Once in a while, it’s fun to get creative about something you feel passionate about, and that’s how this “fairy tale” came to be. Over the course of the first three installments, the big and powerful B-Techs became frustrated when the New Innovators threatened their dominance, so they hatched a pernicious plan to bring down the pesky patentees.
You may already be following this “fairy tale”—an allegory that came to me during a Sunday morning at home. The first two installments introduced the big and powerful B-Techs, and their frustration when the New Innovators came on the scene to threaten their dominance. Now the fable continues, as the B-Techs strike back …
So, yes: I wrote “a fairy tale.” Well, sort of. As I noted in the “first installment” on Monday, a bunch of things came together all at once—including a Sunday morning when I had a little extra time. So I cued up this story of how the Behemoth Tech companies became big and powerful because of their imaginative use of chips. But as time passes, innovation can be hard to replicate.
“A fairy tale?” you ask. Well, yes. Because every once in a while, even though the work has piled up, you feel energized and spirited about something enough during breakfast on a Sunday morning that ideas just well up and the words spring onto the page. And if you have a couple of spritely, cheerful teenage daughters who occasionally read stories, narratives intersect and you just have a little fun with things. And that’s what happened here. So, a fairy tale … of a sort. And here goes.
In posts here on my blog on March 27 and April 3, I described how in Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint et al. the district court for the Northern District of California invalidated a valuable pair of what had been durable software patents—a decision that in February the Federal Circuit upheld.
Both courts erred in overlooking valid claims, although in the wake of the wacky Alice ruling, such a decision might not have been unexpected.
I have a hard time listening to Washington politicians these days. All I hear is obfuscation and finger-pointing. Nothing seems to get done. And while the finger-pointing seems worse than ever, the inability to get anything done is par for the course.
If neither Congress nor the President can provide results, how can we get this country back on track?
Please consider the below amicus request for support overturning an important section 101 decision at the Federal Circuit and thereby providing consistent guidance on what types of inventions are “abstract.”
Evolutionary Intelligence will be filing a combined petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit on April 19, 2017. Amicus support would be due by May 3, 2017.
I am honored to have drafted the brief on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, U.S., No. 16-341 (2017), which concerns the appropriate scope of venue in patent infringement cases.
The brief supports the Federal Circuit interpretation of the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1391 as providing a definition of “resides” applicable in the patent venue statute later in that chapter at 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).
In Memoriam Raymond P. Niro Sr.
Last week my heart turned over, after news from Italy. For me as for many others who knew Ray Niro, worked both with him and adverse to him, the week since has been one of reflection tinged with sadness.
Today I attended the service for Ray, to honor a man I deeply admired, learned from, and over the years came to know as a dear friend. It is a hard loss.
Monday, May 2, was a big day for me: I joined specialist litigation firm Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC as a partner.
There’s a story here, of course. Katten is a great firm with great people. I learned a lot while I was there. But I’ve worked my entire career at some pretty large law firms, and while I appreciated the opportunities, experience, and advantages that big law presents, it was time for a change.