patentlees on Xanga

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Developing IP Strategies for Crystalline Forms Conference will be hoald in London

International Quality & Productivity Center (IQPC) will be holding its 6th Annual Developing IP Strategies for Crystalline Forms conference from December 7-8, 2010 in London, England. There're also many issues focus on patent.

In particular, the conference will offer presentations on the following topics:

• Bird's eye view of the international patent system to understand the impact of recent developments on pharmaceutical patenting;
• Case update: Patenting new polymorphs: True innovation or reissue of prior art?
• Case update: Defining a strategy to address IP issues for a polymorph, salt, hydrate, impurity patent: A generic perspective;
• Case update: Polymorphism -- Understanding the examination procedure and experience at the DPMA;
• Case update: Balance sheet for polymorph patents: Creation, enforceability, misuse & challenges;
• Bridging the gap between the knowledge of salt and polymorph scientists and patent attorneys -- What do scientists need to know about patententability? What should patent attorneys understand about the drug product development process?
• Developing an optimal communication strategy between lawyers and experimentalists to achieve appropriate detail in your patent applications and avoid refute;
• Exploring the role of an IP specialist in industry: A personal view;
• Panel discussion: Insights into developments on patenting and litigation of crystalline forms and polymorphs from around the world;
• Case update: Gaining paediatric exclusivity to extend pharmaceutical patents and gain exclusivity in Europe;
• Insights and evaluation of pharmaceutical SPCs to avoid unnecessary litigation;
• Case update: A generic perspective of patenting crystalline forms;
• Case update: Exploring the patentability of crystalline forms to develop a successful patent strategy;
• Selecting the correct polymorphs by addressing various global IP regulatory requirements;
• Case update: Patenting crystalline forms -- The European Patent Office approach;
• Exploring the impact of raising the bar at the EPO on your patent strategy; and
• Panel discussion: Outlook to the future of crystalline form patent litigation.

Let's look forward!

Monday, 18 October 2010

The 12th China Patent Award Evaluation Meeting held in Beijing

2010 Oct. 14th, The 12th China Patent Award Evaluation Meeting held in Beijing. After review the Committee's consideration, 181 patents were rewarded and 5 of them are China Patent Golden Award. All winning projects will public in the State Intellectual Property Office, the government website and China Intellectual Property News.
There’re some changes this time. Like the cycle turns from every two years to one year. And Gold Medal Award from the China Patent extended to China Patent Award of Excellence Gold Award, Excellence Award and the Chinese design Gold Award, Award of Excellence.

Patent Awards 2010 received a total of 431projects which come from 16 central ministries, 31 provinces, autonomous regions and Xinjiang as well as four industry associations recommended. Compared with the previous, the number of ministries recommended a relatively large increase, reaching 92. Design awards in 2010 from the previous 10 increased to around 79, which is a substantial increase.

Let’s look who are the 15 holders of patented gold projects:

Huawei, Sinopec, Sany Heavy Industry, IWNCOMM, in fact Purcell, Tsinghua University, step pharmaceutical, Visionox Technology, Huaxing Metallurgical, Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station, Jilin University, China Electric Power Research Institute, New World creatures, Tencent.

Respective these fifteen golds, 3 are sending by the Guangdong Provincial Intellectual Property Office, and two are from Shenzhen Huawei and Tencent. That’s indicating that Shenzhen has really strong innovation ability. Meanwhile, there are 3 golds from the universities and research institutions, which we believe is still the intellectual work in this area of the infant. There are many involved in IT industry, such as Huawei's patent No. 00122430.1 "may smooth expansion of the data communication system.” This shows that this industry remains strong vitality.

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Should Europe stop taxing patent?

This is not a new issue that EUROPE policy of innovation. Actually it was discussed many times in United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009.However, how innovation especially patent be treated due to the opinions of science. Is it true that our civilization more developed our future will more beautiful?

Let’s get some view from Bruegel Policy Brief(2010/02) ,by Bruno van Pottelsberghe. In his article Europe should stop taxing innovation he said:

After nearly 48 years of failure to create the EU patent, language issues and the design of a centralised patent-litigation court still dominate headlines. But behind these issues there are high financial stakes and control power to play for. The recent EU Council deal on an ‘enhanced’ European patent system does not solve the above problems, and has not eliminated lingering governance issues. The risk for Europe is that a final patent agreement might be reached that does not cure the system of its major ills, and thus does not bring about any significant improvement for those that need it most: entrepreneurs and innovative companies starting out on the innovation process. The creation of an effective single EU patent requires (i) English-only post-grant translation, (ii) the end of nationally granted patents, (iii) phasing-out of the current ‘European patent’, (iv) lower fees for young innovative companies, and (v) a radical shake-up of the governance of the European Patent Office.

Well, I think we all know the value of patent, so what should we to do?

Monday, 11 October 2010

Case disscuss:Sky Windpower's kite falls

Sky Windpower is a California company that markets high altitude wind capture technology. Sky will be the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,254 (’254 Patent), which is entitled “Windmill kite” and relates to a flying electric powered generator (FEG). The FEG is basically a kite with several rotors comprising aerofoil blades (their swept locations indicated by circles 5) attached to platform frame people (3, 4). Each rotor extends from a nacelle (6) that contains a gear box, a dynamo and a control mechanism to control the angle of the rotor.
According for the ‘254 Patent, the FEG solves problems of the before skill relating to platform stability and the need to winch right down the platform during times of weak or no wind. The Patent points out that having at least three strategically placed rotors susceptible to blade pitch control stabilizes the platform. In addition, the dynamos obtain power and function as motors to generate the rotors for short periods, thereby maintaining the kite aloft when there is no wind.

the inventor and owner of the ‘254 Patent，Bryan W. Roberts, has long been involved in two rounds of litigation having a company known as Baseload Energy over the validity of the patent and particular rights for the technology.
The first case between Roberts and Baseload to enter into a joint venture ended in a very Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement granted Baseload an alternative to take a nonexclusive license below the ‘254 Patent and contained pretty common releases from liabilities, claims, etc. for both parties, though the releases expressly excluded disputes arising from the alternative provision.
After the alternative lapsed during the fall of 2008, Baseload filed a lawsuit against Roberts in federal court in Washington, DC seeking a declaratory judgment the fact that ‘254 Patent is invalid and unenforceable. Roberts moved for summary judgment on the soil that Baseload’s claims have been barred by the Settlement Agreement.
The area court granted the motion and held the fact that conditions of the Settlement Agreement barred “all claims between the parties.”
Baseload appealed, and in a very recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. The Federal Circuit held the fact that language of the Settlement Agreement do not release claims of infringement of the ‘254 Patent or the accompanying defenses of invalidity or unenforceability.
The Federal Circuit went on to hold that if infringement claims have been preserved, the associated defenses of invalidity and unenforceability have been also preserved.The Federal Circuit remanded true for the area court, where Baseload’s invalidity and unenforceability claims will go forward.

Thursday, 07 October 2010

Olympic Development sued Apple，AG，Sony for patent infrigement

A private Delaware company by the identify of Olympic Developments AG, LLC, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the California Central area Court Los Angeles Division versus several key technologies organizations including Apple Inc., Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., DirecTV, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Nintendo of America, Inc., Sony pc amusement of America, LLC, Sony Electronics, Inc. and Valve Corporation. The lawsuit, in context with Apple specifically, seems to be concerning the profit of products through Apple's iTunes and App Stores through an apple ipad or iPhone inside a manner claimed in the patents-in-suit.

According to court documents, "this is typically a patent infringement action to stop Defendants' infringement of Plaintiff's United States Patent No. 5,475,585 entitled "Transactional Processing System" (the "''585 patent") and United States Patent No. 6,246,400 entitled Device for Controlling Remote Interactive Receiver (the"'400 patent"). Plaintiff will be the exclusive licensee of the '585 patent and '400 patent with respect towards Defendants. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
According to court documents, "plaintiff is informed and believes that Apple owns, operates, advertises, controls, sells and otherwise provides hardware, software and websites for "online music, application and bookstore services" including through the apple ipad and iPhone ("the Apple devices") and iTunes shop and App shop ("the Apple websites"), the two accessible through the Apple units and through the iTunes software client. Upon information and belief, Apple has infringed and remains to infringe 1 or extra statements of the '585 patent by making, using, providing, providing to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this area and elsewhere in the United States, techniques and methods for buying products and services and processing corresponding financial transactions, including through the Apple websites and Apple devices.
Upon information and belief, Apple has infringed and remains to infringe 1 or extra statements of the '400 patent by making, using, providing, providing to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this area and elsewhere in the United States, techniques and methods for remotely picking and receiving desired programming selections, including through the Apple Websites and Apple devices. extra particularly, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Apple has and/or requires and/or directs users to entry and/or view and/or purchase products from a remote programming system in the iTunes shop and App shop through an apple ipad or iPhone remote receiver device inside a manner claimed in the patents-in-suit. Upon information and belief, Apple has also contributed towards infringement of 1 or extra statements of the patents-in-suit, and/or actively induced others to infringe 1 or extra statements of the patents-in-suit through the Apple websites as nicely as the Apple devices, in this area and elsewhere in the United States."