We can help.
By bfwebster on Jan 29, 2009 in Intellectual property, Lawsuits, Main, Patents | 0 Comments
The US Federal Court of Appeals ruling upholding the lower court decision for In re Bilski has now been appealed to the US Supreme Court:
Not since 1981 has the Supreme Court undertaken to spell out the kinds of inventions that are eligible for patent rights — the exclusive rights to produce or use an invented device [...]
By bfwebster on Dec 19, 2008 in Intellectual property, Lawsuits, Main, Patents | 3 Comments
The In re Bilski (545 F.3d 943 [Fed. Cir. 2008]; here’s a PDF of the decision) court decision placed significant new limits on so-called “process” or “business method” patents, which possible implications for many software patents.
Well, I just received an e-mail from Joel Miller of the ABA Intellectual Property Law Committee (of which I’m a [...]
By bfwebster on Aug 12, 2008 in Intellectual property, Lawsuits, Main | 0 Comments
According to this release over at Morgan Miller Blair, the California Supreme Court has completed the task of invalidating virtually all non-compete agreements within the state of California:
In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, the Court examined an employment agreement between Arthur Andersen and one of its former tax manager employees, Raymond Edwards. The agreement contained a [...]
By bfwebster on Jun 24, 2008 in Intellectual property, Lawsuits, Main, Patents | 0 Comments
According to this story over at PocketLink, Typhoon Touch Technologies has “’significantly expanded’ its patent infringement suit begun in December 2007 against Dell by adding Apple, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Lenovo, Panasonic, HTC, Palm, Samsung, Nokia and LG” — in other words, just about every firm that manufactures a “portable computer with touch screen and computer system [...]
By bfwebster on Mar 4, 2008 in Intellectual property, Main, Methodology, Quality assurance, Source code control | 1 Comment
Judges in Minnesota have ruled — in over 100 cases — that drivers charged with DWI, as part of their defense, have a right to examine the source code of the breath-test machines used. Those rulings were upheld by the Minnesota Supreme Court last July. The breath-test device manufacturer, CMI, Inc., has to date refused [...]