Types of Patents

Types of PatentsThere are two types of Irish patents available.(1) Full-term patentsThese patents allow the inventor/applicant protection for up to 20 years. For a full-term patent to be granted, the applicant must provide evidence of the invention's novelty. This can be done by requesting a "Search Report" from the Office, or by submitting evidence of novelty.(2) Short-term patentsShort-term patents are designed to assist smaller inventors. These patents can also suit inventions where a shorter market life is expected, or inventions that are not technologically complex. These patents last for a maximum of ten years, and the applicant does not need to provide evidence of the invention's novelty. This effectively reduces the costs and length of time involved in getting an invention patented.Because procedures are generally simpler, short-term patents can be granted reasonably quickly and well within 12 months from the filing date if requirements are complied with promptly. If applications are made for both a short-term patent and a full-term patent in respect of the same invention, the short-term patent will become void when the full-term patent is granted.With some exceptions, the provisions relating to full-term patent applications and patents also apply to short-term patent applications and short-term patents. The main exceptions are:(i) The specification of a short-term patent application must not include more than five claims. The requirements of novelty and industrial applicability apply but instead of non-obviousness, it is sufficient that the invention be "not clearly lacking an inventive step". Neither a search report nor evidence of novelty in the form of a foreign patent specification is required in order that a short-term patent be granted.(ii) The filing fee, grant fee and renewal fees are only 50% of those for a full-term patent; and generally the procedures are simpler. This will be of particular interest to small enterprises and single inventors.(iii) Infringement proceedings can be brought in the Circuit Court (or in the High Court, as is required for full-term patents) irrespective of the amount of a claim.(iv) Before taking an action for infringement the owner of the short-term patent must either (a) request the Controller to have a search report prepared and send a copy of the report to the alleged infringer or (b) if a foreign search report or patent specification is available, furnish copies of such reports to the Controller as well as the alleged infringer. The reports referred to at (a) or (b) are published by the Controller.(v) A person other than the owner of the short-term patent whose legitimate business interests require a novelty search and who can show grounds for suspecting that the invention lacks novelty or is clearly lacking in inventive step may also request theController to have a search report prepared. Such a search report is published by the Controller.

Patent Troll Tracker blogger is Cisco patent attorney

The former anonymous blogger of Patent Troll Tracker has been outed as a patent lawyer at Cisco Systems. He was unmasked after a $15,000 bounty was offered by a senior partner at a law firm criticized on the blog after he filed suit for a client against Google. The blog has been taken down.

Patent Litigation Venues Revisited

Patent Litigation Venues RevisitedThe conventional wisdom: we have all heard it (and probably repeated it). When the topic is patent litigation venues, the raw numbers clearly point to a few well-known and oft cited heavyweights: Eastern District of Texas; Northern and Central Districts of California; Delaware. The top 10 for 2007 filings:RankDistrictCases1E.D. Texas3712C.D. California3383D. New Jersey2034D. Delaware2035N.D. Illinois1436N.D. California1407S.D. New York1088S.D. Florida769S.D. California69t10D. Massachusetts63t10M.D. Florida63But does a simple count tell the whole story. Or, as Josh might ask, is there another way of keeping score—a Stableford system for patent infringement filings that brings some other venues to the fore?Updated Table: Thanks to an eagle-eyed reader, I lost the N.D. California in the Table below during the migration from scratch pad to blog. I highlighted in blue the changes from the prior table. I left W.D. New York on at #11 since it seemed cruel to drop it entirely.Continue reading "Patent Litigation Venues Revisited" »

Healthport Loses Patent Claims, Is Enjoined From False Advertising

2008-1456 Healthport v. Tanita Corp.D/OR cv-06-419Judge Ancer L. HaggertyCounterclaim plaintiff Tanita appeals from the summary judgment of Judge Ancer Haggerty (adopting the R&R of Mag. Judge Paul Papak) denying part of the requested relief on its false advertising counterclaims. While the court enjoined future acts of false advertising, it declined to require corrective advertising or to award any monetary relief. Tanita had previously been granted summary judgment on Healthport's claims of infringement of 4,895,163 and 5,449,000, related to bioelectrical impedence body composition systems.Continue reading "Healthport Loses Patent Claims, Is Enjoined From False Advertising " »Email thisPosted on 15 July 2008 at 09:59 in Claim Construction, State Law Claims Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (0)

Troll Tracker: Tracker of "Patent Trolls", Blogger . . . Patent Infringer?

When newspaper and magazine articles list the "perils of blogging," issues like defamation, disclosure of trade secrets, and bad publicity are almost always near the top of the list. But patent infringement? Fuggetaboutit.Well, it turns out that the anonymously written Patent Troll Tracker may have stepped on the wrong toes in its' criticism of "trolling" activity, particularly in the E.D. Tex. According to the blog, the author allegedly received the following e-mail from Ray Niro of the law firm of Niro Scavone, Haller & Niro:Please identify yourself. You may be infringing United States Patent No. 5,253,341.Raymond P. Niro(Transmitted by Donna L. Wartman)For those that may not be familiar with that patent number, the patent was one of the infamous patents asserted by the now-defunct TechSearch back in the 90's against a slew of companies, as well as the Internet Patent Newsletter author Greg Aharonian. After enduring a 7 year reexamination, the patent managed to escape with 1 surviving claim.Needless to say, this set off a firestorm at the Troll Tracker Blog, and the author (referred to as "Mr. Tracker" in subsequent correspondences) decided to push back.Read Troll Tracker's response here (link)Read Troll Tracker's follow-up letter here (link)Read Niro's reply here (link)For background information on the Niro/Aharonian tussle, see this article from the San Francisco Weekly dated December 6, 2000 (link)