Search Tips & Shortcuts
To search for a specific phrase, put the words in quotations.
Eg., "It was the best of times"
To include synonyms in your search, place a tilde (~) directly in front of your search term.
Eg., ~lawyer (will find results for lawyer, legal, law, law firm, etc.)
To find results in a specific format, type in your search terms and then "file type:" and the file format extension.
Eg., 1040 file type: pdf
Eg., "fair labor standards" file type: ppt
Here are some of the file format extensions:
Adobe Portable Document Format (pdf)
Adobe PostScript (ps)
Microsoft Excel (xls)
Microsoft PowerPoint (ppt)
Rich Text Format (rtf)
Shockwave Flash (swf)
To check the status of a U.S. flight, type the name of the airline and the flight number.
ex. United 134
To locate a U.S. patent, type the word "patent" and the patent number.
Eg., patent 6979284
To locate published information about a person, type the first and last name in quotations.
Eg., "John Blakes"
Friday, June 20, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
SSO: deference to the market
http://www.uhlawblog.com/admin/trackback/47744
The market sometimes is not shielded from influences of major players in SSOs. In some markets for high-tech products, SSOs(major players) and the markets are closely related in the initial stage of product development.
In case of next-generation DVD format, Blue lay and HD-DVD formed SSOs and 'created' the market for the next-generation DVD player. (I doubt that there were some initiative from general public to buy new, expensive DVD player.)'Deference to the market' seemed to be impossible in DVD case, because two different products were not bought by a large number of customers. High price seemed to be a reason why new DVD players were not so popular.
SSOs and their major players might argue that they TRIED to defer to the market by releasing new products. In fact, they controlled the market choice. DVD format battle seemed to be ended when Warner Bros, a big player as well as an influential client, stood by Blue-Ray side.
Also, they might argue that battles between SSOs and their compromise would be more efficient than the deference to the market. (After the battle is over, almost all manufacturers and content providers invest and develop one surviving format.)
The market sometimes is not shielded from influences of major players in SSOs. In some markets for high-tech products, SSOs(major players) and the markets are closely related in the initial stage of product development.
In case of next-generation DVD format, Blue lay and HD-DVD formed SSOs and 'created' the market for the next-generation DVD player. (I doubt that there were some initiative from general public to buy new, expensive DVD player.)'Deference to the market' seemed to be impossible in DVD case, because two different products were not bought by a large number of customers. High price seemed to be a reason why new DVD players were not so popular.
SSOs and their major players might argue that they TRIED to defer to the market by releasing new products. In fact, they controlled the market choice. DVD format battle seemed to be ended when Warner Bros, a big player as well as an influential client, stood by Blue-Ray side.
Also, they might argue that battles between SSOs and their compromise would be more efficient than the deference to the market. (After the battle is over, almost all manufacturers and content providers invest and develop one surviving format.)
Friday, March 21, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
License by acquiescence
35 U.S.C. 252 Effect of reissue.
The surrender of the original patent shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent, and every reissued patent shall have the same effect and operation in law, on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising, as if the same had been originally granted in such amended form, but in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical, such surrender shall not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing, and the reissued patent, to the extent that its claims are substantially identical with the original patent, shall constitute a continuation thereof and have effect continuously from the date of the original patent.
A reissued patent shall not abridge or affect the right of any person or that person's successors in business who, prior to the grant of a reissue, made, purchased, offered to sell, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by the reissued patent, to continue the use of, to offer to sell, or to sell to others to be used, offered for sale, or sold, the specific thing so made, purchased, offered for sale, used, or imported unless the making, using, offering for sale, or selling of such thing infringes a valid claim of the reissued patent which was in the original patent. The court before which such matter is in question may provide for the continued manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of the thing made, purchased, offered for sale, used, or imported as specified, or for the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale in the United States of which substantial preparation was made before the grant of the reissue, and the court may also provide for the continued practice of any process patented by the reissue that is practiced, or for the practice of which substantial preparation was made, before the grant of the reissue, to the extent and under such terms as the court deems equitable for the protection of investments made or business commenced before the grant of the reissue.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Book on Claim Drafting
I found this info from my school's catalog.
Description
1 v. ; 23 cm.
Series
Intellectual property course handbook series ; no. G-809.
Note
Prepared for distribution at the program of the same name.
Subject Hdng
Patent laws and legislation -- United States.
Patent suits -- United States.
Patent practice -- United States.
Patent infringement -- United States.
Inventions -- Patents -- United States.
Conference
Patent Prosecution Workshop (14th : 2004)
Added Auth
Pfeffer, Martin.
Corp Author
Practising Law Institute.
ISBN
1402405227
OCLC #
56999896
Description
1 v. ; 23 cm.
Series
Intellectual property course handbook series ; no. G-809.
Note
Prepared for distribution at the program of the same name.
Subject Hdng
Patent laws and legislation -- United States.
Patent suits -- United States.
Patent practice -- United States.
Patent infringement -- United States.
Inventions -- Patents -- United States.
Conference
Patent Prosecution Workshop (14th : 2004)
Added Auth
Pfeffer, Martin.
Corp Author
Practising Law Institute.
ISBN
1402405227
OCLC #
56999896
Friday, February 01, 2008
The Dissenter - Justice Stevens
Well, when I studied Con law, Justice Stevens' opinions were distintive to me.
I'm reading some news articles and books about him and other Justices, these days.
I'm reading some news articles and books about him and other Justices, these days.
Monday, January 28, 2008
If you ever had trouble with the car battery after long vacation
You may consider to buy "low-amp charger".
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Whether internet publication is a printed publication under 102(a) or (b)?
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=sa&id=1102
I copy the following context from Patently-O blog.
Internal documents:Internal documents intended to be confidential are not "printed publications" and are unavailable for use as prior art. This is regardless of how many copies are distributed. Additionally, note that "[w]hile distribution to government agencies and personnel alone may not constitute publication...distribution to commercial companies without restriction on use clearly does." Garrett v. US., 422 F.2d 874 (Ct. Cl. 1970).
Electronic Publications:An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a "printed publication" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. Thus, "whether information is printed, handwritten, or on microfilm or magnetic disk or tape, etc., the individual who wishes to characterize the information as a printed publication...should produce sufficient evidence of its dissemination or that it has been otherwise available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates..." Wyer, 655 F.2d 227, Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1228 ( W.D. Wash. 1999).
Web Pages Must Be Static:Prior art disclosures on the Internet or in an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted. This is provided that the item is dated and not temporal, and can be indexed for subsequent retrieval. An example of a temporal item is a web broadcast that cannot be saved, retrieved or printed, e.g., a live simulcast feed that is not archived, and a "streaming" audio or video that "flashes" across the screen.
I copy the following context from Patently-O blog.
Internal documents:Internal documents intended to be confidential are not "printed publications" and are unavailable for use as prior art. This is regardless of how many copies are distributed. Additionally, note that "[w]hile distribution to government agencies and personnel alone may not constitute publication...distribution to commercial companies without restriction on use clearly does." Garrett v. US., 422 F.2d 874 (Ct. Cl. 1970).
Electronic Publications:An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a "printed publication" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. Thus, "whether information is printed, handwritten, or on microfilm or magnetic disk or tape, etc., the individual who wishes to characterize the information as a printed publication...should produce sufficient evidence of its dissemination or that it has been otherwise available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates..." Wyer, 655 F.2d 227, Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1228 ( W.D. Wash. 1999).
Web Pages Must Be Static:Prior art disclosures on the Internet or in an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted. This is provided that the item is dated and not temporal, and can be indexed for subsequent retrieval. An example of a temporal item is a web broadcast that cannot be saved, retrieved or printed, e.g., a live simulcast feed that is not archived, and a "streaming" audio or video that "flashes" across the screen.
Quanta v. LG
One of the cases pending in the U.S. Supreme Court is Quanta v. LG, which deals with important legal doctrines in the patent law - Patent Exhaustion (the first use doctrine) and Implied License.
http://www.aipla.org/Template.cfm?Section=20084&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=17026
I might write an article about those two doctrines because they were practically important to me.
http://www.aipla.org/Template.cfm?Section=20084&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=17026
I might write an article about those two doctrines because they were practically important to me.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
New semester starts today !!!
It's bittersweet moment. Today is the first day of new Spring semester.
Partly, it's great, but it's sad.
Well, I know that this is the way it has to be.
Partly, it's great, but it's sad.
Well, I know that this is the way it has to be.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
How to think like lawyer
http://nationaljurist.com/filedownload.aspx?f=ScNLx4P8XyYD+BX9RN+kOg==
An article from National Jurist. I like this stuff.
An article from National Jurist. I like this stuff.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Links for Constitutional Law
Finally, the second semester begins.
Here are the links that the professor of Constitutional law recommend;
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/
http://findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
http://scotusblog.com/
Here are the links that the professor of Constitutional law recommend;
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/
http://findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
http://scotusblog.com/
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Licensed component requires patent exhaustion or implied license for the combination?
Note - I received this e-mail from JH Kim, a patent lawyer of my former company. This is his material, not mine. I just translated his e-mail into English.
Question) Company A has a patent about Baseband modem chip and another patent that has the same elements as previous one and an additional element of antenna. The latter patent claims cellular phones. Company A gave a license of the first patent to licensees, but it did not give a license of the second patent to licensees. Then, company A can claim royalty of the second patent against licensees?
Answer) Probably not. Because baseband chip is only used for cellular phone. Implied license and patent exhaustion may apply, unless an express disclaimer exists. See LG Electronicsm, Inc. v. Bizxom electronics, Inc., 453 F.3f 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
LG Electronicsm, Inc. v. Bizxom electronics, Inc., 453 F.3f 1354.
* “To prevail, defendants were required to establish that the products have no noninfringing uses and that the circumstances of the sale ··· ‘plainly indicate that the grant of a license should be inferred.’ . . . Regardless of any noninfringing uses, Intel expressly informed them that Intel's license agreement with LGE did not extend to any of defendants' products made by combining an Intel product with non-Intel products. In light of this express disclaimer, no license can be implied.”
* “This exhaustion doctrine, however, does not apply to an expressly conditional sale or license.”
Question) Company A has a patent about Baseband modem chip and another patent that has the same elements as previous one and an additional element of antenna. The latter patent claims cellular phones. Company A gave a license of the first patent to licensees, but it did not give a license of the second patent to licensees. Then, company A can claim royalty of the second patent against licensees?
Answer) Probably not. Because baseband chip is only used for cellular phone. Implied license and patent exhaustion may apply, unless an express disclaimer exists. See LG Electronicsm, Inc. v. Bizxom electronics, Inc., 453 F.3f 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
LG Electronicsm, Inc. v. Bizxom electronics, Inc., 453 F.3f 1354.
* “To prevail, defendants were required to establish that the products have no noninfringing uses and that the circumstances of the sale ··· ‘plainly indicate that the grant of a license should be inferred.’ . . . Regardless of any noninfringing uses, Intel expressly informed them that Intel's license agreement with LGE did not extend to any of defendants' products made by combining an Intel product with non-Intel products. In light of this express disclaimer, no license can be implied.”
* “This exhaustion doctrine, however, does not apply to an expressly conditional sale or license.”
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Two interviews in January
I'll have two interviews for a summer associate in law firms.
One firm is in Dallas, another is in D.C.
Wish me luck!
One firm is in Dallas, another is in D.C.
Wish me luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)