Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 3,532,344 A

Golf club and glove including coacting non-slip elements and grip positioning means

Inventors: Benjamin Masstab


Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 2,258,999 A

Golf Player’s Glove

Inventors: Edward S Nunn

Written By: John Kirkpatrick

Wi-LAN sued Apple alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 (the ’802 patent) concerning a wireless data communication technique.  The jury found no infringement and that the infringing claims were invalid as anticipated by prior art that disclosed a randomizer using real multipliers.  The district court denied Wi-LAN’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial regarding infringement, but overruled the jury’s verdict regarding invalidity by ruling that the ’802 patent required complex multipliers.  Wi-LAN appealed the denial of JMOL and its motion for a new trial.  Apple appealed the district court’s ruling of validity.


Written By: David Youngkin

In Rosebud LMS Inc. V. Adobe Systems Incorporated the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgement finding that Adobe Systems was not liable for pre-issuance damages because it had no actual notice of the application which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,578,280.


Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 8,046,937 B2

Automatic Lacing System

Inventors: Tiffany A. Beers, Michael R. Friton, Tinker L. Hatfield

Assignee: Nike, Inc.

Written By: John Kirkpatrick

Appellant Ethicon asserts that the America Invents Act (AIA) and due process preclude the same panel of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board that instituted inter partes review of patented claims from making a final decision regarding the validity of the patented claims.  In addition, Ethicon argues that the disputed claims are valid because the commercial success of Appellee’s allegedly infringing invention is a “strong secondary indication of non-obviousness.”  Ethicon Endo-Surgery at *19.  The Court (DYK, Taranto) holds that “that neither the statute nor the Constitution precludes the same panel of the Board that made the decision to institute inter partes review from making the final determination” and finds no error in the Board’s obviousness determination.   Id. at *2-3.  The Dissent (Newman) argues that the AIA requires bifurcation of the process because the AIA requires the Director to make the institution decision and the Board to issue the final decision.


Written By: Justin Blaufeld


The Federal Circuit holds that a restriction requirement that fails to classify a few dependent claims is nevertheless sufficient to stop the clock under the Patent Term Guarantee Act.


A patent has a term of 20 years from its effective filing date.  Since undue delays at the PTO can often burn through a patent’s term, the Patent Term Guarantee Act (35 U.S.C. § 154(b)) provides for the restoration of patent term when the PTO misses certain deadlines.  Applicants may petition the Director to restore any days in excess of these deadlines after a patent application is deemed allowable.


In honor of one of the great United State Supreme Court Justices passing over the weekend, Justice Scalia said this in a past interview with Piers Morgan.

Justice Scalia: “My hardest [decision ever made]?  It's the dullest case imaginable. They -- there is -- there is no necessary correlation between the difficulty of a decision and its importance. Some of the most insignificant cases have been the hardest. It would probably be a patent caseYou want me to describe it really?
Piers Morgan: No, I don't. (LAUGHTER)
Justice Scalia: No. Of course. (LAUGHTER)

© 2000-2014, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy