|
|
| US Ct. of Appeals Rules Lemelson Patents Unenforceable |
 |
|
Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 01:33 PM EDT
|
Back in August, I wrote about the new defense of prosecution laches in patent law, and specifically about the Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson case, using it as a vehicle to explain some things about patent law. I'm very happy to tell you that Lemelson's patents were just ruled unenforceable by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Recorder's Brenda Sandburg has the news on Law.com: After hundreds of companies paid inventor Jerome Lemelson more than $1.5 billion in licensing fees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that his patents aren't enforceable after all.
The Federal Circuit ruled Friday that Lemelson's 18- to 39-year delay in prosecuting patent claims relating to machine vision and bar-code technologies was unreasonable. . . . "There are no strict time limitations for determining whether continued refiling of patent applications is a legitimate utilization of statutory provisions or an abuse of those provisions," Circuit Judge Alan Lourie wrote for the three-judge panel. "However, refiling an application solely containing previously allowed claims for the business purpose of delaying their issuance can be considered an abuse of the patent system." This [PDF] is the innovative attorney who came up with the prosecution laches idea, Jesse Jenner, who represented Symbol Technologies, the company that stood against Lemelson when much larger companies had folded, and here is Jenner's reaction: The Federal Circuit's decision "will hopefully spare hundreds more companies from having to deal with these patents," said Jesse Jenner, a partner in Ropes & Gray's New York office who represented Symbol Technologies, a bar code manufacturer, in the case. "It's unfortunate that so many companies paid for licenses they shouldn't have had to pay for."
Lemelson may appeal.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
If there are any.
---
When people start to comment on the form of a message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raiford on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
Please make sure the links are clickable.
<a href="http://www.example.com/">Like this</a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bill Gates on NPR "This I Believe" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Waaay OT! (but funny) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- The worst thing about Groklaw... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Computer Associates - Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- ot - CA's Patent Gift Slammed & Then Defended by PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- SCOX v. Novell - Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Jonathan Schwartz - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- Injunction overturned in Gibson v. PRS - Authored by: AHGrayLensman on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Gibson damages themselves - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- Nice case - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 05:48 AM EDT
- rPath, a Startup Led by Ex-Red Hat Executives - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- Form 10-Q for SCO GROUP INC filed - Authored by: long_hair_smelly on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Google's ex-Microsoft exec can recruit in China - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- The view from inside - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 09:19 PM EDT
- "AIB embraces Linux-based solutions " - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- Microsoft attempting to screw yet another standard - this time, their own - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 11:45 PM EDT
- FireFox Flaw... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 01:47 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
He's dead.
His heirs might, though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
The question is, can the duped companies get their licensing fees back from
Lemelson? If not, can those companies go after the patent office?
Or will it be a case of, It was your decision to buy the 'insurance/license' so
it's your loss?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SCO_DNR on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
| Look here for the Cognex take on the ruling:
Cognex web
page
Glad to see the good guy win one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
N/T
---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kaemaril on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
Lemelson may appeal.
On what grounds, I wonder. Anyone?
Anyone? Bueller? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
Now, will this decision help to torpedo them?
(pun intended, question serious)
---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Trollsfire on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
Reading the PDF about Jesse Jenner two questions came to mind.
First,
the article says that the judge "sided with Jenner’s team on three key defenses,
finding that the Lemelson patents in question were invalid and unenforceable
(based on prosecution laches) and that the Symbol plaintiffs hadn’t infringed."
Is it typical for a judge to agree with multiple defenses in order to find one
way or another, or do they typically pick only one (presumably the strongest) to
use to justify their ruling?
The second point comes from one of the
accepted defenses which is that the patents are invalid because the patents did
not contain the information necessary to build the invention. (I might be
misreading the article, but that is what I thought is refered to by invalid in
the previous quote.)
Under questioning from Jenner, British
scientist Brian Williamson, Lemelson’s expert on claim construction, admitted
that no single person could actually make Lemelson’s bar code or machine vision
inventions based on the patents.
Since the rules have changed to
make at least this type of submarine patent no longer possible (and thus the
doctrine of prosecution laches a defense that would not be that necessary in the
future), maybe this defense is even more interesting. Has anything like this
been held in the past? Is this a defense that can be used in the future in
patent cases where the patent is broad and generic? Or is it
already?
--Trollsfire [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
I believe that this settles the question of Lemelson being a scam astists or an
inventor.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
If the patents are unenforceable, do the previous batch of suckers, sorry,
licensees, get their $1.5 BILLION back? If not, what deterrent is there to
prevent others from implementing this same sort of fraud and abuse?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
| I'm at a JEDEC meeting today and passed the news to the members and the
President/Chief Counsel (who happens to be here today.)
The perfect timing
on this news made the day for a hundred or so engineers! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rm6990 on Tuesday, September 13 2005 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
Hey all. Does anyone know if SCO filed their response to Novell's Counterclaims?
Just curious.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lisch on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
The Wall Street Journal today (Wed, Sep 14) ran a front-page article on a
successful patent attack. The article begins:
In one of Douglas
Fougnies's early business ventures, he provided phony new-vehicle titles for
stolen cars. His partner, Larry Day, is a onetime blackjack dealer in Las
Vegas.
Together, the two men have found a more lucrative line of work: suing
cellphone companies for patent infringement. Earlier this year their company --
which consists of four employees and six patents -- won $128 million in
damages from Boston Communications Group Inc. and four other companies over
alleged misuse of a 1998 patent.
The patent in question concerns
prepaid wireless phone call systems. Boston Communications invented their own
system, as did many others. But Fougnies was the one who thought to obtain a
patent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
