For only the second time in a hundred years, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has redesigned the patent grant cover. Often decorated with an iconic ribbon and seal, patent covers are what are generally thought of as the physical award document issued to inventors.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office unveiled a new design for U.S. patents at a ceremony at the SXSW Interactive Festival in Austin, TX. The new design debuts on patent number 10,000,000. It is only the second time the patent design has changed in 100 years. L-R: Robert Metcalfe, inventor of Ethernet; Drew Hirshfeld, USPTO Commissioner for Patents; Andrei Iancu, Director of the USPTO; and Susann Keohane, IBM Master Inventor. (Jay Premack/USPTO)

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, EISAI INC., UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC., PFIZER INC., AND ETIOMETRY, INC. file BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540, Lo et al.

NON – INVASIVE PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS

What is claimed is: 1.  A method for detecting a paternally inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin performed on a maternal serum or plasma sample from a pregnant female, which method comprises amplifying a paternally inherited nucleic acid from the serum or plasma sample and detecting the presence of a paternally inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin in the sample.

No. 15-1182

FILED APRIL 1, 2016

In the Supreme Court of the United States

SEQUENOM, INC.,

V.

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ET AL,

 QUESTION  PRESENTED The Patent Act contains a set of statutory patentability requirements. In addition to these statutory requirements,  the Court has imposed a non- statutory “implicit exception” to patentability. This implicit exception was judicially imposed in part to assure that patents cannot be granted for concepts— or afford exclusive rights that may dominate or oth- erwise preempt access to concepts. Concepts, in this sense, refer to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or ideas, including abstract ideas. The implicit excep- tion similarly bars patents directed or relating to natural products and entirely mental processes. The Court has applied the implicit exception as part of a “threshold test” for patentability that operates before other patentability requirements may be considered. The exception, however, does no more than duplicate the statute’s effects when statutory provisions would also invalidate the same patent. As a threshold test, it has not taken account of the manner in which today’s statutory requirements have evolved to fully address any policy justification for maintaining the exception. When other patent- limiting laws fully vindicate the policies that under- lie the implicit  exception,  judicial  restraint  might demand outright abrogation of the exception. Given the current explicit statutory limitations on patenting in the Patent Act—and the proper interpretation of those limitations—should the Court’s judicially imposed implicit exception to subject matter considered to be eligible for patenting be abrogated, such that patentability and patent validity are to be determined solely under such explicit statutory provisions?

Amicus-Brief-of-Eli-Lilly

Supreme Court Justices heard oral arguments in willful infringement

• Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. (14-1513)
• Stryker Corporation, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al. (14-1520)

Issue: (1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred by applying a rigid, two-part test for enhancing patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, that is the same as the rigid, two-part test this Court rejected last term in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. for imposing attorney fees under the similarly-worded 35 U.S.C. § 285.

On May 21, 2015, the heirs of Sherlock Holmes author Arthur Conan Doyle filed a lawsuit against Defendants Penguin Random House, Roadside Attractions, LLC, Miramax, LLC, Mitch Cullin, and William Condon, in New Mexico Federal Court that alleges the up – coming film, Mr. Holmes, which features the famous detective near the end of his life, reads upon the last ten of Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, published between 1923 and 1927 in violation of the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act

Mitch Cullin, according to the Claim, grew up in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and through his father became acquainted with the noted Sherlockian scholar and collector John Bennett Shaw, who, also, lived in Santa Fe. Mitch Cullin (“Mr. Cullin”) had access to all of Conan Doyle’s works in Mr. Shaw’s library.  Mr. Cullin’s dedication of A Slight Trick of the Mind included a dedication to “the late John Bennett Shaw, who once left me in charge of his library.”  It is apparent from A Slight Trick of the Mind, a story of Holmes in retirement, that Mr. Cullin read deeply in Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, including those protected by the Copyright Act.

The first fifty of Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes short stories and novels are in the public domain. But the last ten of his original Sherlock Holmes stories,published between 1923 and 1927 (the Ten Stories), remain protected by copyright in the United States. These copyrighted ten stories develop the details of Holmes’s fictional retirement and change and develop the character of Holmes himself.

Case: Conan Doyle Estate v. Miramax, LLC., et.al.

Blog by Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee

The online Patent Litigation toolkit features several Web pages containing plain language answers to commonly asked questions about demand letters and patent infringement complaints, such as:
• what a patent is,
• what to do if sued for patent infringement, and
• what to do after receiving a demand letter.

To the extent that legal terms are included, the toolkit has a useful glossary to ensure that consumers and “Main Street” retailers are on the same page. By presenting the information in as straightforward a manner as possible, the USPTO sees this toolkit as a first-stop for people learning about their rights and trying to understand the various courses of action available under their circumstances.

The toolkit also features links to many external websites offering certain services free of charge (some with site registration required) that may assist persons faced with demand letters or infringement suits.

What is patent infringement?  Patent infringement is the act of making, using, selling, or offering to sell a patented invention, or importing into the United States a product covered by a claim of a patent without the permission of the patent owner. Further, you may be considered to infringe a patent if you import items into the United States that are made by a patented method, unless the item is materially changed by subsequent processes or becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product. A person “infringes” a patent by practicing each element of a patent claim with respect to one of these acts.  Further, actively encouraging others to infringe patents, or supplying or importing components of a patented invention, and related acts can also give rise to liability in certain cases.

Have others been sued on the same patent?  if you’ve received a demand letter or patent infringement complaint and want to determine how best to proceed, it’s useful to collect as much information as possible about the patent being asserted. With this in mind, the toolkit provides links to sites that help identify whether others have been sued regarding the same patent. This can help you locate parties who might have faced similar issues. Additionally, the toolkit links to sites with information about other legal proceedings involving the patent, including proceedings before the USPTO.

What is a patent?

A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that gives a patent owner the right “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted. The “invention” is set forth by a patent’s “claims” (described below), and individual claims of a patent or patent application may be challenged, as set forth below.

Basic information about patents and the process of applying for a patent can be found at the Inventor’s Resources webpage. Also you may find this video from the Federal Judicial Center helpful in explaining patents and the patenting process.

The toolkit provides access to a patent attorney database, and it features information about law school clinics that have programs to advise and/or represent entities such as small inventors and entrepreneurs who otherwise would not have access to high-quality intellectual property law services.

PATENT BY DESIGN™

Patent by Design™ is an educational column directed at issued designed patents and the people and events surrounding the design patents. Creator – Elizabeth Reilly

Rhode Island District Court: Opinion

I received my first Alex and Ani bracelet from my twin sister Annie. Living in Tacoma, WA I wasn’t familiar with Alex and Ani.  During a trip back home to N.Y. I learned about Alex and Ani in a special way.  Annie wished to memorialize her last chemo/radiation treatment against her breast cancer.  She presented me with my initial “E” extending from a bangle. I took the subway and went directly to Bloomingdales and purchased the Alex and Ani “Butterfly” bangle. Our mother loved butterflies and their delicate colorful wings. I wanted Annie to think of our beautiful mother as she delicately took her next steps of survival against breast cancer.

Alex and Ani are facing their challenges in Rhode Island District Court.

Take me back to the Mobile Site

BUSINESS

The Providence Journal / Bob Thayer

A store employee displays some of Alex and Ani’s jewelry in 2012.

By Paul Grimaldi

Paul Grimaldi The Providence Journal

pgrimald@providencejournal.com

Published: July 21 2014 02:27

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A U.S. District Court judge ruled Friday that he will allow a lawsuit claiming discount retailer BJ’s Wholesale Club and a group of distributors defrauded the high-profile Alex and Ani jewelry company.

In a 25-page ruling released Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith dismissed attempts by BJ’s and the distributors to have the case dismissed. The ruling stems from a lawsuit Alex and Ani filed in late 2013 when the Rhode Island company discovered some  of its popular bracelets on sale at BJ’s stores in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith

Photo: Frieda Squires / The Providence Journal

Cranston-based Alex and Ani claimed the distributors obtained some 26,000 pieces of its popular “positive-energy” jewelry improperly and at heavily discounted prices in what the judge described as “this bewildering ballad of bungled bangle banditry.”

Alex and Ani sells its popular bracelets and other jewelry at its own stores and through agreements with other retailers and distributors around the world.

Smith notes that, before Alex and Ani will affiliate with another company “it employs a rigorous screening process to ensure that jewelry is displayed in a manner that preserves (Alex and Ani’s) premiere-level brand.”

Alex and Ani on Monday afternoon released the following statement through spokesman Gregg Perry: “We are pleased with the decision by the Court allowing this lawsuit to go forward against all of the defendants. The company will continue to vigorously defend and protect the Alex and Ani brand and we will turn to the courts to do so when we believe the facts, such as those in this case, require us to do so. Alex and Ani looks forward to presenting its case in full before the Court.”

The company asserts that its goods came to BJ’s through a fraudulent scheme concocted by people trying to satisfy a BJ’s representative’s request for Alex and Ani goods.

In addition to BJ’s, the lawsuit names  Elite Level Consulting LLC, Travis J. Brody, J. Jonathan Weiss, Luxury Business Jets LLC, Roxy Inc., Genesis Sales Corp., JJ & M Corp.

Alex and Ani claims these middlemen duped them by claiming the goods would be handed out as gifts during a prestigious horse riding competition in Florida known as the Wellington Classic Fall Challenge and at the Austin Film Festival.

In the end, Brody and Elite bought 26,668 pieces of jewelry with a retail value of nearly $1 million for $250,000. The goods ended up in BJ’s, where they were sold at discounts.

Alex and Ani asserts BJ’s continued to sell the jewelry even after Alex and Ani notified the Massachusetts discounter that the goods had been obtained fraudulently.

In seeking to get the case dismissed, Smith wrote, Roxy, Genesis and JJM “stack arguments . . . like so many Alex and Ani bracelets upon the outstretched arm of a trendy woman.”

While dismissing some of Alex and Ani’s claims, Smith decided to let case proceed.

 

• Wicked Local staff photo by Peter Cox |

  Northeast Jewelers fundraising bracelets.

• 

Posted Jan. 28, 2014 @ 10:17 am
Updated Jan 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Alex and Ani claims that the local store’s bracelets – made by North Attleborough company Nori Fundraising Concepts – violate the company’s patent and are knockoff products.The store started selling the charm bracelets in September, when employee and 2005 North Attleborough High School graduate Christopher Wynn came up with the idea.Alex and Ani alleges that Northeast Jewelers is violating its 2004 patent for expandable wire bracelets.”I’m confident this one will be successful as well,” he said. “But we’ll leave that up to the professionals.””I’m not concerned at all,” Northeast’s Wynn said. “They’ve got nothing on us. They’re just trying to push the smaller guy around and bully us. But we’re not going to roll over.””We were a small operation working out of a basement as recently as 2010, so I don’t know what he’s talking about,” Feroce said. “Our hard work is what has made us successful, so if he’s saying our hard work should be ignored he’s out of touch with how I think most Americans would feel.””People have been coming out of the woodwork to bring us patents from the 1960s and 1970s that show that similar bracelets have been made locally for a long time,” he said. “We’re happy about the public reaction, with everyone rooting us on.””Everything they’re doing is in direct contrast to how we operate,” he said. “We’ve created between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs in southeastern New England and we’ve done a lot of good for the community. We certainly have a tremendous amount of local support.””We’re not here to start a fight,” he said. “We’re just trying to do a good thing. We’re not making millions here; we’re just trying to do some good in the world.””We donate millions of dollars, that’s what we’re all about,” he said. “So for him to hide behind a charity like this is despicable in my opinion. He’s just trying to make money on the back of the hard work of others.”Feroce is also accusing Northeast Jewelers of not paying Alex and Ani when the store carried its products years ago.Krauss said he thought his relationship with Feroce was amicable until recently, and he said Alex and Ani shouldn’t be using patent law to come after him now due to underlying issues.Krauss said this lawsuit reveals the true nature of Alex and Ani.Wynn said he will continue to go forward with expanding the fundraising line, and he has been encouraged by the public’s response to the concept.Wynn said the store will still have some retail and will continue to repair jewelry and buy gold on site, but the focus will be on Nori products.

• “We’ve done no marketing,” he said. “And it’s still growing, with colleges and schools from all over the country calling us. We had no idea how popular this would be. We wanted to help North Attleborough’s schools, and it just blew up on social media.”
• “Other companies make the exact same bracelets in the area, and they’re not going after them,” Krauss said. “Why would he be trying to bury us? Just because he’s angry that he forgave our debt and now we’re seeing some success? That’s horrible. He forgave my debt to help my business get back on its feet, and now that we’re back on our feet he’s trying to take us down?”
• “I have nothing to hide,” he said. “He forgave my debt because I was having business difficulties and my wife was disabled, and we came close to losing our house. When all of that happened I thought Alex and Ani was a great company and I really appreciated what they did. But now they’re trying to make everything worse, and that’s a horrible thing to do.”
• “This was a non-paying retail customer who I forgave,” he said. “I could have sued them. So for him to turn around and create this kind of local chaos is despicable.”
• This dispute between the two companies goes deeper than a mere patent lawsuit.
• Feroce said Alex and Ani has also donated to charity in the past couple of years through its Charity by Design program.
• Wynn said it’s surprising Alex and Ani came after his company for two reasons: first, all the jewelry is made offsite, and second, his company is giving proceeds to charity.
• Feroce said his company also has a lot of local support.
• Wynn said the community has rallied to support his local business.
• Feroce said he was offended by his company being called a bully.
• Northeast Jewelers president Stephen Krauss said similar bracelets have been around for decades, so he hopes to prove that Northeast doesn’t infringe on Alex and Ani’s patent, and the patent may in fact be invalid.
• Alex and Ani CEO Giovanni Feroce said his company has fought countless similar patent lawsuits, and has won every single one.
• Now, less than five months later, the fundraising line has expanded to the point that the company is removing its retail line and almost exclusively becoming a wholesaler for Nori bracelets.
• Northeast Jewelers sells around 100 different charm bracelets, each emblazoned with the logo of a school or charitable organization. A portion of each sale goes to the specified organization.
• Downtown business Northeast Jewelers is planning to fight a lawsuit brought by jewelry giant Alex and Ani.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

Copyright 2013 Providence Journal. All rights reserve. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experience Hendrix suit against Pitsicalis alleging that Pitsicalis was infringing trademarks in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051-1127, and that the trademark infringement also amounted to an unfair or deceptive trade practice proscribed by Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), Wash. Rev. Code 19.86.010-19.86.920. Determining that Pitsicalis had Article III standing, the court concluded, inter alia, that the WPRA was constitutional as applied to the narrow set of non-speculative circumstances at issue in this case; Pitsicalis was liable under the Lanham Act for using domain names that infringed Experience Hendrix’s trademark “Hendrix”; and Paragraph 5 of the permanent injunction failed to state clearly the terms of the injunction and did not describe in reasonable detail the acts that were and were not restrained. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s determination that the Washington statute was unconstitutional and remanded Pitsicalis’s declaratory judgment claims pertaining to the WPRA with instructions to enter judgment on those claims in favor of Experience Hendrix; affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment on Experience Hendrix’s claim that Pitsicalis’s use of domain names infringed Experience Hendrix’s mark; vacated the permanent injunction and remanded so the district court could revise the language at issue; reversed the Rule 50(b)(3) decision to strike most of the jury’s award of damages under both the Lanham Act and the WPRA; affirmed the district court’s order granting a new trial on damages under both statutes; remanded for a new trial on such damages; vacated the district court’s award of attorney’s fees under the WCPA; and remanded the fee request for further proceedings.

Also, see Jimmy Hendrix Official Site

 USPTO Patent Term Calculator
 

Novartis AG v. Lee
Docket: 13-1160 Opinion Date: January 15, 2014
Judge: Taranto
Areas of Law: Patents

In 1999, Congress provided for extensions of patent terms to compensate for certain application-processing delays caused by the Patent and Trademark Office; 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1) makes a “Guarantee of no more than 3-year application pendency,” The statute provides that “the term of the patent shall be extended 1 day for each day” that the PTO does not meet certain response deadlines, for each day after the PTO fails to issue the patent within three years, subject to exclusions, and for each day of delay due to an interference, secrecy order, or successful applicant appeal. Novartis challenged PTO determinations of how much time to add to the otherwise-applicable term 18 of its patents. The district court dismissed claims regarding 15 patents as untimely. For the other three, the court rejected the PTO’s construction of the statutory provision. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to timeliness, but held the PTO was partly correct and partly incorrect in its interpretation of section 154(b)(1)(B). Novartis was entitled to most, but not all, of three patent term adjustment. Read full Opinion

It is with great regret that the United States Patent and Trademark Office must cancel our 18th Annual Independent Inventors Conference scheduled for October 11th and 12th at our headquarters. While the USPTO remains open during the general government shutdown that began October 1, 2013 by using prior year reserve fee collections to operate as usual for approximately four weeks, difficult decisions have to be made to ensure core patent and trademark operations are maintained for as long as possible. It is this agency’s intent to reschedule this conference, which has long proven to be of great value to the U.S. innovation community, after the government resumes full operation. Stay tuned for more information as it is available.

It is