Cutting and pasting
TechDirt re-posted a story on a bad "cut and paste" job by a law firm:
Joe Mullin has a short post about a big time patent law firm that has launched two recent patent lawsuits over the same basic patents held by a patent holding firm. The only problem? In filing the second lawsuit, it appears that the patent attorneys used cut & paste from the first lawsuit, but didn't use search & replace to get rid of the name of the original defendant.
One might think that TechDirt would consider this some form of "collaboration".
Joe Mullin noted that the law firm was Caddell & Chapman. Is this a "big time" patent law firm? The patent holding firm was WNS Holdings. Ring a bell?
Mullin got the story from IPLaw360.
As noted earlier, LBE got cited in the Marshall LR because LBE cited the just-n-examiner blog in an email to the USPTO about the proposed rules on continuing applications. LBE predicted the rules would be challenged in the same email, for lack of USPTO authority.
Joe Mullin has a short post about a big time patent law firm that has launched two recent patent lawsuits over the same basic patents held by a patent holding firm. The only problem? In filing the second lawsuit, it appears that the patent attorneys used cut & paste from the first lawsuit, but didn't use search & replace to get rid of the name of the original defendant.
One might think that TechDirt would consider this some form of "collaboration".
Joe Mullin noted that the law firm was Caddell & Chapman. Is this a "big time" patent law firm? The patent holding firm was WNS Holdings. Ring a bell?
Mullin got the story from IPLaw360.
As noted earlier, LBE got cited in the Marshall LR because LBE cited the just-n-examiner blog in an email to the USPTO about the proposed rules on continuing applications. LBE predicted the rules would be challenged in the same email, for lack of USPTO authority.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 1:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home