On January 20, 2010, Sharon Barner, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), moderated a public roundtable in an effort to obtain comments on the proposed modifications the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI)'s ex parte appeals rules.
According to a press release on the USPTO website, “The BPAI provides critical services for the patent process at the USPTO and for the patent system generally,” noted Deputy Under Secretary Barner. “This roundtable was an important step to gather valuable insight from the public on these proposed modifications and to work together with stakeholders toward a more efficient appeal process and more timely Board decisions.”
The press release goes on to state "[i]t’s USPTO’s goal to reduce the pendency of ex parte patent appeals. The pendency of decided appeals, as measured from the time an applicant files a notice of appeal until the BPAI renders a decision, is now 29.3 months, up from 27.5 months at the end of FY 2009. One way to move toward this goal is to modify the rules of practice in ex parte patent appeals to streamline and improve the overall appeal process.
Objectives of the proposed modifications to the rules are to provide clarity so that appellants know exactly what the rules require, and so that examiners know what they need to do; to streamline the process so that cases move from notice of appeal to decision in a more efficient and timely manner; to allow appellants and examiners an opportunity to fully respond to each other’s positions; and to ensure the appeal process allows for issues to be crystallized so that the Board receives fully-developed issues to be decided."
The agenda, presentation slides, webcast and participant list for the roundtable can be found here.
Information on the proposed rule changes can be found in the Federal Register, here.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
ICANN's New URDP "Electronic-Only" Filing Rules Go Into Effect March 1
On October 30, 2009 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved amending its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (URDP) rules to require that effective March 1, 2010, URDP complaints and other pleadings be submitted in electronic format only. Historically URDP complaints and responses were required to be submitted to the opposing party and the domain provider in paper or electronic format. Providers will still be required to forward a hard copy notice that a UDRP complaint has been filed.
The new electronic-only rules will apply to complaints filed with providers on or after March 1, 2010. The current rules will apply to complaints filed with providers up to and including February 28, 2010. Providers may adopt the new rules prior to March 1 but parties who do not wish to submit documents in electronic format will have the option of filing documents in paper format until March 1. The ICANN website states that "[p]roviders may allow, but must not require, UDRP complainants and respondents to submit complaints and responses in electronic form prior to 1 March 2010. For all UDRP proceedings filed on or before 28 February 2010, complainants and respondents may elect to submit their documents in hard copy form, as set forth in the original Rules."
Organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have already implemented the new electronic-only rule to be effective March 1. According to the WIPO website, "[t]he modified Rules become mandatory on March 1, 2010, and prior to that, provision is made for the optional filing of UDRP pleadings in electronic-format by email and notification in accordance with the new Written Notice provisions in the modified Rules. The WIPO Center will be inviting such filings and commencing use of the Written Notice provisions as of December 14, 2009. Parties who elect not to make use of this new WIPO facility may continue to file pleadings in hard copy up until February 28, 2010."
Read ICANN's press release regarding the new rules here.
Read WIPO's announcement implementing the rules here.
The new electronic-only rules will apply to complaints filed with providers on or after March 1, 2010. The current rules will apply to complaints filed with providers up to and including February 28, 2010. Providers may adopt the new rules prior to March 1 but parties who do not wish to submit documents in electronic format will have the option of filing documents in paper format until March 1. The ICANN website states that "[p]roviders may allow, but must not require, UDRP complainants and respondents to submit complaints and responses in electronic form prior to 1 March 2010. For all UDRP proceedings filed on or before 28 February 2010, complainants and respondents may elect to submit their documents in hard copy form, as set forth in the original Rules."
Organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have already implemented the new electronic-only rule to be effective March 1. According to the WIPO website, "[t]he modified Rules become mandatory on March 1, 2010, and prior to that, provision is made for the optional filing of UDRP pleadings in electronic-format by email and notification in accordance with the new Written Notice provisions in the modified Rules. The WIPO Center will be inviting such filings and commencing use of the Written Notice provisions as of December 14, 2009. Parties who elect not to make use of this new WIPO facility may continue to file pleadings in hard copy up until February 28, 2010."
Read ICANN's press release regarding the new rules here.
Read WIPO's announcement implementing the rules here.
Monday, January 11, 2010
COPYRIGHT: Viacom's $1 Billion Copyright Lawsuit Against YouTube Moves Toward Summary Judgment Stage
According to cNET News and All Things Digital, Viacom and YouTube recently sought permission from the court to file motions for summary judgment in a $1 billion copyright action brought by Viacom against YouTube. Originally filed in federal court (Southern District of New York) in 2007, Viacom's lawsuit alleges that YouTube, now owned by Google, infringed Viacom's copyrights by allowing YouTube users to display over 63,000 clips from over 3,000 of Viacom's copyrighted television shows.
YouTube is claiming protection under the "safe harbor" provision for online service providers (OSPs) in the Digital Millenneum Copyright Act (DMCA). The "safe harbor" provision gives OSPs a defense from copyright infringement committed by users of the service. Viacom claims that YouTube willfully facilitated copyright infringement and therefore is not protected under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.
Read more about the Digital Milleneum Copyright Act in Wikipedia, here.
YouTube is claiming protection under the "safe harbor" provision for online service providers (OSPs) in the Digital Millenneum Copyright Act (DMCA). The "safe harbor" provision gives OSPs a defense from copyright infringement committed by users of the service. Viacom claims that YouTube willfully facilitated copyright infringement and therefore is not protected under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.
Read more about the Digital Milleneum Copyright Act in Wikipedia, here.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
COPYRIGHT, TRADE SECRETS: CYBERsitter, LLC Sues Peoples Republic of China, PC Manufacturers, Others for Software Piracy
According to PC Magazine's security blog, Security Watch and Reuters, CYBERsitter, LLC (formerly known as Solid Oak Software) recently sued the Peoples Republic of China, PC manufacturers Sony, Lenovo, Toshiba, ACER, ASUSTeK, Haier Group and BenQ, and software developers Zhengzhou Jinhui Computer System Engineering and Beijing Dazheng Human Language Technology Academy for "misappropriation of trade secrets; unfair competition; copyright infringement; and civil conspiracy."
According to Security Watch, CYBERsitter, LLC is alleging that China (via its contracted software developers) illegally appropriated thousands of lines of code from CYBERsitter, an internet-filtering software that helps parents control websites accessed by children, then incorporated the code into Green Dam Youth Escort, China's Internet-filtering software.
According to Reuters, "[i]n mid-2009, China issued a requirement that all PCs sold in the country would have to carry the Green Dam software, which it said was designed to prevent the country's youth from watching pornography but was seen by some as a veiled move at broader censorship." The requirement was later rescinded after criticism and protests from human rights groups and others, but the manufacturers had already complied with the government mandate. CYBERsitter alleges that the manufacturers continued to distribute computers with the preloaded Green Dam Youth Escort software even after they became aware of the misappropriated code.
CYBERsitter is seeking over $2.2 billion in damages, representing 56.5 million unauthorized copies of CYBERsitter at $39.95 per copy.
More information about the lawsuit can be found on the Security Watch blog here and from Reuters, here.
According to Security Watch, CYBERsitter, LLC is alleging that China (via its contracted software developers) illegally appropriated thousands of lines of code from CYBERsitter, an internet-filtering software that helps parents control websites accessed by children, then incorporated the code into Green Dam Youth Escort, China's Internet-filtering software.
According to Reuters, "[i]n mid-2009, China issued a requirement that all PCs sold in the country would have to carry the Green Dam software, which it said was designed to prevent the country's youth from watching pornography but was seen by some as a veiled move at broader censorship." The requirement was later rescinded after criticism and protests from human rights groups and others, but the manufacturers had already complied with the government mandate. CYBERsitter alleges that the manufacturers continued to distribute computers with the preloaded Green Dam Youth Escort software even after they became aware of the misappropriated code.
CYBERsitter is seeking over $2.2 billion in damages, representing 56.5 million unauthorized copies of CYBERsitter at $39.95 per copy.
More information about the lawsuit can be found on the Security Watch blog here and from Reuters, here.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
PATENT: ITC Commences Section 337 Investigation into Research In Motion's Alleged Infringement of Prism Technologies Patent
On December 29, 2009 the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) commenced a Section 337 investigation concerning Research In Motion Ltd. (Canada) and Research in Motion Corp. (Irving, Texas)(RIM)'s alleged unlawful importation into the United States, sale for importation into the United States and/or sale within the United States after importation certain authentication systems, including software and handheld electronic devices.
Prism Technologies LLC (Prism) filed a complaint with the ITC on December 2, 2009, alleging that RIM violated Section 337 by importing goods and services that infringed Prism's U.S. Patent No. 7,290,288 for a "Method and System for Controlling Access, by an Authentication Server, to Protected Computer Resources Provided Via an Internet Protocol Network."
According to Prism's complaint, "Prism's '288 Patent covers an innovative way of controlling access to protected electronically stored data and information requested by a device using an Internet Protocol network. More specifically, the method and system disclosed by the '288 Patent controls access to protected electronically stored data and information using an authentication server. The authentication server has an associated database that stores authentication data associated with a user device and authorization data associated with the protected electronically stored data and information. The user device requests access to the protected electronically stored data and information by sending its' authentication data to an access server which, in-turn, forwards the data to the authentication server in order to authenticate the user device. If the user device is authenticated, the authorization server then authorizes the user device to receive access to the protected electronically stored data and information. Upon successful authentication and authorization of the user device by the authentication server, the authentication server permits the device to access the protected electronically stored data and information." Prism alleges that RIM's BlackBerry Desktop and Administrator Activations of the BlackBerry Enterprise Solution infringe various claims in the '288 patent.
Prism is seeking a limited exclusion order barring RIM's infringing authentication systems from entry in the U.S. including software and handheld electronic devices; cease and desist orders prohibiting RIM Corp. from importing infringing products into the U.S.; and that the ITC impose a bond on RIM's importation of allegedly infringing authentication systems.
Prism also filed a patent infringement action against RIM and Microsoft Corporation on December 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska (case No. 8:08-CV-537) in connection with the ‘288 Patent. According to the ITC complaint, Prism apparently settled with Microsoft; however, the district court action against RIM is still pending. A copy of Prism's federal district court complaint against Microsoft and RIM can be found here.
Prism's patent can be found here and Prism's complaint filed with the ITC can be found here.
Details concerning the ITC's investigation can be found here. General information about the ITC can be found here.
Prism Technologies LLC (Prism) filed a complaint with the ITC on December 2, 2009, alleging that RIM violated Section 337 by importing goods and services that infringed Prism's U.S. Patent No. 7,290,288 for a "Method and System for Controlling Access, by an Authentication Server, to Protected Computer Resources Provided Via an Internet Protocol Network."
According to Prism's complaint, "Prism's '288 Patent covers an innovative way of controlling access to protected electronically stored data and information requested by a device using an Internet Protocol network. More specifically, the method and system disclosed by the '288 Patent controls access to protected electronically stored data and information using an authentication server. The authentication server has an associated database that stores authentication data associated with a user device and authorization data associated with the protected electronically stored data and information. The user device requests access to the protected electronically stored data and information by sending its' authentication data to an access server which, in-turn, forwards the data to the authentication server in order to authenticate the user device. If the user device is authenticated, the authorization server then authorizes the user device to receive access to the protected electronically stored data and information. Upon successful authentication and authorization of the user device by the authentication server, the authentication server permits the device to access the protected electronically stored data and information." Prism alleges that RIM's BlackBerry Desktop and Administrator Activations of the BlackBerry Enterprise Solution infringe various claims in the '288 patent.
Prism is seeking a limited exclusion order barring RIM's infringing authentication systems from entry in the U.S. including software and handheld electronic devices; cease and desist orders prohibiting RIM Corp. from importing infringing products into the U.S.; and that the ITC impose a bond on RIM's importation of allegedly infringing authentication systems.
Prism also filed a patent infringement action against RIM and Microsoft Corporation on December 29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska (case No. 8:08-CV-537) in connection with the ‘288 Patent. According to the ITC complaint, Prism apparently settled with Microsoft; however, the district court action against RIM is still pending. A copy of Prism's federal district court complaint against Microsoft and RIM can be found here.
Prism's patent can be found here and Prism's complaint filed with the ITC can be found here.
Details concerning the ITC's investigation can be found here. General information about the ITC can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
