The UPSTO has sent out a request for public comments on “Patent Small Claims Proceeding in the United States.” This inquiry attempts to determine whether it would be beneficial to create a small claims procedure for enforcing patents in certain patent infringement matters. The request seeks to find out whether a need exists and if so, what characteristics would the procedure possess. The deadline for these comments is MARCH 18, 2013.
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced which exhibitors will attend the 2011 National Trademark Exp on October 14 – 15 at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Va. The event is designed to educate the public about the value of trademarks in the global marketplace.
The Expo this will highlight such themes as “Unusual Trademarks” and the “Evolution of Marks,” and will include educational workshops, costumed characters and exhibits of authentic and counterfeit goods.
Exhibitors were invited to submit their trademarks for exhibition in education exhibits. This year’s Expo will include new exhibitors such as Mattel, Inc., Segway Inc., and the U.S. Department of the Army. Below is a complete list of exhibitors:
A recent case reported in Docket Navigator illustrates that a party must be very specific when alleging inequitable conduct.
A recent case reported in the Docket Navigator underscores the principle that the “Entire Market Value Rule” can only be used to establish reasonable royalty payments when the patented feature generated the entire market demand for the product.
The case, Schindler Elevator Corporation et. al. vs. Otis Elevator Co., was heard by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NY. In that case, the defendant sought to exclude testimony from the plaintiff’s witness regarding the establishment of a reasonable royalty fee because the witness came to his conclusion using the “Entire Market Rule.”
The Court ruled for the defendant. In explaining its decision, the Court cited the Federal Circuit’s Decision in Lucent Technologies vs. Gateway, Inc. which stated that in order for the entire market value rule to apply, the patent holder must show that “the patent-related feature” is “the basis for customer demand.” Otherwise the correct procedure is to attempt to determine the amount of profit that can be directly attributed to the patented-feature alone. [The Lucent case, in turn, was based on the Civil War era Supreme Court Case, Seymour vs. McCormick.]
A recent case reported in the Docket Report confirms that a plaintiff cannot simply claim that an invention was conceived prior to another entity’s patent being issued. Rather concrete proof of the invention’s conception prior to the patent’s issue date is required.
The case Northpoint Technology, Ltd. V. DirecTV, Inc., et al. involves an alleged patent infringement over the satellite dishes and equipment that accompanies a satellite subscriber. The defendants denied the infringement and further argued the patent invalid as both obvious and anticipated, particularly in light of the reference referred to as the “Eastman Patent.” Plaintiff merely testified that it conceived the invention prior to the filing date of the Eastman Patent, but offered no evidence to prove the date of conception, As a result, the Court found the Eastman Patent prior art, and invalidated plaintiff’s patent.