Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Consumer Watchdog and standing: "the pragmatic catastrophe of its suggestion"

Patent Docs discusses the standing issue of Consumer Watchdog to pursue an appeal:

In December, the Federal Circuit invited the United States to address the issue of whether Consumer Watchdog had Article III standing to pursue an appeal of a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 7,029,913, which is assigned to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). The appeal arose from an inter partes reexamination of the '913 patent that Consumer Watchdog filed in 2006.

Within the Patent Docs text

The brief [of Consumer Watchdog] criticizes the government's failure "to address the pragmatic catastrophe of its suggestion," asking whether the Court will need to schedule preliminary standing hearings in all such cases before it can reach the merits.

Recall that the patent in question, US 7,029,913 to inventor James Thomson, relates to stem cells. The first published claim:

A replicating in vitro cell culture of human embryonic stem cells comprising cells which (i) are capable of proliferation in in vitro culture for over one year without the application of exogenous leukemia inhibitory factor, (ii) maintain a karyotype in which the chromosomes are euploid through prolonged culture, (iii) maintain the potential to differentiate to derivatives of endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm tissues throughout the culture, and (iv) are inhibited from differentiation when cultured on a fibroblast feeder layer.

Note earlier posts by IPBiz, including
More on the PubPat loss in the re-exam of WARF's US 7,029,913

IPBiz has criticized John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog for his incorrect assertions about fighter planes in World War I.

PubPat continues its confused ways

In an IPBiz post on May 28, there was discussion of a CIRM document from an April 27 meeting of CIRM's IP Task Force: There was a conclusion about the U.S. aviation patent pool in World War I: "and that's what led to fighter planes being built for World War I."

IPBiz noted that there were no U.S. - built fighter planes ever used in World War I. For example, US ace Eddie Rickenbacker flew Nieuport 28 and SPAD XIII aircraft (French).

It's likely that Simpson knows even less about continuing applications than he did about patent pools, but ignorance doesn't seem to slow him down.


Post a Comment

<< Home