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 build’ [...]