Posts Tagged ‘Paul Cole’

A European view of RCT v. Microsoft – A Pyrrhic victory?

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

From Paul Cole

The law gets into a mess when a court does the right things for the wrong reasons.

By way of introduction, the present proceedings concern a method for the production of halftone images created at the University of Rochester, and the following image and background information were downloaded from their website:

Printing devices have long used the technique of halftoning to render the appearance of shades of gray using dot patterns. But high-quality halftones required an exasperating amount of time for printout. Drs. Kevin Parker and Theophano Mitsa developed Blue Noise Mask (BNM), a novel approach to providing high-quality halftones many times faster than the best algorithms available in the late 1980s. Dr. Parker, an expert in the field of medical imaging, had noticed that printouts from his team’s diagnostic equipment were slow and plagued by distracting “noise” patterns called image artifacts. The researchers were unable to tell whether a spot on a picture represented an incipient tumor or an artifact added to the image during printing. For a faster, more accurate way to render the pictures, they conceptualized pictures as being composed of a fine mosaic of black and white dots. This fine mosaic pattern was mathematically constructed into a Blue Noise Mask. After a computer calculates the optimum mask for a printing device, the pre-built mask is stored in the printer’s software to produce halftones almost instantly. For color printers, the mask also halves the number of bits needed to produce a high-quality image, permitting major savings in printing speeds and computer memory.

Researchers at the University of Rochester designed the mask with substantial computer power and several years of work. The BNM was introduced to graphics and other industries in 1991. At that time BNM was a leap forward in halftoning technology. BNM was the first method to combine high quality with virtually instantaneous halftoning.

(more…)

Essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals – EPO Enlarged Appeal Board decisions G2/07 and G1/08 – Essentially Biological Processes

Monday, December 13th, 2010

From Paul Cole

Opinions were handed down on 9th December in the above two cases concerning the scope of the exclusion of a.53(b) EPC 1973. That article is further defined in r.23b(5) EPC 1973, now r.26(5) EPC 2000 which specifies that such a process is essentially biological if it consists essentially of natural phenomena such as crossing or selection.

Case G2/87 arose from a referral of Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04 in case T83/05 PLANT BIOSCIENCE/Broccoli and related to a method of producing broccoli (Brassica oleracea) with elevated levels of glucosinolates which are believed to be chemoprotective agents. The patent in issue claimed:

(more…)

Happy Belated Birthday to Patents4Life! We are One.

Sunday, March 21st, 2010

Last Wednesday, Patents4Life forgot to celebrate its first anniversary. I have done a lot of writing, and recruiting of some writers (particular thanks to Paul Cole of Lucas & Co., UK, and Ronald J. Schutz of Robins Kaplan in Minneapolis for their posts on European law and practice and US litigation, respectively). I would also like to thank Mary Hirsch, the Marketing Director at SLW, for managing this site and getting it half-way organized. Of course I have a few thoughts, and will try to keep them short of a law review article.

Clearly, this is not the type of blog or tweeting thing whereby I share random thoughts on the state of IP today, in 165 characters or less. But neither is it exhaustive reporting and/or analysis of each and every decision, proposed rule, and bill relating to patent law and policy. (Even more clearly, I nearly flunked statistics in college, so no graphs for you!)

Patents4Life most closely resembles the now-defunct print newsletter, Patent Strategy and Management. The idea was to deliver short, timely, un-footnoted articles of interest to a wide range of technology acquisition and management professionals. It was a worthy concept, and I wrote for PSM for a number of years. But a good concept can be a bad idea, and print simply is not as timely as almost real-time reporters like PatentlyO, “Hal’s list”, Patent Baristas and now, Patents4Life.

I know sometimes “I do go on” (as my Alabama aunt might say) but I have been following some of these topics for years, e.g., ever since Chakrabarty was decided, Bayh-Dole was enacted and people started to try to patent the products of “genetic engineering” (not a term much in use today!). Yes, I can go on – and I hope to keep doing it for some years to come.

Hearing fixed for “Broccoli” and “Tomatoes” cases before the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal, G 0002/07 and G 0001/08

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Post from Paul Cole

The EPC prohibits patents for essentially biological processes and the referred questions relate to the degree and nature of human technical intervention, which is necessary for that provision not to apply.  Case G 0002/07 “Broccoli” concerns EP-B-1 069 819 Plant Bioscience Limited  which has been opposed by Syngenta Participations AG and Groupe Limagrain Holding, referring decision T 0083/05. The patent relates to methods for producing new Brassica plants, in particular broccoli, with elevated levels of anticarcinogenic glucosinolates. The claimed method involves the selective, molecular marker assisted breeding of “double haploid” breeding lines of broccoli with wild Brassica oleracea species.

Case G 0001/08 “Tomatoes” concerns EP-B-1211926 State of Israel Minister of Agriculture and is opposed by Unilever NV, referring decision T 1242/06.

The two cases have been consolidated in view of the similarity of the issues raised.

The hearing is to take place in Munich on 20 and 21st July 2010.