US Patents, Patents And Trademarks, European Patents, Invention Patents, Patents Office Home US Patents Patents And Trademarks European Patents Invention Patents Patents Office Patent Search Software Patents Patent Attorney Canadian Patent Patent Pending News about US patents, patents and trademarks, European patents, invention patents, patents office Enterasys files patent infringement lawsuit Monday, June 27, 2005 Enterasys Networks has filed a patent infringement complaint against Extreme Networks and Foundry Networks in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that both Extreme and Foundry have been, and are, infringing six Enterasys patents by making and selling networking products that utilise patented Enterasys technology. The patents at issue in the case relate to virtual local area networking, multi-protocol routing, and several other networking technologies. Enterasys says that it has made significant investments in research and development, and today owns a wide array of networking and related patents spanning 20 years of development. Enterasys currently holds more than 640 issued and pending patents worldwide, with more than a dozen new US patent filings made within the last year. The company says that it filed this action as part of its ongoing licensing programme, under which it vigorously protects its position in secure networking technology.(Source from ict world

) Heated Demonstrations Precede Europe's Vote On Software Patents June 23, 2005 By W. David Gardner The issue of software patents for Europe heated up Thursday as some 250 demonstrators descended on members of the European Parliament to argue in favor of strong software patent laws. Earlier this week Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee ruled in favor of patent protection for software in certain instances. Parliament is scheduled to vote on the issue next month, but with 25 European countries and various European Union agencies and political bodies scheduled to debate the issue for months, a resolution seems far away. Generally, the issue pits Microsoft, on one side, with some computer companies and users. Both sides have been demonstrating on the issue for months. "The European Commission, the European Patent Office and the European Council all want to enforce patents," said Erik Josefsson, a Brussels-based spokesman for the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), which generally wants the current European patent system abolished. "The only group saying 'no' to patents is Parliament." Intellectual property (IP) including patents have been taking on new importance in recent months as battles break out over ownership of software. In recent years, Microsoft has filed an increasing number of software patents and the software colossus has complained that open source software like Linux violates many Microsoft patents. The debate took on carnival overtones Thursday when a group supporting Microsoft's position called the Campaign for Creativity launched a balloon "symbolizing the risks of allowing European Innovation to float away." Both sides maintain their approach leads to better innovation. "Over 250 of us gathered in Brussels to appeal to Members of Parliament," said Daniel Doll-Steinberg, CEO of British-based software publishing company Tribeka. He added that eliminating patents will cause "irreparable damage." The issue has defied solution for several years. (Source from developer pipeline

) Sughrue Partner Howard L. Bernstein Elected to Serve 2nd term on Board of Directors for Association of Patent Law Firms Sughrue Mion, PLLC is pleased to announce that Howard L. Bernstein has been elected to serve a second term on the board of directors of the Association of Patent Law Firms (APLF). In addition to serving on the Board, Howard is also on the editorial board for APLF's newest publication she Patent Lawyer? The APLF is a national association of law firms that devote a majority of their practice to patent law. Practicing attorneys of member firms are skilled and experienced in the areas of patent application work, litigation, and counseling services. (Source from Sughrue Mion PLLC

) Site links: Best Freight Forwarder | SFI Info | Coin Dealer | Poker Tables List | Field Service | Tinnitus FAQ | Barcode Fonts | Shenyang Hotels | Annuity FAQ | Sales Force Automation Web | Google's Patent Implications You may have already heard or read about Google's latest patent application regarding "information retrieval based on historical data", but if you're like me, you probably didn't bother to read it all. Patents are not easy to read, that's for sure! I had skimmed it and glanced at a few forum posts and articles that discussed it, but until today, I hadn't actually read it completely. I wasn't surprised about the stuff in the patent that corresponded with Google's aging delay and its "sandbox" as I had already seen a lot of discussion on this. For those who aren't familiar with the aging delay and the sandbox, you'll want to note that there is a lot of disagreement over what causes a site to be thrown in the sandbox. However, based on my own observations and the experiences of some trusted SEO friends, it's my belief that the sandbox is basically a purgatory database where Google places certain URLs based on a variety of predetermined criteria. (Much of this is spelled out in the first part of the patent application.) The aging delay, on the other hand, is actually a subset of the sandbox. In other words, the aging delay is just *one* reason why a URL might get placed in the sandbox. Basically, if you have a brand new domain/website, it will automatically land in the sandbox regardless of anything that you do with it. Your new website will be stuck there for an unspecified period of time (averaging around 9 months these days) and it will not rank highly in Google for any keyword phrases that might bring it any decent traffic. Yes, it can sometimes rank highly for the company name, or the names of the people who run the company. It may also show up in Google for a few additional phrases that other sites are not focusing on within their content. But new domains will not show up in Google's natural results for even slightly competitive keyword phrases until they are removed from the sandbox. Other reasons why a site might be placed in the sandbox go beyond the aging delay. Google's major algorithm upheavals such as the recent one dubbed "Bourbon" by the folks at WebmasterWorld, show all too clearly that old domains can also be placed in the sandbox, under the right (or in this case wrong) circumstances. Nobody can really say for sure what the criteria is, but Google's patent does give us some insight into what some of them might be. For instance, did you know that Google might use traffic data from sites when determining how to rank them? The patent application specifically states in part ".information relating to traffic associated with a document over time may be used to generate (or alter) a score associated with the document." Since the application was filed in 2003, it would be a pretty safe bet to say that they are in fact using that information in today's ranking algorithm. You might be wondering how they get information about your site's traffic since you're not providing them with your log files or traffic reports. Well, Google has some nifty big brother spyware installed on tons and tons of people's browsers in the form of the "Google Toolbar." In order to use certain functions of the toolbar, users have to agree to allow data to be transferred back to Google, which includes which sites they've visited, and how long they were there. Now, this isn't any cause for alarm if you're a Google toolbar user, as they're not actually identifying you personally (as far as I know). They are simply taking the aggregate data that they receive and then using it for whatever purposes they see fit. It actually makes perfect sense that they'd use this data to perfect their ranking algorithm. Highly trafficked sites are popular sites, and Google would want to ensure that their searchers easily find popular sites. Another factor used in Google's ranking algorithm is clickthroughs from the search results pages. In Google's patent they say, "[Google] may monitor the number of times that a document is selected from a set of search results and/or the amount of time one or more users spend accessing the document. [Google] may then score the document based, at least in part, on this information." Google has had tracking URLs on most of the links appearing in their search results for quite some time. With these in place, they can study which pages are getting clicked for which queries. They can also figure out whether people are satisfied with the page they clicked on by making note of whether the user came back to the results page and clicked on additional results. There's lots more in the patent regarding links and anchor text, including the length of time it takes for links to show up, and whether they fit the profile for being artificial or natural. Suffice it to say that as long as you're not attempting to artificially inflate your link popularity, then you have nothing to worry about. I cannot stress enough that the ideas in this patent have been put forth as spam fighting measures. Unfortunately, as soon as the search engines start giving things like links any kind of prominence in their ranking algorithm, they get abused by those whose only goal is to "game" the engines. There will always be people who set out to obtain high rankings through exploiting weaknesses in the algorithms. They create numerous websites based on the algorithm of the day, and make as much money as they can until their sites are caught. Then they simply figure out the next loophole and start the process all over again. It's an interesting and exciting business model, but certainly not one that a company in business for the long haul should be interested in. If you have a real company that is looking to establish a real brand and a long-term customer base, then you'll want to stick with the basic SEO techniques which have been proven to work time and again. In other words, the stuff I've been teaching and doing for years. Yes, it can be time consuming and a huge amount of hard work and/or money to do things the right way, but the reward is long-term search engine success. It is true that even for those who do practice what I preach, there have been occasions when some search engines mistakenly throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is, you may do everything by the book, but something somewhere trips a spam filter and your site may mistakenly get sandboxed, penalized or banned. This is certainly rare, but not as rare as it used to be. Each new search engine update brings new cries of "Where's my site?!" from people who didn't do anything to deceive the engines. One can only hope that the engines work quickly to allow these sites to get back into the rankings as quickly as possible. At any rate, you should never count on your natural search results as your sole method of bringing you business. Be sure to use traditional advertising, word of mouth, public relations and whatever forms of marketing suit your business objectives. Here's hoping that the search engines keep getting better, and they finally figure out a way to separate the wheat from the chaff once and for all! (Source from Search Engine Journal

) Pfizer: 2 Lipitor Patents Unaffected By Preliminary Ruling Woensdag 22 Juni 2005 NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Pfizer Inc. (PFE), in response to a U.S. patent office decision rejecting its claims to a Lipitor patent, said the preliminary ruling doesn't cover two key patents behind the blockbuster cholesterol drug, which so far remains immune to generic copycats. Earlier Wednesday, the Patent and Trademark Office rejected Pfizer's 44 claims on one of five patents related to Lipitor, according to the Web site for the Public Patent Foundation, a nonprofit group that challenged the patent. Pfizer can still respond to the ruling before the patent office finalizes its decision. In a press release Wednesday, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer said the rejected patent claims only regard the crystalline form of Lipitor. This particular patent expires in 2017, Pfizer said. The company said the two patents not affected by the ruling, the basic and enantiomer patents, provide market exclusivity for Lipitor through March 2010 and June 2011, respectively. Wednesday's decision is unrelated to a recent Lipitor challenge from Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (500359.BY) over the basic and enantiomer patents which was tried in federal district court in Delaware. Pfizer said that case awaits decision. (Source from beurs.nl

) Patent Office Rejects Lipitor Patent on PUBPAT's Request: Public Interest Group's Review Results in All 44 Claims of Pfizer's Patent on Multi-Billion Dollar Drug Ruled Invalid June 22, 2005 In the reexamination proceeding initiated late last year by the Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT"), the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected all of the claims of Pfizer Inc.'s patent on Lipitor, touted by the pharmaceutical giant as being "the best-selling treatment for lowering cholesterol and the best-selling pharmaceutical product of any kind in the world." New York (PRWEB) June 22, 2005 -- In the reexamination proceeding initiated late last year by the Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT"), the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected all of the claims of Pfizer Inc.'s patent on Lipitor, touted by the pharmaceutical giant as being "the best-selling treatment for lowering cholesterol and the best-selling pharmaceutical product of any kind in the world." Relying on evidence provided by PUBPAT when the reexamination was requested, the Patent Office rejected all 44 claims in the pharmaceutical giant's patent. Pfizer has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection, but third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, result in having the subject patent either modified or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time. Although the rejected patent is one of five patents listed by Pfizer with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atorvastatin, the generic name for the drug compound distributed under the Lipitor brand, it is the only one asserted by Pfizer in roughly two dozen patent infringement lawsuits filed last year against web sites selling generic atorvastatin to Americans. Two of the other listed patents are under review by a Delaware court and the remaining two have never been asserted by Pfizer against any competitor to Lipitor. "The Patent Office has agreed with our conclusion that it should have never granted Pfizer the Lipitor patent," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "Revoking Pfizer's patent is a critical step towards providing American consumers with access to atorvastatin at a fair price, which will not only provide substantial economic benefit, but will also improve public health, as even Pfizer admits that many Americans in need of the drug are not getting it." (Source from e media wire

) Jamaica brand competitive but needs protection BY JULIEN NEAVES Sunday, June 26, 2005 INTELLECTUAL property consultant Tony Laing will head the new board of the Jamaica Intellectual Property Office (JIPO) and Minister of Commerce, Science and Technology Phillip Paulwell has given the board a mandate to increase their policing of Jamaican brands. Paulwell said Tuesday that JIPO, established as a statutory body in 2001, needed to be "a lot more aggressive than they have been" in their monitoring of the illegal use of the Jamaica brand by foreign companies. The previous board was headed by Minette Palmer, who will not be serving on the present board of 13 appointed directors. The new board, which met for the first time last month, includes Laing as chairman, Dianne Daley, Shirley Carby, Rowland Phillips, Georgia Jefferson, Faye Ellington, Ricardo James, George Price, Pearl Anderson, Dr Audia Barnett, Gloria Edwards, Christopher Green, and Keith Anderson. In addition to the new board and the new mandate, Paulwell said his ministry was working on amendments to the Trademarks Act and the Intellectual Property Rights Act, and reviewing the Patents Act. Paulwell said that exporters, producers and marketers must not only promote brand Jamaica but also prevent the illegal use of Jamaica's geographical indicators by other countries. Geographical indicators (GIs) denote the quality, reputation and characteristic of a good with the country, region or locality - such as Blue Mountain Coffee or Catherine's Peak Water - and unlike trademarks, which are the exclusive domain of the proprietor, it is corporately owned. A geographical indicators act was passed in 2003. Attorney Dianne Daley said the GI act has the severest punishment of all intellectual property legislation, with fines up to $1 million or 12 months in prison in the lower court, and in the high court, pecuniary penalties based on the profits from the breach or fines in excess of $1 million. Daley said that there is a need to take action against companies that illegally use the brand Jamaica to send a message to foreign communities.(Source from Jamaica Observer

) Kronos lands eighth U.S. patent Boston Business Journal Air-purification technology company Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. announced its eighth U.S. patent. The company's most recent patent, which will manage voltage output in the company's electronic air filter products, will protect the company's invention until 2022. Earlier this month, the Belmont, Mass.-based Kronos Advanced (OTC: KNOS) inked a deal with Sweden-based IKEA International A/S to jointly create air purification products for consumers. Kronos also has a deal with HoMedics Inc. of Commerce Township, Mich., to develop and distribute consumer air filter products. For the quarter that ended on March 31, Kronos Advanced reported a 26 percent revenue gain to $430,000, compared with $342,000 for the comparable 2004 period. Despite the increased revenue, development costs for the company's military products depressed Kronos Advanced's profit to $55,000 during the most recent quarter, from $114,000 during the comparable 2004 quarter. (Source from Boston Business Journal

) Rambus in EU "patents ambush" probe By David Evans: Friday 24 June 2005, 07:33 FORGET Silvester Stallone and Rambo. It looks like the new gun-toting kid on the block is US memory chip designer Rambus, now locked in combat with the burghers of Brussels over claims it set a "patents ambush" for competitors. Still facing a host of other potential court battles with the likes of Samsung, Hynix Semiconductor, Inotera Memories and Nanya Technology Group, Rambus now has the EU on its back amid accusations that it took part in setting an industry standard without warning rivals that the standard infringed its own patents. At the heart of the row is the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), responsible for standardisation of information and communication technology in Europe. Based in southern France, ETSI brings together 688 members from 55 countries, including manufacturers, network operators and research bodies. The Institute's biggest success to date has been the creation of the GSM mobile phone standards. But now EU watchdogs have rounded on the body, accusing it of being "too lax" in its rules on how members disclose patent information - with concerns over Rambus particularly highlighted. In a letter to ETSI the EU warns: "The rules do not appear to be able to prevent a situation where a company can potentially acquire a dominant position via a 'patent ambush' (ie. by withholding an essential IPR claim, and information about that claim, until after a standard is agreed)." It's not the first time Rambus has faced such accusations. In 2002 the Federal Trade Commission similarly charged Rambus with violating antitrust provisions, accusing it of withholding information about its patents from a standard-setting group called JEDEC. That move failed, and has later allowed Rambus to claim royalties from chip makers such as Samsung, Toshiba and Hitachi. µ (Source from thein quirer

) Aerielle(R) Inc. Adds Two New Patents and a Trademark to the Aerielle Enabled(TM) Brand MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., June 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Aerielle(R), Inc., the

leader in high quality wireless audio products, today announced that the

United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Design Patents D504,407

and D504,408 to Aerielle for the unique industrial design implementations of

its wireless audio technology. In addition, Aerielle was granted the

trademark "Audio. No Strings Attached.(TM)" These patents support Aerielle's commitment to elegant, user-friendly

products that deliver on the promise of "Simply Better Sound.(TM)", and preserve Aerielle's uniqueness and differentiation in the marketplace. The

trademark "Audio. No Strings Attached" exemplifies the freedom and mobility

user's experience by eliminating wired connections -- no more searching for

cords, adapters, or plugs! The high fidelity sound transmitting from

Aerielle's product makes wires obsolete. "Our new patents and trademarks reinforce Aerielle's promise to our customers -- superior wireless audio products that deliver uncompromising sound quality," said Art Cohen, President and CEO of Aerielle, Inc. "We were founded with the goal of delivering low cost, high quality wireless audio products for every consumer. We are proud that our designs are recognized as the standard throughout the industry." Aerielle's patented Aerielle Enabled(TM) wireless technology is currently designed into many widely available products, including Aerielle's own AudioBUG(TM) branded products, the Kensington(R) Digital FM Transmitter/Auto Charger for iPod(R), Delphi XM Universal Wireless Audio Adapter for XM Roady(TM) and SKYFi(TM), and the iriver Mobile FM Transmitter for its family of MP3 music players. Aerielle Enabled products allow users to listen to music and other files played on MP3, CD and DVD players through any FM receiver, and provide superior sound quality that accentuates the listening experience. Diagrams and information on the patents can be found on Aerielle's Web

site at www.aerielle.com.(Source from PR newswire

) rDsine Awarded U.S. Patent for Ethernet Switch Assembly with Power over Ethernet Functionality June 28, 2005 US Eastern Timezone HOD HASHARON, Israel--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 28, 2005--PowerDsine Ltd. (NASDAQ:PDSN), a pioneer in Power over Ethernet (PoE) solutions, announced today it has been awarded an "Ethernet switch assembly patent" in the United States that further extends PowerDsine's patent portfolio in PoE technology. The patent #6,909,943, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 21, 2005, is addressed to Ethernet switch assemblies which incorporate PoE technology. PowerDsine's embedded PoE technology is an instrumental part of the company's product offerings to Ethernet switch vendors. "This U.S. patent builds on our previously issued patents and continues to support the notion that PowerDsine is one of the pioneers in Power over Ethernet technology," said PowerDsine CEO Igal Rotem. "We believe there is great growth potential for PoE in the Ethernet switch market and receipt of this patent further establishes our commitment to PoE innovation." (Source from business wire

) Patent Attorney Tips Most reputable patent attorneys charge between $3,000 to $10,000 for a well-drafted patent application including the drawings and filing fee. Anything less than $3,000 should be scrutinized. Educate yourself about the patent process and understand as much as you can. It will help you work better with your attorney. You could hire a patent agent instead of an attorney, but the patent agent will not be able to litigate for you if any infringement issues arise. Visit About for more detail. Patent reform: Who's on first? By Declan McCullagh September 13, 2005 When Gordon Gould was a graduate student at Columbia University in 1957, he sketched out the concept of a concentrated beam of light amplified in a gas-filled chamber and coined the term "laser" to describe it. But Gould waited to seek a patent on his discovery, believing incorrectly that a working prototype was necessary. Eventually, two other researchers were awarded the basic patents instead. After a decades-long legal tussle, Gould finally reveled in victory when a federal court ruled that the patent application it had approved did not anticipate the common uses of lasers. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office then granted Gould lucrative rights to the invention, in part because as a graduate student he had his original research notebooks date-stamped and notarized. The legal standard that was applied awards patents to the person who invented a concept first, and it has long been a unique feature of the U.S. patent system. This year, however, Congress is about to consider a controversial proposal from Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, that would grant a patent to the first person to submit the paperwork --a standard that's common outside the United States. The legislation suddenly has become a flash point about everything that's right with the U.S. patent system--and everything that's wrong with it. Technology companies fighting expensive patent cases are hoping the bill will reduce litigation, while open-source advocates say it will do nothing to hinder the rising tide of software patents being issued. Many people feel that the measure will make only modest improvements, if any, to the quality of patents being awarded. Smith's bill, called the Patent Reform Act of 2005, also has drawn the ire of independent inventors, who have said it will unfairly hurt anyone without a battalion of patent lawyers who can race to the Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Va. The rule probably would have kept Gould from being awarded the laser patents he eventually got. Smith declined, through a representative, to comment on the bill before a hearing set for Thursday. The issue has taken on additional urgency because of Smith's ambitious plan to navigate his bill quickly through the House by year's end. Next week's hearing will take place shortly after politicians have returned from their summer break. Meanwhile, a similar measure is being readied in the Senate by Utah Republican Orrin Hatch. Some melding of the two proposals is expected. The compressed calendar has prompted lobbyists on both sides to scramble. Leading the way are litigation-weary companies, including Microsoft, Apple computer, Intel and Hewlett-Packard, which quietly worked on the details this spring with Smith's aides and have been pressing other members of Congress to sign on ever since. Microsoft's patent woes Microsoft has been especially critical of a legal framework that causes it to spend $100 million a year defending itself against 35 to 40 lawsuits at any one time. But what spurred the company to team up with Smith was a jury that awarded one-man software company Eolas Technologies $565 million in damages--a decision that has been partially reversed--in a patent dispute over Microsoft's Internet Explorer. "We really feel that there's a litigation lottery," said David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of intellectual-property licensing. "People roll the die and hope that their number comes up big." Large technology companies love the language in the bill that will make it more difficult to seek court injunctions against alleged infringement, while creating a way to challenge patents after they are granted and recalculating the way damages are decided--in a way that would make large jury awards more difficult to win. "We feel it would give us significant relief," said Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents dozens of high-tech companies, including Dell, Apple and IBM. "There are issues where we intend to make the provisions even stronger, but on balance, I think we consider the Smith bill a very good bill for the tech industry." Individual inventors are as critical of the Smith bill as the tech lobby is effusive. By making it more difficult to seek an injunction against an alleged infringer, they claim, the measure will encourage lawbreaking by rewarding intellectual piracy. "The patent system is a crucial part of what made America great," said Ronald Riley, president of the Professional Inventors Alliance. "The companies who are complaining about the system are bad players, crooks who took great liberties with others' inventions. What they are really complaining about is being held accountable for their disreputable conduct." Open-source status quo Altering legal standards for injunctions and permitting post-grant review may grab the attention of corporations and inventors, but advocates of free and open-source software believe that those changes are far too modest. What's needed, they said, is a radical, bottom-to-top rethinking of the way patents are reviewed and approved, especially those applications seeking patents on programming techniques that should have been obvious to any undergrad in computer science. "Way too many obvious junk patents have been issued for things that are obvious to any engineer, and those are being used to suppress competition," said Eric Raymond, a free-software advocate. "I don't see this bill fixing that." Unearthing seemingly bizarre software patents has been made into something of a competitive sport by free-software aficionados. They've spent years laughing at Microsoft's often-successful attempts to patent ideas such as highlighting numbers, adding white space to a document and creating custom "emoticon" smiley faces. But a serious worry underlies the amusement: What if a company launches a patent attack against open-source programmers? One study released last year estimates that Linux infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft. In a stark warning that patent litigation could open another front in the Linux-Microsoft wars, Mitch Kapor, chairman of the Mozilla Foundation, predicts that the software colossus will wield its fast-growing stockpile of patents against Linux. (Insurance for Linux users is already available.) Michael Tiemann, president of the Open Source Initiative, said that open-source programmers--especially hobbyists or people without resources to search patent databases--are vulnerable to writing code that accidentally infringes on a patent. "Any line of code I write could in fact trip across a patent I never even knew existed, and that's a problem for innovation, and it's a problem for open source," Tiemann said. For more info about patents, please visit ZDNet

. hexagonal tooling news timeshare users group car air purifier hair loss metallic hobo handbag sequencer YellowPages travel media campaigns wickaninnish Inn | Home | European Patents | Patents And Trademarks | Patents Office | Us Patents | Invention Patents | Software Patents | | Patent Search | Patent Attorney | Patent Pending | Canadian Patent | Site Map | Links | Copyright © 2005 Pop Patents

.

All Rights Reserved.

US Patents, Patents And Trademarks, European Patents, Invention Patents, Patents Office