Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 118 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in November, 2012:
|
PAT. NO. |
||
|
1 |
||
|
2 |
||
|
3 |
||
|
4 |
||
|
5 |
||
|
6 |
Process for the preparation of 2-substituted-5-(1-alkylthio)alkylpyridines |
|
|
7 |
Trans-fused chromenoisoquinolines synthesis and methods for use |
|
|
8 |
||
|
9 |
||
|
10 |
Washington DC – The Copyright Office is adopting interim regulations that allow groups of related serial issues to be filed through the Office’s electronic registration system. This interim rule will also allow applicants for groups of related serials to mail physical deposit copies of the serial issues upon submitting an electronic 
application and payment, when electronic deposit copies do not exist. Regardless of the registration option chosen, applicants, whether located in Indiana or elsewhere, must still send two complimentary subscription copies of the serial promptly to the Library of Congress as a condition of eligibility unless directed otherwise by the Office. While filing electronically is not mandatory, the Copyright Office strongly urges applicants to use the electronic filing option since it is more efficient for both the user and the agency.
Practice Tip: When Congress enacted its major revision to the copyright law in 1976, the Register of Copyrights was granted discretion to provide for a single registration for a group of related works. 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1). In 1991, final regulations became effective permitting group registration of certain serial publications. 55 FR 50556 (December 7,
1990). Under these regulations, issues of serials published at intervals of a week or longer within a three-month period during the same calendar year can be grouped and registered on a single application and for a single fee. The group registration privilege is contingent upon the prompt submission of two complimentary subscription copies of each issue to the Library of Congress. Additionally, several other conditions apply, e.g., the registered serials must be collective works by the same author and claimant and must be works made for hire. See 37 CFR202.3(b)(6). The option for group registration of related serials does not allow the applicant to claim contributions of component works that were not made for hire.
Fort Wayne, IN – Three Rivers Archery Supply, Inc. of Ashley, Indiana, along with Dale and Sandra Karch, have filed a trademark infringement 
suit against Parker Compound Bows, Inc. of Virginia. The suit alleges infringement of the mark TOMAHAWK BOWS, Registration No. 3, 156,258 issued by the US Trademark Office. The plaintiff claims that Parker has been distributing crossbows using the name TOMAHAWK, which infringes their products and could be confusing to the public.”
Practice Tip: The complaint does not appear to allege sufficient facts that would give the court personal jurisdiction over the defendant Parker. It merely alleges, “On information and belief, Parker has been conducting continuous and systematic business by marketing and selling infringing bows and related materials and equipment within the State of Indiana and within the Northern District of Indiana.” It is also curious that the TOMAHAWK registration is owned by Dale and Sandra Karch individually, yet the complaint alleges that they do not sell bows – only Three Rivers Archery is alleged to sell bows.
South Bend, IN. The Northern District of Indiana has granted Defendant, NuVasive, Inc.’s request to transfer the patent 
infringement suit filed by Plaintiff, Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., to the Southern District of California for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of judicial economy.
Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. owns the three patents at issue and has various license arrangements to make, import, and sell products under these patents. On August 17, 2012, Warsaw and its licensees brought suit in the Northern District of Indiana against NuVasive, Inc. alleging infringements of the three patents in the manufacture and sale of medical devices and procedures used in spinal surgery. NuVasive filed their motion for transfer on September 4, 2012, arguing that transfer to Southern District of California would be more convenient for the parties, witnesses and in the interest of justice because of the similarity to a pending patent infringement case. NuVasive is also a party to a case in California involving thirteen patents related to medical devices and procedures used in spinal surgery, which is being litigated in three phases. The first phase concluded on September 20, 2011 and phase two has begun the discovery process. Although venue is proper in both Indiana and California because NuVasive has the requisite minimum contacts to Indiana yet has established the business in California, the court ultimately determined that in the interest of justice and for the conveniences of the parties and witnesses, transfer of the instant case to California is proper. The court determined that a stronger relationship exists between the current events and the California case and that the California court is already familiar with the parties and related issues so no undue time would need to be expensed. Furthermore, evidence to Warsaw’s earlier willingness to consent to transfer in exchange for incorporation into phase two of the California case demonstrated the seemingly tenuous relationship to Indiana and carried significant weight in the court’s analysis. Also, the alleged infringement predominately occurred in California and more non-party witnesses are located in California, with none residing in Indiana. Therefore, NuVasive’s motion for transfer to the Southern District of California was granted.
Practice Tip: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 et seq., Granting transfer is solely within the discretion of the court and Federal district courts may transfer any civil action to any other district for convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice if venue is proper in both courts. Thus separate analysis of venue, convenience of witnesses and parties and interest of justice must be undertaken.
The USPTO has issued the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (October 2012), with an effective date of October 31, 2012. Please note that the current version of the TMEP is now identified by the month and year in which it is issued. This is a change from prior versions, which were identified using edition and revision numbers. Note also that the new online interface, which was made available for preview in September, is now the exclusive interface and search tool for the TMEP. A Highlights document that includes some of the changes set forth in the October 2012 TMEP is also available on the USPTO website.
The revised Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure can be found here.
Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 161 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in October, 2012:
The US Trademark Office issued the following 214 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October, 2012, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:
|
WORD MARK |
||||
|
1 |
||||
|
2 |
||||
|
3 |
||||
|
4 |
||||
|
5 |
||||
|
6 |
||||
|
7 |
||||
|
8 |
||||
|
9 |
||||
|
10 |
Washington, DC. The US Patent Office has released a proposed new set of rules of professional responsibility, completely redrafted from the present professional responsibility rules. The proposed rules would cover patent lawyers in Indiana
and elsewhere, and are based on the American Bar Association’s 1983 Model Rules. The Office also proposes to revise the existing procedural rules governing disciplinary investigations.
The current Rules have not been revised since 1985 and is also based on the previous ABA Model Rules. Since that time, the vast majority of State bars in the United States have adopted substantive disciplinary rules based on the newer ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
According to the notice from the Office, the extensive changes are meant to bring standards of ethical practice before the Office into closer conformity with the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by nearly all States and the District of Columbia, while addressing circumstances particular to practice before the Office.
John E. Martin will replace Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich in the Northern District of Indiana’s Hammond Division. Rodovich is retiring from the bench.
Mr. Martin is a deputy federal community defender in Hammond, representing indigent clients. Prior to working as a federal defender, Martin worked in private practice and was a deputy prosecutor in Porter County. He has also worked as a part-time public defender in Porter Superior Court.
Forty-two people applied for the judgeship.
Washington, DC The Federal Circuit on October 9, 2012 granted en banc review of a case in which a Federal Circuit panel held that a claim must not be deemed inadequate under 35 U.S.C. §101 if, after taking all of the claim recitations into consideration, it is not “manifestly evident” that a claim is directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea. The court vacated the panel decision and requested briefing on the following questions:
The panel decision stressed that patent eligibility must be determined by what is evident from specific, concrete applications of the ideas behind an invention disclosed in the claims. The panel opinion, written in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), included the following observation:
“[N]othing in the Supreme Court’s precedent, nor in ours, allows a court to go hunting for abstractions by ignoring the concrete, palpable, tangible, and otherwise not abstract invention the patentee actually claims. It is fundamentally improper to paraphrase a claim in overly simplistic generalities in assessing whether the claim falls under the limited “abstract ideas” exception to patent eligibility under 35 USC §101. Patent eligibility must be evaluated based on what the claims recite, not merely on the ideas upon which they are premised.”
Practice Note:
The challenged patents in this case are directed to a computerized trading platform for exchanging obligations in which a trusted third party settles obligations between a first and second party so as to eliminate “settlement risk.” The district court granted a summary judgment motion that the claims were not patent eligible because they are directed to an abstract idea. On appeal the Federal Circuit panel reversed, concluding that the system, method, and media claims are directed to practical applications of an invention falling within the categories of patent eligible subject matter defined by Section 101.
