Recently, two giant corporations spent millions of dollars in a courtroom argument primarily directed to the value of a “date-picker” – we’re speaking here about a “graphical user interface tool,” not a mechanical device for harvesting dates or an on-line service for matching up persons of opposite sexes. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Gateway, Inc. et al.

A previous blog, “It Isn’t Kosher,” dealt with the more humorous – or possibly pathetic –
aspects of Rembrandt Data Technologies LP v. AOL LLC et al. The case does have another, more serious, point to make.

Some time ago we wrote about a court which rendered opposite decisions in two virtually identical cases. Now, we have two different courts rendering opposite decisions in what amounts to the same case.

In the first case, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that the defense of spoliation of evidence, raised by Hynix in response to counterclaims brought by Rambus, was not established and awarded Rambus nearly $400M in damages.

For most of our readers, it has probably been a long time since they heard the terms “Hula Hoop” or “Frisbee.” We mention them here not out of nostalgia – I, for one, could never keep the damned hoop from falling down – but because they are the focus of an interesting (to IP people and insomniacs) case relating to declaratory judgment actions. Wham-O, Inc. v. Manley Toys Ltd. et al.

As the reader may (should) remember, basically there are two kinds of patent claims: article claims¹ and method or process claims. Article claims are comprised of multiple article limitations, and method claims are comprised of multiple steps or process limitations. Both types of limitations are fine but, just as we are abjured to mix milk and meat, so too we are directed – albeit by a different authority – not to mix article limitations and process steps in a single patent claim. Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL LLC et al.