By Alex Poltorak (March 31, 2009)

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive session on the S.515 bill a.k.a. The Patent Reform Act of 2009. The Senators on both side of the aisle who were most active in this legislative initiative, Pat Leahy (D-VT), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), agreed today on a compromise on most contentious feature of the bill. The compromise affects the following provisions of the bill:

(March 30, 2009) Microsoft and TomTom, the Amsterdam-based GPS manufacturer, have settled a patent infringement lawsuit concerning 8 Microsoft patents that allow global positioning systems (GPS) to connect to the Internet, run multiple applications and provide a smooth navigation experience.

A previous blog post addressed infringement of method claims, specifically the question whether all the steps must be performed by a single party (the “slimeball”) for infringement to occur (the reader may relax, this is not a quiz). The C.A.F.C. has now taken up the question whether the foreign use of a patented process is an infringement. Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. et al. v. St. Jude Medical Inc. et al.

A patent portfolio is like a garden – if it is to produce a bountiful crop, the plants must be carefully selected, planted and cultivated. The gardener must periodically till the garden to remove weeds which would otherwise take nutrients from more desirable plants. Finally, the successful gardener protects his crops from predatory animals and insect pests, and sells those crops which no longer meet his tastes.

A “process” or “method” patent is one directed (not surprisingly) to a process or method for doing something. The claims of such a patent set forth a number (a “plurality” in lawyerspeak) of steps. Infringement of a process or method occurs when a single party (known as an infringer or “slimeball”), without permission, performs all of the steps of at least one of the claims of the patent. The question remains, however, whether the patent is infringed when some of the steps are performed by one party and the remaining steps are performed by another party.

By Alex Poltorak

Last Tuesday, March 3, 2009, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Representatives John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Lamar Smith (R-Texas) have introduced to the Senate (S. 515) and the House (H.R. 1260) almost identical bills aimed at reforming our patent system. These bills, collectively referred to as the Patent Reform Act of 2009, as expected, are very similar to S. 1145 and H.R. 1908 of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 that failed in the last Congress.

Vision-1 LLC, a company formed by two inventors named Nancy L. Anderson and Lois J. Pannkuk, first filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores LLC in October 2008. At issue is their patent, US Patent No.

Intel and Dell are in a trademark battle with Psion over Psion's trademark on the term "netbook," which Psion trademarked for use with a line of notebook computers that were last sold in 2003. Intel and Dell argue that Psion has lost its trademark through years of disuse and that in the interim, the public has adopted the term "netbook" as a generic term to describe "extensions of the notebook category, smaller computers purpose-built for mobile Internet access."

The US District Court for the Central District of California has thrown out Gibson's lawsuit against Activision Blizzard (ActiBlizz), the maker of Guitar Hero.

Gibson filed its lawsuit in March 2008, alleging that Activision infringes Gibson's patent for devices with which a "musician can simulate participation in a concert by playing a musical instrument and wearing a head-mounted 3D display that includes stereo speakers."