Technolex ( IPR India ): 06/01/2010

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Opposition to grant of GI to Nashik Grapes, Surat Zari Craft, Cheriyal Paintings and Pembarthi Metal Craft is now open

Journal No.35 dated 4th June 2010 has been published by Geographical Indications Registry and invited oppositions for the same. The Journal carries information of the Geographical Indication and its technical and historical details. Anyone interested in opposition shall send a notice of opposition within three months or within such further period not exceeding one month in the aggregate from the date when such Journal was made available to the public. There are totally 206 Products are recognized by Geographical Indications registry and registered them as Geographical Indications. The Journal carries the following four products 1.Nashik Grapes 2. Surat Zari Craft 3. Cheriyal Paintings and 4.PEMBARTHI METAL CRAFT

--
Dr.Tabrez Ahmad,
Associate Professor of Law, KIIT Law School
KIIT University, PATIA, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, 751024.
Website: www.site.technolexindia.com
Blog: http://tabrezahmad.technolexindia.com http://iplexindia.blogspot.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/tabrezahmad7.
Blogs: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337756250055596327
Blog: http://drtabrez.wordpress.com
http://tabrezahmad.typepad.com/blog/
Research Papers: http://ssrn.com/author=1189281

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

ConferenceLex (Call for Papers): CII & APTDC, National Conference on Building Next Practices of IP Management

The Bilski Case is Finally Decided

The court held that the Bilski's application was not statutory subject matter:

Petitioners' remaining claims are broad examples of how hedging can be used in commodities and energy markets. Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable. That is exactly what the remaining claims in petitioners' application do. These claims attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of hedging risk in the energy market and then instruct the use of well-known random analysis techniques to help establish some of the inputs into the equation. Indeed, these claims add even less to the underlying abstract principle than the invention in Flook did, for the Flook invention was at least directed to the narrower domain of signaling dangers in operating a catalytic converter.

* * *
Today, the Court once again declines to impose limitations on the Patent Act that are inconsistent with the Act's text. The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas. The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable "process," beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr.

And nothing in today's opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357. It may be that the Court of Appeals thought it needed to make the machine-or-transformation test exclusive precisely because its case law had not adequately identified less extreme means of restricting business method patents, including (but not limited to) application of our opinions in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit's development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Source: The 271 Patent Blog By Peter Zura

For a copy of the opinion, click here (link)

--
Dr.Tabrez Ahmad,
Associate Professor of Law, KIIT Law School
KIIT University, PATIA, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, 751024.
Website: www.site.technolexindia.com
Blog: http://tabrezahmad.technolexindia.com http://iplexindia.blogspot.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/tabrezahmad7.
Blogs: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337756250055596327
Blog: http://drtabrez.wordpress.com
http://tabrezahmad.typepad.com/blog/
Research Papers: http://ssrn.com/author=1189281

Monday, June 28, 2010

Launch of WIPO-Gold- an IP Research Portal

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva has launched a IP Resource Portal named 'WIPO-Gold' focusing on providing online IP information tool, which can be helpful to access broad collection of IP data relating to technology, brands, designs, statistics, WIPO standards, IP classification systems and IP laws and treaties. The Portal is very useful since it provides treaties administered by WIPO, its regulations and also the contracting members list, which comes very handy in various situations. Along with it it also provides for Statistical publication of Patents, trademarks, designs, plant varities, microorganisms, etc.

A specific section has been dedicated to WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions, which houses full text search of WIPO Decisions on Domain Names.

In the website, Director General Francis Gurry said "The launch of WIPO GOLD is a significant step towards fulfilling one of the Organization's strategic goals – that of serving as a world reference source for IP information and analysis". The WIPO GOLD portal is a rich, dynamic and evolving information tool that will continue to be expanded and improved over time," he added.

To visit WIPO Gold, please visit : http://www.wipo.int/wipogold/en/

--
Dr.Tabrez Ahmad,
Associate Professor of Law, KIIT Law School
KIIT University, PATIA, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, 751024.
Website: www.site.technolexindia.com
Blog: http://tabrezahmad.technolexindia.com http://iplexindia.blogspot.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/tabrezahmad7.
Blogs: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337756250055596327
Blog: http://drtabrez.wordpress.com
http://tabrezahmad.typepad.com/blog/
Research Papers: http://ssrn.com/author=1189281

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Whether a Digital File is a Product under Patent Law

In the interesting trans-national infringement case of Yangaroo v. Destiny Media Tech (E.D. Wisc. 2010) , Judge Griesbach awarded summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of the accused infringer. The court held that the Canadian-based defendant's actions did not qualify as infringement under Section 271(g)'s proscription against importation-of-a-product-made-by-a-patented-process. The asserted patent claims a particular method of distributing a content file over a network. After a series of steps, recipient terminals are provided with access to the content file. The accused infringer (Destiny) distributes encrypted music files using a method that (arguably) would infringe the patent under 271(a) if it had been performed within the US. The focal-point of the 271(g) dispute here was on whether the digital music files could be considered "products" within the meaning of 271(g). 35 USC 271(g): Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer. . . In earlier cases: NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Bayer and holding that email packets sent from Canada were not "products . . . [b]ecause the 'transmission of information,' like the 'production of information,' does not entail the manufacturing of a physical product . . . ."). Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (a three dimensional digital representation of teeth transmitted to recipients in the United States was a product). Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (271(g) applies only to "physical products" and does not extend to "information" produced by a patented process.). CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (transmission of electronic catalog of product information could be a "product" within the meaning of 271(g); distinguishing NTP and Bayer as involving "services" and "information" rather than "products" and stored data). While In the current Decision: In Yangaroo, the court distinguished CNet and Ormco by holding that the distributed music file was not a "product" of the method because the music file was not created by the claimed process. The Defendant (Destiny) did modify the music files during its distribution process by encrypting them. The district court held that the newly encrypted files could not be considered 271(g) products because the asserted patent did not claim encryption.

Source: http://www.patentlyo.com 11^th June, 2010

--
Dr.Tabrez Ahmad,
Associate Professor of Law, KIIT Law School
KIIT University, PATIA, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, 751024.
Website: www.site.technolexindia.com
Blog: http://tabrezahmad.technolexindia.com http://iplexindia.blogspot.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/tabrezahmad7.
Blogs: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337756250055596327
Blog: http://drtabrez.wordpress.com
http://tabrezahmad.typepad.com/blog/
Research Papers: http://ssrn.com/author=1189281

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Wipro and Microsoft Join Hands to Deliver Global Legal Process Outsourcing Efficiencies

As per the Businesswire ( A Birkshire Hathaway Company ), WIPRO Technologies, the global IT services business of Wipro Limited , yesterday announced that its Business Process Outsourcing division has partnered with Microsoft Corporation to provide global Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) for Microsoft's Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio.

In July 2008, Wipro began providing U.S. Patent and Trademark filing and docketing services to Microsoft's Intellectual Property & Licensing group. Microsoft previously had used a mix of in house resources, outside law firms and offshore vendors to perform these IP services. Moving to Wipro, with its extensive BPO experience, international reach and global delivery capabilities, ensured not only efficiency but also consistency in the way Microsoft does business.

Microsoft facilitated the transition of processes to Wipro by leading domain training for Wipro's team. Wipro correspondingly developed the LPO framework, tools, trainings, controls and metrics required to drive high productivity and reduced costs for Microsoft. Wipro's operational rigor, application of tools and various quality improvement methodologies has led to significant gains in both quality and efficiency of the transferred processes. These results have led Microsoft to add international docketing and filing processes to the original US-only processes at Wipro.

Over the past two years, Wipro has developed an impressive IP domain expertise and ability to work on a scale required for Microsoft's vast IP portfolio. Wipro and Microsoft continue to jointly develop improved domain expertise, processes and case management and work allocation tools to further streamline IP processes.

"The dedicated Microsoft team at Wipro has become a fundamental component of our global Patent operations function," said Martin Shively, GM of Patent Operations at Microsoft. "The Wipro team works closely with our in-house team to manage one of the world's largest and most valuable patent portfolios."

"The success of this partnership is testament to the innovation and dedication demonstrated by Microsoft's IP team and Wipro's LPO solutions professionals," said Saju A. Joseph, General Manager KPO & LPO solutions, Wipro Technologies. "Wipro will continue to integrate legal expertise with process and technology to reduce overall legal cost for its clients," he added.

Today Wipro and Microsoft continue to work together to expand their global delivery partnership.

This is a good news for young law professionals who want to make their career in Legal Process Outsourcing.They can specialise in IPR and Technology law and target the WIPRO LPO for a handsome starting salary.

Technolex ( IPR India )