CAFC in Motorola Mobility: court does not have task of divining defense
Motorola lost its appeal of an ITC decision. Chief Judge Rader wrote the CAFC opinion.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:00 AM
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
About Me
- Name: Lawrence B. Ebert
I'm a patent lawyer located in central New Jersey. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, where I studied graphite intercalation compounds at the Center for Materials Research. I worked at Exxon Corporate Research in areas ranging from engine deposits through coal and petroleum to fullerenes. An article that I wrote in The Trademark Reporter, 1994, 84, 379-407 on color trademarks was cited by Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159 (1995) and the methodology was adopted in the Capri case in N.D. Ill. An article that I wrote on DNA profiling was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court (Shreck case) and a Florida appellate court (Brim case). I was interviewed by NHK-TV about the Jan-Hendrik Schon affair. I am developing ipABC, an entity that combines rigorous IP analytics with study of business models, to optimize utilization of intellectual property. I can be reached at C8AsF5 at yahoo.com.
Previous Posts
- "60 Minutes" on December 15, 2013: NSA and Coptic...
- CAFC concludes a § 337(a)(1)(B)(i) violation may n...
- CAFC on 28 USC 1920
- "If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is in...
- Analysis of apparatus claims
- Double patenting issue not reached in Ex parte Braun
- Obviousness affirmed in Ex parte Gulli
- Interference 105,955
- PTAB enters 112 P 2 rejection in Ex parte Nielsen
- Intel loses in Ex parte Shankara
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home