Archive for February, 2013

The Prometheus Factor – A Tech Transfer Adventure at AUTM

Wednesday, February 27th, 2013

On Saturday, March 2, at the AUTM Annual Meeting in San Antonio, I will be part of a role-playing panel involving Eric Guttag, Kevin Noonan of PatentDocs and Christopher McKinney of Georgia Health Sciences University. Come see them do their best to help a fairly clueless professor-inventor (me), navigate the shallows and whirlpools of today’s increasingly complex patents and licensing landscape. We promise more intrigue, trap doors and secret stairs than an episode of “What the Butler Saw.” (I guess to avoid totally dating us, I should have said “Downton Abbey.”

2013 Annual AUTM Conference

Brilliant Instruments v. GuideTech – Doctrine of Equivalents on Review

Thursday, February 21st, 2013

Contributed by Theresa Stadheim of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner

In Brilliant Instruments, Inc., v. Guidetech, LLC, Appeal no. 2012-1018 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2013) (a copy can be found at the end of this post), a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the Northern District of California’s summary judgment that Brilliant Instruments, Inc. (“Brilliant”) did not infringe GuideTech’s patents: 6,226,231 (the ’231 patent), 6,091,671 (the ’671 patent) and 6,181,649 (the ’649 patent). (A copy of each patent can be found at the end of this post.)

One issue was whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Brilliant infringed the ’671 and the ’649 patents under the doctrine of equivalents.  The particular claim limitation at issue recited in claim 1 of the ’671  patent: “wherein said shunt and said capacitor are operatively disposed in parallel with respect to said first current circuit.”

(more…)

Supreme Court Hears “Replicant Soy Bean” Appeal

Wednesday, February 20th, 2013

Since I did a perfectly concise, coherent even, post when the Supreme Court granted cert. in Monsanto v. Bowman back in October, I don’t really have a lot to add. The bloggers and news services have paid a lot of attention to this appeal as if, somehow, the fate of transgenic plants was in the balance but, from what I’ve read of the oral arguments, Monsanto has the upper hand. Oddly, this appeal called to mind Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement, 366 U.S. 336 (1961), which involved “repair” of a fabric convertible top vs. “replacement” of the entire mechanism as well as the fabric. The Supreme Court found in favor of the defendant, but the ruling would provide ample precedent to hold that Bowman in fact infringed when he replicated a second generation of Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant soy beans without a license:

(more…)

Landmark Australian case finds genes still patentable in Australia

Friday, February 15th, 2013

Article by Mark Wickham of Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick.