Order issued in UTexas(Goodenough) v. Valence case on lithium batteries
An IPBiz reader kindly sent in a copy of a 13 Feb 09 order [filed on March 3, 2009] by Judge Sam Sparks in WD Texas in the
lithium ion battery case involving the University of Texas and Professor John Goodenough. The patentee-plaintiffs survived a summary judgment motion, and the next items on the agenda are a TUTORIAL on April 7,2009
at 9:00 a.m. and SET for a MARKMAN HEARING on May 4 and 5, 2009, starting at 9:00
a.m. on May 4, 2009.
Hope Judge Sparks likes crystal structures!
On universities as patentee-plaintiffs, see also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/03/convenience-of-not-remembering-history.html
**Separately, will large lithium ion batteries fly in the marketplace? see -->
Study Finds That Cars With Large Lithium-Ion Batteries Don't Provide the Best Value
**In passing, there was a flurry on 7 April, the day of the tutorial. yahoo finance
***Also on 7 April, from a press release:
Valence Technology, Inc., a U.S.-based manufacturer and supplier of lithium iron magnesium phosphate energy storage solutions, today [April 7]congratulated General Motors and long-time customer Segway on their new personal urban mobility and accessibility vehicle (PUMA) prototype revealed in New York this morning.
***UPDATE. Comment to 271Blog on 2 Sept 09-->
As to "deferring clarity," a typical Markman hearing on claim construction consumes more time than a patent examiner spends on an entire patent examination. Is this proposal cost-effective at the margins? Further, litigation opponents in a Markman hearing quickly identify problematic claim elements, but an examiner would have no context.
lithium ion battery case involving the University of Texas and Professor John Goodenough. The patentee-plaintiffs survived a summary judgment motion, and the next items on the agenda are a TUTORIAL on April 7,2009
at 9:00 a.m. and SET for a MARKMAN HEARING on May 4 and 5, 2009, starting at 9:00
a.m. on May 4, 2009.
Hope Judge Sparks likes crystal structures!
On universities as patentee-plaintiffs, see also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/03/convenience-of-not-remembering-history.html
**Separately, will large lithium ion batteries fly in the marketplace? see -->
Study Finds That Cars With Large Lithium-Ion Batteries Don't Provide the Best Value
**In passing, there was a flurry on 7 April, the day of the tutorial. yahoo finance
***Also on 7 April, from a press release:
Valence Technology, Inc., a U.S.-based manufacturer and supplier of lithium iron magnesium phosphate energy storage solutions, today [April 7]congratulated General Motors and long-time customer Segway on their new personal urban mobility and accessibility vehicle (PUMA) prototype revealed in New York this morning.
***UPDATE. Comment to 271Blog on 2 Sept 09-->
As to "deferring clarity," a typical Markman hearing on claim construction consumes more time than a patent examiner spends on an entire patent examination. Is this proposal cost-effective at the margins? Further, litigation opponents in a Markman hearing quickly identify problematic claim elements, but an examiner would have no context.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:28 AM
3 Comments:
I would be interested in discussing the UT vs Valence with you if you're interested.
IPBiz is interested in any discussion of the Goodenough, UT v Valence case.
William left no way to contact William.
Here you go...
editor[at]evworld[dot]com
Post a Comment
<< Home