$1.26 Billion Awarded Against PepsiCo. For Not Defending Trade Secret Case Regarding Bottled Water

November 3, 2009

Apparently, PepsiCo. were revealed the trade secret of vending bottled water, and went ahead and marketed this revolutionary product as Aquafina without coming to a business arrangement with the entrepeneurs who gave them the idea. Anyway, PepsiCo. forgot to defend the charges and a Wisconsin judge awarded damages of 1.26 billion dollars against the rinks company.  The alleged infringement happened in 1981, so one wonders about Statute of Limitations issues.

For the full story, see: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59R58N20091028

Apparently the charges were ignored due to a misplaced letter and a conflicting board meeting, and PepsiCo. have requested that the case is heard and tried on its merits.  Bottling water wasn’t new back in 1981, so we find the whole issue a little weird.

This is somewhat reminiscent of Peckham Spring Water.  See the BBC hit series “Only Fools and Horses” 1992 Xmas Special – Mother Nature’s Son.


Patent 2009 and Other non-Licensed Practitioners

September 30, 2009

Ms Jessica Cohen

We’ve just been scammed with details of Patent 2009, a new service offering patent pending status + search for 2009 NIS + fees. Someone wise once told me that when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Apparently the firm, operated by a Ms. Jessica Cohen (presumably the attractive woman in the white bathrobe that appears in their spam mail shot) uses technical experts to draft and file provisional patents without claims in the US.

Ms. Cohen does not appear to be a registered Israel Patent Attorney or an Attorney-at-law. I checked both registries, but clearly there a lot of Cohens and she may be licensed under another name. From her website she certainly appears not to be licensed. This does not stop her providing testimonials from satisfied clients for both patent and trademark services.

Alongside the woman in the bathrobe is a picture of an issued US patent resplendent with seal and ribbon.  Since provisional patent applications do not become examined and cannot issue into allowed patents, this is a little misleading.  

Ms Cohen claims that Patent2009 is her registered trademark and uses the circle R mark. She has indeed filed a trademark application in Israel for the stylized logo, but the mark has not yet issued. Since words like Patent cannot be protected by trademarks and 2009 is inherently non-distinctive, we wait to see how examination of the trademark proceeds. We are pleased to note that she has the courage of her convictions and does not use professional counsel for her trademark services. We also assume from her choosing such a poor choice of mark, that she believes in filing to obtain pending status rather than to filing applications that may be allowed.

When drafting provisional applications, like real utility applications that are examined, every word is a two-edged sword. Statements can be used against you. There is a reason why qualified practitioners are expensive.  If the provisional does not include a proper description of the inventive feature that later on, on examination, proves to have novelty and inventive step,  it is valueless. If after filing the provisional, an inventor describes something or publishes it in a publicity brochure or the like, but the provisional is insufficient, then claiming priority rights from it is meaningless.

Anyone can file a trademark application for themselves. Only licensed patent attorneys or attorneys-at-law can do so on behalf of clients. Helping filling in forms is legal advice. It is illegal to do this if not licensed to do so. see Section 19 and 20 of the Israel Bar Law.

Ms Cohen apparently files provisional application without claims. It is not clear that such an application can serve as a priority document for a regular application.  

She can’t have professional liability insurance as she is not a professional and we assume in three months time she’ll be trading as Patent2010, putting her fees up by a Shequel and the Limited liability company which presumably has few assets will no longer exist.

We call upon the AIPA and the Israel Law Society to protect the interest of the public and the profession and to close her down.

Another non-licensed practitioner that came my way recently actually calls himself a licensed patent agent in his sales literature, despite not being licensed in Israel, the US or anywhere else. This is not only illegal under the Israel Bar Law, but is also passing off and unjust enrichment.


Netex Obtains Patent for Search Optimization; may challenge Google and Yahoo

September 8, 2009

Netex, an Israel startup has been issued a US patent some 11 years after filing.

The patent called www.addressing relates to a method of WWW page retrieval from a web site, comprising entering information associated with the site; and directly displaying said page, using a browser, without any additional user intervention. Preferably, the information is in a non-Latin language. Alternatively or additionally, the information does not meet domain name specifications, for example, being in a free-form format.

The original priority document was filed in Israel in 1998.  Following allowance, Netex’ shares jumped 144%.  After perusing the claims, it does seem that they have the basis to sue giants like Google and Yahoo, but it is by no means clear that the patent will stand up in court, should a court hear the case. 

Google certainly have the search engines to find any missed prior art, but realistically, nothing will happen until the Supreme Court hears re Bilski, and it is not clear whether patents of this nature will remain patentable material or not.

If the large search engines choose to fight, they have the resources to do so. They may settle out of court.  Who knows?


USPTO Issues Guidelines About Patentable Subject Matter.

August 27, 2009

Preempting the US Supreme Court’s review of patentable inventions (re Bilski), the USPTO deputy commissioner has issued some nifty guidelines and rather inane flow-charts demonstrating to those requiring  intellectual examination what a machine is or what a transformation is.  See Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O:

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/interim-guidelines-on-statutory-subject-matter.html

From my reading of the guidelines, I would say that business methods and gene sequences are out in the interim. Note, this is interpretation only.  There are no clear statements to that effect. It does seem that anything new under the sun, is no longer patentable; merely new materials, new devices and systems and new methods of transforming matter.

I am not sure what the Supreme Court will do, but I assume that they are hearing the case as they intend to do something. It is, however, not clear why the USPTO has decided to publish interim guidelines.   

For a great piece of satire on the topic by Professor Jeremy Phillips, see the IPKAT: 

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/08/another-new-uspto-test.html


Business and Software Patents, a last word? – US Supreme Court to Hear Bilski

June 2, 2009

In Bilski et al. vs. Doll, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected pure software and business method patents and moved closer to the European standard of what is patentable, allowing software tied to a physical machine, but not software per se.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and agreed on Monday to review the Bilski case and to consider writing a new, modern definition of the kinds of inventions that are eligible for patent rights.

It is important to clarify when, if ever, an invention that involves a method of doing business can be patented in the US. At present, it is impossible to advise clients as to the patentability of such material.

The decision will come in the next Term, so nothing will happen until October.

For a good overview of issues, see Patently-O http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/06/bilski.html

The FCAC overturned the Supreme Court decision not to limit patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”


New IP Company Offers Protection Racket.

April 2, 2009

I am one of those cynics, that does not believe in defensive patents as a strategy, nor do I consider trolling an illegitimate business activity, but rather, see IP buyers and licensers as facilitating the best use of IP, in keeping with Coase’s economic models.

Certainly the specific Research in Motion case regarding the Blackberry was an instance where RIM had every opportunity to pay licensing fees to the patentees, and the company that bought up the patents and sued RIM were conducting legitimate business.

We note that Ocean Moto have announced another IP Auction – indicative that like other forms of property, patents are being bought and sold, which is generally a good thing. 

We’ve discovered another business model.  RPX buys patents and licenses to members, thereby preventing them from being sued for infringement.

See: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/trolling-for-patents-to-fight-patent-trolls/

This seems to be some sort of protection racket! It’s a bit like King David asking Nabal for food and victuals since his band of outlaws was protecting Nabal from marauders.


UK Patent Office Affirms That Software Inventions Are Not Patentable

June 29, 2008

A hearing officer of the UK Intellectual Property Office has held that an invention which made financial Read the rest of this entry »


The End of Business Patents in the US?

February 18, 2008

In Re Bilski USSN 08/833,892 relating to hedging risks, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (CAFC) has decided to review the whole concept of business Read the rest of this entry »


Shai 4U vs. Cheque-Out thrown out by Tel Aviv District Court

July 23, 2007

Shai 4U (Shai means gift in Hebrew) sued Cheque-Out for infringing their patent for a kiosk for making a credit-card monetary gifts to celebrant, for setting up at wedding venues and banqueting suites, Read the rest of this entry »


Israel Remains on the U.S. “Priority Watch List” – Allegedly for Copyright Piracy

May 1, 2007

The US published their “Special 301 Report” on Monday, targeting 12 Countries including Israel for copyright piracy monitoring.

Officially, the United States claims that the countries on the “priority watch list” are there for failing to sufficiently protect American producers of music, movies and other copyrighted material from widespread copyright piracy, which the US contends costs American industry billions of dollars in lost sales annually.

“We must defend ideas, inventions and creativity from rip-off artists and thieves,”

said U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab in a statement accompanying the report.

In addition to Israel, the other countries Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers