![]() ![]() On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the anticipatingĭisclosure of the ‘054 patent was the joint invention of King and Schwartz. The Board agreed with IPS and found that the ‘054 patent was not invalid.Ĭircuit. While Schwarz contributed to at least some aspects of the block diagram in the ‘054 patent, the Board questioned that the ‘310 patent did not recite more than King’s conception. ![]() In response, DPT argued that Schwarz conceived at least a portion of the ‘054 patent’s anticipating disclosure. IPS argued that the anticipating portions of the ‘054 patent are solely King’s invention, not that “of another” under § 102(e), and thus that the ‘054 patent did not qualify as prior art under 102(e). (“DPT”), a competitor of IPS, filed an inter partes review (“IPR”) alleging that the ‘310 patent is invalid under pre-AIA § 102(e) as anticipated by the ‘054 patent. Similar but did not have the same specifications.ĭuncan Parking Technologies, Inc. Both the ‘054 and ‘310 patents were filed pre-AIA. Named three engineers from a design company and King, but not Schwarz, as Patent, more than a year after the ‘054 patent’s filing date. IPS filed another application, which led to the ‘310 A slightly modified version of thisīlock diagram was disclosed in the ‘054 patent, where Schwarz and King were ![]() Schwarz proceeded to design the electronics and generated a block diagramĬonceptualizing the electrical connections. IPS CEO Dave King conceived the idea for a new parking meterĪnd assigned co-inventor Schwarz to implement the electronics of the device. ![]() Patent may qualify as prior art under § 102(e) and pay careful attention when BusinessĮntities should be mindful of the possibility that a business entity’s own In these cases,ĭrawing a line between inventors and non-inventors is often difficult. Similar features but different core substantive matters. Have a series of patents that involve the same technology and disclose many Although the America Invents Act (“AIA”)Įliminated § 102(e), many pre-AIA patents are still in force. Patent application publications and certain U.S. Is prior art qualification under § 102(e), which allows the use of certain U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |