On February 24th, a letter sent by the Association of American Universities, signed by 145 universities, to Senators Grassley and Leahy and Representatives Goodlatte and Conyers, objected to parts of legislation such as “The Innovation Act, H.R. 9” that purports to deter litigation by non-practicing entities, such as patent “trolls.” The Universities emphasized the damage that fee-shifting provisions requiring the loser of an infringement suit to pay the winner’s costs and fees would do to educational and research institutions that already find it financially difficult to enforce their IP rights. The letter pointed out the chilling effect such provisions would have on attempts to license technology, especially to start-ups. Also noted was the fact that mandatory joinder provisions could draw a university and its inventors into litigation initiated by third parties over which the university has little control.
Posts Tagged ‘ip’
In this decision—No. 2014-1396 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 18, 2015)—the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment (a copy can be found at the end of this post) that Garmin’s exercise products do not infringe the claims of Pacing’s US Pat. No. 8,101,843. The court reviewed the case de novo because the district court had relied entirely on the intrinsic evidence. The claims were directing to a systems comprising “playback devices” that the judge ruled do not play target tempo or pace information as “audio, video or visible signals,” e.g., while the user is running.
The panel affirmed that the preamble should be given weight as a claim limitation because:
“[w]hen limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell International Corp., 323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
On January 30th, the White House released a press release expanding upon President Obama’s mention of “precision medicine” in his State of the Union Address. Not surprisingly, the details are pretty much what we who are involved in various aspects of “personalized medicine” would expect – an emphasis on the use of genomic diagnostics to improve treatment selection – especially for cancer patients. The largest of the “Key Investments” listed would be to the NIH to develop what looks like the creation of a reference data base “through engaged participants and open, responsible data sharing.” The NCI would get $70 million to “identify genomic drivers in cancer” and develop more effective approaches to treatment.
Although the primary focus of this four day meeting was licensing, there were two simultaneous tracks that contained at least a section of the effect/uncertainty of the recent judicial decisions and PTO Guidelines on licensor/licensee relationships. (I spoke at one of them, and my short slideshow is posted on the AIPLA website, along with a longer “law review”-type article that is, by now, a bit out of date.)
What got me out of bed this morning was the “President’s Forum –What’s Next for Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit and the USPTO Gloss.” It was chaired by Sharon Israelson, current AIPLA president and included Jerry Selinger – who is heading up an AIPLA working group on the issue, Myra McCormack of J&J, Nate Kelly, Solicitor, USPTO and Jim Crowne of AIPLA. Of course, this was too many speakers for an hour-long forum.