January 27, 2010 by thomason.

Of late, most of my posts are on Twitter.  Work, school and play are causing me to cramp down my expressiveness to 140 characters.

Check it out over at http://twitter.com/SPATLAW

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

January 20, 2010 by thomason.

The FTC decided, after public comment, to retain the Amplifier Rule, which is for consumers to compare power outputs of amps used in home entertainment products. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/02/amp.shtm

It decided there was no present reason to amend the rule due to the multi-channel home theater and surround sound systems, which now take up a lot of the market.

When you bought that last amp for your home sound system, did you use the Amplifier Rule or the ‘that one sounds better than that one’ standard?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

January 17, 2010 by thomason.

IP and patent attorneys tend to wonder how best to position their advertising.  The back, and fold-over on the phone books are taken up with ‘are you injured?’ as is most of afternoon TV.

Saturday night at the Hard Rock Hotel, few knew about the super flyweight bout, but it too was sporting some lawyer advertising.  On the front of the boxing trunks of pugilist Robles, who hails from Kansas City, was embroidered “Immigration Law” below the firm name.  Now there’s an option for some TV time that few considered.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

January 15, 2010 by thomason.

Hey Forever 21 got sued, again, for copyright infringement - and it’s not over clothing design.
It is alleged in a L.A. Federal Court complaint that F21 made and sold clothing bearing a copyrighted photo of the [to some, legendary] rock band, the MC-5. Said photo, exhibit A to said complaint, was on the F21 garment “H81Rock-N-Roll Studded Top.” That’s rock and roll with a capitol N, and in caps MC-5 (Motor City 5).

Well-known rock icon photographer, Robert Matheu, intends to kick the jams out of that F21, H81 ”Studded Top.” His photo, taken in the ’summer of `69′ was not attached to the PACER copy, but it’s likely this photo on his website, http://www.robertmatheu.com/mc5-photo.htm. Matheu’s suit filing nearly coincides with the passing of another legend of Detroit hard rock, Ron Asheton of the Stooges. The filing is 2:2010cv0214-CAS (C.D. Cal.).  Rock on Ron.

Posted in Copyright | Comments Off

January 8, 2010 by thomason.

At its conference today, the Supreme Court may decide, or decline, to consider the product-by-process issues in Astrellas Pharma v. Lupin Ltd., 09-335. The mystery of the chemistry was detailed by blawgers right after the CAFC issued its 8-4 decision on May 18, 2009. In the end, the CAFC ruled that that only the claimed product of a claimed process can be infringed.
The petitioner, after a 5-page table of cases, says it’s a case ”without precedent,” then follows that with “the Federal Circuit violated the Court’s precedent.” Indeed, on pg. 16, petitioner points to an instance in the majority opinion that “ignores over 110 years of precedent.” One wonders if the rationale of 100 years ago to allow claiming a novel, but mysterious, product of known process steps is still viable in today’s laboratories.
Initially, petitioner argues error with the CAFC ruling en banc, sua sponte (my, those Latin classes at X have come in handy) to resolve an intra-circuit conflict about product by process claims. If the Supreme Court takes an issue, then it is more likely to review patent issues than Circuit operating procedures.
Petitioner’s further contentions regard fears that the CAFC crossed the bright-line rule that patent claims be interpreted the same for validity and infringement purposes. That point is key to disputes between the majority opinion or J. Rader and the dissent of J. Newman. And too, in a nutshell, it provokes the issue: what’s the issue, and how should product-by-process claims be treated? The legal inquiry may devolve upon claim interpretation (nonstatutory), or definiteness and full enablement (statutory), or 110 years of precedent (?), or more plainly, what ground sustains product-by-process claiming (nonstatutory).
The respondents point to the en banc issue arising within a “rarely invoked exception” for “rare” products that are not understood, but are known only as the product of a fully enabled process. That “exception” is nonstatutory, like many of the central issues. Respondents’ arguments also highlight whether the fundamental question is claim interpretation - should a claim be construed to cover unclaimed products of claimed process - or is it some broader inquiry into product-by-process claiming.
The proverbial ‘fly on the wall’ at today’s in camera conference (one more Latinism) will hear how constitutional rights have been stripped, property taken without due process, statutes violated, etc. When the Astrellas petition comes up, then that fly will wonder whether the CAFC’s treatment of nonstatutory product-by-process claims deserves further, Supreme review.

Posted in Patents - Federal Circuit | Comments Off