More on In re Jung and Wood

Concerning the CAFC decision In re Jung and Wood of 28 March 2011, if one looks up application 10/770,072 (published application 20050167572 ) on the USPTO database, one finds the correspondence address to be INTELLECTUAL VENTURES, LLC, BELLEVUE, Washington. If one looks up the case In re Jung and Wood on the CAFC database, one finds the attorneys for Jung and Wood to be identified as

ROBERT G. STERNE, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox,
PLLC, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With
him on the brief were JON E. WRIGHT and BYRON L.
PICKARD. Of counsel on the brief were CLARENCE T.
TEGREENE, S. CRAIG ROCHESTER, and ROY P. DIAZ, Intel-
lectual Ventures, Management, LLC, of Bellevue, Wash-
ington.

Yet, in the post on The Patent Prospector (PatentHawk) blog titled No Controller one finds the
text

To their great credit, the CAFC is generous in taking pro se appeals, which often amounts to airing the airheads out, as in this case.

This case was NOT a pro se case. What is Gary Odom thinking? Or is Gary referencing the non-pro se IV folks as airheads?

There were three amici briefs mentioned for this case:

DALE C. BARR, Constellation Law Group, PLLC, of
Tracyton, Washington, for amicus curiae Constellation
Law Group, PLLC.

MARGARET M. ANDERSON, of Austin, Texas, for amicI
Curiae Margaret Anderson and Electronic Inventory
Solutions, Inc.

BRAD D. PEDERSEN, Patterson, Thuente, Skaar &
Christensen, P.A., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus
Curiae Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association.

See previous IPBiz post


CAFC smacks down application of Intellectual Ventures