January 2011

Insanity

Submitted by patentadmin on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 11:51

“It is insanity to repeatedly do the same thing and expect a different result.” (Albert Einstein) This applies to the law as well as to physics. (Alaska Stock LLC v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company et al.)

A Surprising Effect

Submitted by patentadmin on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 11:43

If a claim in a reissued or re-examined patent is not “substantially identical” in scope to the same claim in the underlying, previously issued patent, a defense of “intervening rights” may arise with respect to infringement of that claim. In other words, if an amendment results in a substantial change in claim scope, the patentee may not be entitled to damages despite the infringement of the amended claim. This is well-settled law.

Canadian Business - Wi-LAN settles patent dispute with world's biggest chipmaker, Intel

"Wi-LAN settles patent dispute with world's biggest chipmaker, Intel" (Canadian Business Online, January 14, 2011) - Alexander Poltorak comments on what the Intel settlement - and the number of patents at suit - means for Wi-LAN's future litigation.

In part, Dr. Poltorak says, "Juries aren't always sympathetic when there are so many patents involved, and it's less risky to settle such a dispute."

680News.com - Wi-LAN settles patent dispute with world's biggest chipmaker, Intel

"Wi-LAN settles patent dispute with world biggest chipmaker, Intel" (680news.com, January 14, 2011) - Alexander Poltorak was one of several IP experts interviewed about the Wi-LAN and Intel settlement, which is significant because of the number of patents involved and the size of Intel compared to Wi-LAN.

"It's certainly a case of David versus Goliath," Poltorak says in the article.

Portfolio.com - Intel settles with WiLAN over patent litigation

"Intel settles with WiLAN over patent litigation" (Portfolio.com, January 14, 2011) - GPC's Alexander Poltorak talks about the significance of WiLAN's settlement with Intel, saying that it will probably encourage other defendants to follow suit. "When the biggest defendant settles, it starts a domino effect and everyone else follows," Dr. Poltorak said.

They Should Be Embarrassed

Submitted by patentadmin on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:55

“… infringement requires a party to perform … each and every step … of a claimed method … where the actions of multiple parties combine to perform the steps of a claimed method, the claim is directly infringed if one party exercises ‘control or direction’ over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party, i.e. the ‘mastermind’ … instructing users on the use of … [a computer-implemented] method constitute[s] insufficient evidence of control to establish … infringement.” This is WELL ESTABLISHED law.

Surprising PwC Study Finds NPEs Awarded Largest Damages

Submitted by patentadmin on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 09:27

January 11, 2011 - For all the fuss about non-practicing entities (NPEs), and all the proposed patent reforms aimed at controlling them, they are still winning the largest damages awards on average in patent infringement cases.

That was the finding of the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's 2010 Patent Litigation Study, which also revealed that: