June 2009

Former Executive Director of Columbia University’s Technology Transfer Joins GPC’s Advisory Board of Directors

Suffern, N.Y., June 30, 2009 – General Patent Corporation (GPC), a leading intellectual property (IP) boutique focusing on patent licensing and enforcement, announced today that Jack Granowitz has joined General Patent Corporation’s Advisory Board of Directors. Mr. Granowitz was one of the founders of the Technology Transfer office at Columbia University and its Executive Director from 1988 until 2000.

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce All Over Again (Apologies to Charles Dickens)

Submitted by patentadmin on Tue, 06/23/2009 - 13:51

A recent blog commented on a case where the defendants were lawyers. We now have a case, Tailored Lighting Inc. v. Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., where the lawyers for the defendant are deposing lawyers for the plaintiff. Yes, indeed. It seems that the lawyers have reached a point where they only need lay persons (f/k/a “laymen”) to pay their bills.

j2 Global Communications Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit against OneSuite

Submitted by patentadmin on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 00:00

June 9, 2009 - j2, which provides Internet-based fax and other telecom services, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in California Central District Court against its competitor OneSuite, claiming infringement of j2's patent related to sending and receiving messages using the Internet and/or telephone systems.

No More Exceptions

Submitted by patentadmin on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 12:57

In patent law, a “product” or “article” claim covers (well, duh) a product. A “process” claim covers a method of doing something – like making a product. A product claim is infringed by the unauthorized making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the patented product. A method claim is infringed by the unauthorized practice of the patented process. A third, less well-known, type of patent claim is the “product-by-process” claim which covers a product produced by a particular process¹. What infringes a product-by-process claim?

Leading The Charge From The Rear

Submitted by patentadmin on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 12:44

Recently, we noted that one of the most contentious provisions of the proposed patent reform act pertained to the manner in which damages would be determined. At one point, the proposed senate bill would have required that a “reasonable royalty” be applied “only to the portion of the economic value of the infringing product or process properly attributable to the claimed invention’s specific contribution over the prior art.” As we pointed out previously, the courts are already doing this.

A Comedy of Errors

Submitted by patentadmin on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 13:43

A recent blog post dealt with the question of what happens when the prevailing patentee in an infringement action is denied a permanent injunction and the infringer continues to infringe.

It now seems, based on an unbroken string of two (2) cases, that the court directs the parties to attempt to negotiate a royalty for future use of the patented invention. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the court – meaning the judge – can impose a royalty rate for any future use by the defendant-infringer (slimeball).