nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 2, 2014 18:31:14 GMT
Once again the Federal Circuit (which never saw a patent it didn't like) is being asked by SCOTUS to do things a bit differently. opinion on NAUTILUS, INC. v. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC.
Basically BIOSIG patented something without actually being adequately specific in what they were patenting. Nautilus did something similar enough to be sued, and the Federal Circuit thought BIOSIG's ambiguity was just fine. Not so fast says the SCOTUS. "a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed" "The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable." So far I have always enjoyed reading the following ... "For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. " And you can read Ronald Mann's take on this Opinion analysis: Justices take blue pencil to Federal Circuit opinions on definiteness at Scotusblog
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Jun 2, 2014 18:35:27 GMT
Why can't they just point out that a patent is supposed to protect what the patentee is doing, so if an alleged violator cannot work that out from the patent, then they can't be violating!
Cheers, Wol
|
|
Cm
Guest
|
Authored by Cm on Jun 3, 2014 20:13:52 GMT
And more to the point, the patent is actually void as it has failed to be specific, as required by the USPTO ( www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-17). Whichever examiner passed it should also be suspended from work until her/she/it has (A) read the USPTO web site, (B) built the invention from *the patent text alone* (as it must be clear from the patent how to build the invention)
|
|