decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
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.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )