In Rambus v. Hynix, 5:05CV334 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 29, 2008), at docket entry #2997, Judge Whyte largely rejected
proffered expert testimony on the “secondary considerations” that
indicate nonobviousness. A showing of these indicia of nonobviousness
has grown in importance since the Supreme Court lowered the pedal
against obvious combination patents, in KSR v. Teleflex. [...]
After some 350 docket entries, a firm that was representing certain
opt-out plaintiffs in the DRAM antitrust case was disqualified in
Unisys Corp. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 3:06-CV-2915 (N.D. Cal.
12/18/2008). The D.C. firm had merged in a California firm in Oct.
2008, which brought in as a partner an attorney who had represented an ...
It is remarkable how many patents get
issued, either (i) just before the calendar year closes or (ii) within
90 days before the application is pending 36 months. Due to postulate
(i), many patents (over 3500 last year) actually have an issue date of
December 25th. At this time of giving and remembering, recall a [...]
The prior post about magnetic
toy blocks might not have suggested a preferred embodiment for a gift
to/from a patent attorney. Consider then, the alleged infringing
“Bodyfat Analyzer and Scale” products in the recent suit, Tanita Corp.
v. Homedics-USA, Inc., 1:08-CV-7145 (N.D. Il., filed 12/12/08).
Perhaps this gift idea is not new, since some patents acknowledge it
long was [...]
It should be presumed that every patent
attorney and agent developed some degree of skill in the art of
assemblages made from Lego, Erector Set, perhaps Lincoln Logs - but,
expertise? That perceived set of skills can be challenged when the side
of a toy box depicts marvelous and majestic assemblages, which ‘you can