Hot answers tagged

28

Yes, there is a process for invalidating older patents. It is called reexamination. However, the process is costly (~$16k in filing fees) and somewhat complex. Provided you have the killer prior art that is needed to invalidate a patent, you will need more skin in the game than simple indignation to go this route. But you can still ask for or post prior ...


25

Yes. That's one of the reasons why version 3 of the GPL specifically states that you must grant all downstream recipients of a covered work an irrevocable, royalty free license to the patented component, or you can't distribute the software. Redhat reached the first licensing deal that complied with this requirement. That is a good step, but not a solution. ...


25

Yes, you can submit a YouTube Video as prior art as long as the YouTube video is publicly available. YouTube videos usually have the publication date under the video, such as "Uploaded by X on Oct 17, 2011". If you provide a hard copy of the video itself, it be hard to prove that the video was public or its publication date, especially if the public version ...


20

As others have pointed out, a youtube video could be prior art, in the sense that a video recording is eligible subject matter. Prosecution is sometimes ex parte, as in the case of a non-published patent application. This means that the office actions (rejections etc) from the USPTO to the applicant are sent only to the applicant, and not made public. So, ...


18

There are lots of potential benefits for engineers who understand patent law and who take some time to understand what competitors are trying to protect. However, the question focused on problems associated with using this site. Two potential legal problems are (1) being charged with willful infringement (or inducing infringement); and (2) beign charged ...


16

Patent pending means that a patent has been filed but not issued. Filing a patent is expensive serious business and not a flim flam. The notice is there to put potential infringers on notice, like a no trespassing sign. There isn't any real security in it for the maker because if the patent is rejected it means nothing.


14

"Copyleft" is a specific application of copyright law (restricting the license to use copyrighted material by requiring that those obtaining it must also redistribute it for free / under specified terms). Any work under "copyleft" is protected by copyright law (thanks to The Berne Convention copyright is "automatic" in most of the world), and those ...


14

I am not aware of a definitive answer to your question either in the statutes or in case law, but I can set out likely parameters for making such a determination. The following excerpt from 35 USC section 102 most directly addresses the issues relevant to your question: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (a) the invention was known or used by ...


14

The recent $1 billion verdict in Apple v. Samsung offers a contrast to ordinary patent infringement damages. In that case, a number of Apple's patents were "design patent." Design patents protection ornamentation (i.e., the interesting shape) of a device rather than technological development that is the province of utility patents. By quirk of history, ...


13

Treble damages are awarded on a discretionary basis by the judge in the case, however, enhanced damages are only applicable in cases of willful infringement. The judge determines as a matter of law what is willful infringement by using a two-prong test: (1) "that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted ...


12

There are a few issues hidden in your question. I'm first going to write about whether these postings create prior art. Next, I'll write about whether a suggestion from a third party alters inventorship. Prior art and online postings: Public discussions create create prior art. If done in a public online written forum then the postings will count as "...


10

As Duckpaddle has said, the mark "patent pending" means that a patent application has been filed but has not yet issued as a patent. The mark generally has no legal effect, except for the provisional rights described in the next paragraph below. In order for the mark to be used properly, however, a patent application must actually have been filed or else a ...


10

Yes. An issued patent is presumed to be valid, but a challenger can produce prior art to demonstrate that the claims of the patent were anticipated or rendered obvious. There are administrative post-grant procedures for challenging an issued patent, and, of course, anyone who is sued by a patent holder can support a defense of invalidity by producing prior ...


9

Well, all evidences might be taken into consideration. To be a prior art, evidence must be public and need to have a date and comprise one or more subject matter, which is claimed in new invention. But, like other evidences in the internet, video can be deleted from youtube and there will be a problem to prove that 1 year ago youtube (or any other public ...


9

Under the law, prior art must fit within one of the categories defined in 35 U.S.C. 102. The most likely categories for a youtube video are (1) a "printed publication" or (2) evidence of the invention being "known ... by others in this country." There is at least one case holding that a video is NOT a printed publication. Diomed, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc....


9

For the moment, I'm going to ignore the possibility that their patent actually covers something significantly different than your tracker, and just deal with the matter of dates. They have 1 year following the invention within which to file the patent, so your invention would need to predate the patent by at least 1 year to qualify as statutory prior art. ...


9

The question asked for an explanation of inter partes review and ex parte reexamination when considering challenging patent with prior art. This is a big question that cannot be fully answered here. These are the two primary administrative procedures currently available to a third party to challenge an issued US patent. My answer on this other post ...


9

I'll go ahead and address 1) whether you can use other media that describe your invention like a patent, and 2) whether you can use other media to invalidate someone else's patent. Note that the law has changed to first-to-file effective March 16, 2013. Most of the below is a pre-F2F answer. However it is still a good answer for applications filed ...


8

Note that as of March 2013 (for apps filed after then) these rules change in the US; there is still a one-year grace-period -- but only as to your own disclosures. If someone else publishes the concept (or something that would make your invention obvious) before you file then you are (probably) out of luck.


8

In the United States, for any invention you have 1 year to file: 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than ...


8

Does this still stand? Yes. Deceptive use of 'patent pending' is an offense. More here from USPTO And more here from UK IP Office If I put a Patent Pending notice in a product do I have to describe it in the product? Not required. But you have to mention the patent application number and the country where the patent is applied for. UK information here. ...


7

As far as I'm aware, a block of code or a piece of software can't be patented, period. That's strictly copyright territory. What can be patented is the process that the code implements. And to that end, a program licensed under the GPL may implement a process covered by a patent. GPLv3, however, mandates that you grant all downstream users a license on the ...


7

The answer to this turns on 35 USC § 102(a), which reads: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described ...


6

I have seen a YouTube video cited as prior art in an Office action, and a claim rejection was based in part on the YouTube video. So yes, YouTube videos can be prior art. In the Office action, the Examiner provided a screenshot of the video as well as its URL.


6

As long as your Thesis was published, then it can be used as prior art. You'd have to figure out what CWRU did with Master's Thesis at that time. Determining if it's actually prior art against a particular patent requires knowing which patents and seeing your Thesis.


6

I believe you are asking about Patent Marking. Patent Marking is when you indicate on your product that it is patented for the purpose of giving due notice to the world about your patent. It is not required, but it has very important benefits which is why most practitioners suggest marking your products. 35 USC 287 deals with giving notice by marking your ...


6

The key legislation here is the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) that makes some changes in the definition of prior art and in the types of post-grant review proceedings. The changes to prior art definitions will only apply to patent applications with an effective filing date of on or after March 16, 2013. Thus, the old law would apply to a ...


5

There is not a direct analog to "copyleft" (informal but widely recognized term) in the world of patents. As mentioned by the two previous answers, if your sole concern is ensuring that no one else can patent your invention, then public disclosure of the invention is probably your best course of action. However, you would want to make that disclosure as ...


5

In addition to DuckPaddles answer regarding not issued. Many companies only file to be granted Provision Patents (PPs) and each year when the Patent comes up for review they ask for it to be put at the bottom of the pile. This way companies dont have to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars until they realise the idea is good enough and ...


5

First, the law (35 U.S.C. 284): Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. When the damages are not found by a jury, the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible