Archive for April, 2014

Are you up to date?

Tuesday, April 29th, 2014

Over the past few years, I have been writing the intellectual property chapter for the Colorado Bar Association’s book Annual Survey of Colorado Law.  While the book focuses on Colorado law, the intellectual property chapter tends to be dominated by federal developments.  This year’s publication is now available for download (for a nominal fee) in its entirety or by individual chapter from the CBA-CLE website: [Link].

For extra credit, how many birds can you find in the picture?

Tang vs. Bourbon

Thursday, April 24th, 2014

There was a humorous moment recently during oral argument at the Federal Circuit when Judge Plager suggested that the advocate for the appellant might want to replace Tang with bourbon in the analogy being posited: [Listen].

Judge Plager speaking recently at Indiana University School of Law where he was dean from 1977-84

Judge Plager speaking recently at Indiana University School of Law, where he was Dean from 1977-84

To listen to some other humorous moments at the Federal Circuit, click on the “Humorous” category link.

Reply Brief in Limelight v. Akamai

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014

Limelight has filed its Reply Brief in the Supreme Court case of Limelight v. Akamai.  This case deals with the issue of divided infringement.  The oral argument is slated for next Wednesday.

You can read Limelight’s Reply Brief [here].

MPEP Ninth Edition

Thursday, April 17th, 2014

The US Patent and Trademark Office released the ninth edition of the MPEP in March.  A summary by the PTO of the changes is available here: [Summary].  The searchable version of the MPEP is available here: [Searchable MPEP].

Submarine Patents

Saturday, April 12th, 2014

I was on vacation last week doing some scuba diving in the Caribbean.  But, I took some time off to try and better understand the phenomenon of “submarine patents.”  This little mini-submersible takes people down to a depth of 1,000 feet.


Oral argument in Alice v. CLS Bank

Saturday, April 12th, 2014

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Alice v. CLS Bank on March 31st.

You can download/listen to the entire oral argument here: [Listen].

The transcript of the oral argument is available here:  [Transcript].

The briefs are available here: [Briefs].

You can listen to the various portions of the oral argument here:

  • ORAL ARGUMENT OF CARTER G. PHILLIPS, ESQ. on behalf of the Petitioners:  [Listen]
  • ORAL ARGUMENT OF MARK A. PERRY, ESQ. on behalf of the    Respondents:  [Listen]
  • ORAL ARGUMENT OF DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., ESQ. on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondents:  [Listen]
  • REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF CARTER G. PHILLIPS, ESQ. on behalf of the Petitioners:  [Listen].

For reference, one of the claims at issue is claim 26 from US Patent 7,725,375:

26. A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:

a communications controller,

a first party device, coupled to said communications controller,

a data storage unit having stored therein

(a) information about a first account for a first party, independent from a second account maintained by a first exchange institution, and

(b) information about a third account for a second party, independent from a fourth account maintained by a second exchange institution; and

a computer, coupled to said data storage unit and said communications controller, that is configured to

(a) receive a transaction from said first party device via said communications controller;

(b) electronically adjust said first account and said third account in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party after ensuring that said first party and/or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively; and

(c) generate an instruction to said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution to adjust said second account and/or said fourth account in accordance with the adjustment of said first account and/or said third account, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution.