In recent weeks there has been excitement surrounding potential candidates for the GOP nomination for President in 2012. With the absence of a stable, long standing forefront leader, the field is wide open, leaving room for “celebrity” candidates to take the reins. The Donald seems to be doing just that. Using a shock and awe approach, he is gaining the most notable attention of late. Dropping the gloves on taboo subjects and opening up about his true opinions is a fresh and welcomed approach. Donald Trump does have his weak points however, and many GOP members consider him a “joke candidate”. We tend to agree with this, although he is a strong business leader, he does not embody the image we desire for our nations leader. His recent rise to political fame is most welcomed though, as we now have a more interesting train wreck to watch than Sarah Palin.
Spring Design, a California based technology company, has proven victorious in it’s patent battle against Barnes and Nobles that lasted a little over a year. Spring Design released it’s competing e-reader exactly one day prior to the Nook launch, resulting in immediate litigation. Under dispute was the employment of both a LCD and EPD (Electronic Paper Display) screen that both receive data from a single application. Under the settlement deal, Barnes and Noble will have to license the API from Spring Design.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has reversed a decision issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) concerning the Ex Parte Tanaka appeal. The reversal once again gives a patentee the right to obtain a reissue of a patent in order to add a dependent claim. The USPTO initially denied Tanaka’s appeal as the original independent claim was not cancelled or modified and the error could not be rectified under Section 251.
Charles Gorenstein, a partner at the representing firm, Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP (BSKB) said the court accepted the argument that the addition of narrower claims to a patent without any other changes warranted a reissue because without those specifications the patent would not protect the whole of the invention. The case’s outcome gives patent holders, under certain circumstances, the ability to appeal for a reissue of a patent with more properly written claims that pertain to the original invention.