Dow Jones Newswires misreports MuniAuction v. Thomson

Dow Jones Newswires wrote of Muniauction v. Thomson:

But a federal appeals court ruled that both that Thomson's product was an obvious extension of MuniAuction's product and that it doesn't infringe on an existing patent. The court also noted two rulings it handed down since Thomson first lost the case, including a decision that toughened the standard of willful patent infringement.

What actually happened is the following:

Because claims 1, 9, 14, 31, 36, and 56 of the ’099 patent are obvious as a
matter of law, the judgment of nonobviousness is reversed as to these claims.
Similarly, because Thomson does not infringe the remaining asserted claims as a
matter of law, the judgment of infringement is reversed, and the remainder of the final
judgment is vacated.

As to obviousness, the noted CLAIMS of MuniAuction's patent were deemed obvious over the prior art:

Thomson argued that the asserted claims were obvious over a
proposed modification of the prior art Parity® system to incorporate the use of a web
browser. Muniauction, 502 F. Supp. 2d at 491.

Dow Jones Newswires falsely stated: Thomson's product was an obvious extension of MuniAuction's product. Another example of bad reporting. Keep such confusion in mind when evaluating arguments for patent reform by journalists who are clueless about "how" patent law works. Think of the July 14 article by L. Gordon Crovitz, discussed by IPBiz.


See


CAFC reverses WD Pa in Muniauction v. Thomson