knew about it The patent of the court was analyzed, the obviously long life of Edison's filament,
Bamboo was not disclosed in the Edison patent.
In the case of the Supreme Court, patents related to Sawyer and Man, claimed against Edison's interest, could not survive. U.S. Pat. No. 1
317,076 (related to patents 205, 144) are used for electric lamps, carbonized fibrous or fibrous materials, and arcuate or horseshoe shaped indicator conductors
I mentioned so far. The Supreme Court stated as follows. "The lamps described in the Sawyer and Man patent are no longer in use and have never been commercially successful,
Embody the principle of high resistance on a small illumination surface. In order to broaden the range of Sawyer / Man claims, the Supreme Court stated, "However, despite the fact that forests are not generally adapted to their purposes, the patent owner is subject to disciplinary measures for such purposes and It did not determine the infringement of discovering and using wood of different kinds, which found that timber to evaluate the specific properties that other people found to contain similar or better quality. "The court further examined the growth of more than 6,000 plants in practice and when it showed that it does not possess the unique properties that fit them for that purpose, Sawyer / We noted that a wide range of claims were made for each of them.And this extensive assertion, did anyone disturb further investigation? We do not think so.
The court pointed out that Edison "only three kinds of bamboo are suitable for my purpose". After discussing the amount of work Edison was bamboo, the court asked: Question
Indeed, despite Sawyer and Man's incompletely successful experiments, using carbonized paper and charcoal to relate everything being claimed for them,
Honor the results of the surprising discovery of others. "The court raised" infringement if it anticipates that it will be delayed ". "By proveing that such materials were used in advance if the patent was infringed by the use of such materials,
Edison's claim that Sawyer / Man has modified the application so that it matches Edison's work, despite the Supreme Court's failure to address this problem: "There is no such invention
Although described in the original application, it was introduced for more than four years after filing, the same material was used by Edison,
After Edison's invention was released to the world, the fact that Sawyer and Man's base was completely changed, and the application has been modified, it has a completely different direction and purpose than what it had in its original form I ... [Testimony] The idea of claiming carbon made from fibrous material and fiber material is a later thought and indicates that it is not part of the purpose of the original use. "
In the problem of the inventor, the text of the case in the court reveals the difference whether Edison was inventor of light bulbs or whether it was not an inventor. In 1875, Henry Woodward and Matthew
Evans acquired a patent for a light bulb. That right was purchased by Edison. In 1878, Joseph Wilson Swan invented a light bulb with a lifetime of about 13.5 hours. Edison bulbs were induced using filaments derived from bamboo in 1880, and 1200 hours were pasted.
The problem of the case of 1895 is LizardTech v. It is not related to the problem of Earth Resource Mapping, 433 F.3 d 1373. 2006 US App. LEXIS 137; 77 USP Q 2 D 1391 (CAFC 2006)
It is irrelevant to the problem in the current discussion of changes in continuous application practice.
[Endnote13appearinginthetext71FedReg48(January32006)Applicant'sinfringementwhilewaitingforthedevelopmentofsimilarorparalleltechnologiescausedbymodifyingpendingapplicationstocoverdevelopmentif[Endnote13whhichappearshereinthetextstates:71FedReg48(Jan32006)AbusesofapplicantswhileawaitingdevelopmentsinsimilarorparalleltechnologycausedbymodifyingthependingapplicationtocoverdevelopmentsIfthe[Endnote13、本文中に現れている、71Fed。Reg。48（2006年1月3日）。開発をカバーするために保留中のアプリケーションを修正することによって引き起こされる、類似または並行技術の開発を待っている間、出願人の侵害。もし[Endnote13whichappearshereinthetextstates:71FedReg48(Jan32006)AbusesofapplicantswhileawaitingdevelopmentsinsimilarorparalleltechnologycausedbymodifyingthependingapplicationtocoverdevelopmentsIfthe
The amendment is covered by the disclosure, but this practice is allowed. PIN / NIP, 304 F.3 d 1235.]
Stem cells
The situation that the court faced in 1880, when trying to grasp who used the light bulb to take off the platform, faced immediately the court of the 21st century, who was invented step by step with embryonic stem cells. There are already a large number of patent applications for somatic cell nuclear transplantation [SCNT] At various stages of producing embryonic stem cells, as in the 19th century, there are currently problems with scope and feasibility of the invention. Many people are currently insisting
In a large scale, perhaps in the description of limited activation and description, the final winner will identify the insight to obtain the whole system and obtain the patentee
Protection on it.
"You just look twice as much" to update it
Today in intellectual property rights in November 2005, I announced some data on continuous application for 2004 from PTO and the USPTO is evaluating its possibility
Two readers in Chicago, Kevin Noonan and Paul Reinfelds, sent along the 2005 data, with a small number of "second" continuation applications PTO proposal, even if effective, limit ongoing applications That may not solve the problem faced by PTO.
[DescriptionofNote18ofFiscal2005:[Endnote18statedofthedataforFY2005:[2005年度のデータの注18記載：[Endnote18statedofthedataforFY2005:There were 63,000 continuous applications including 44,000 / cips and 18,500 divisions. Of these, 11,800 applications were second and later applications. Separately, there were 52,000 RCEs. Ten thousand of them were hidden second. Therefore, 21,800
384,228 people were second or later, 5.7%. The 2004 RCE is the most abundant "continuous" form, with 52,000 out of 384,228 [13.5%]. Combination of all "continuing" forms
Of the 384,228 people, 115,000 [30%]. The content of Note 18 is cited in the USPTO's comment on suggested rule making in the field of continuing applications.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/fpp_continuation/ebert.pdf.
Comments posted in the April 2006 article of Intellectual Property Today, which is not actually known to me at the time of comment, are not actually announced by Intellectual Property Today. These comments are based on the grounds that even if implemented, the suggested limitations do not solve the application's backlog problem and individually adversely affect many reasonable uses of ongoing application practices We opposed the proposed limitation of the second, continuous and ongoing application. ]
Publisher of Carhart's book "Lost Triumph" is Putnam, not Putman. Regarding JEB Stuart's theory, the other two critics are discussing the novelty of this book
The role was published one year before Carhart's book.
[After March 2006, the Supreme Court decided the case eBay v. MercExchange. Therein, the Supreme Court made clear that entities such as universities and individual inventors, who do not make a product, could satisfy the four-factor test and obtain permanent injunctions to bar infringement of their patents.]
EmoticonEmoticon