Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Method within a method claim  (Read 2390 times)

ThomasPaine

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
    • View Profile
Re: Method within a method claim
« Reply #15 on: 04-02-18 at 04:05 pm »

Nobody I'm training thinks that "go on the internet and ask dumb question" is an effective learning technique.  And I know because I ask them when they interview, "Do you think asking stupid questions on the internet is an effective way to learn to practice law?" 

So no clarification needed.
Logged

eighteighteight

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Method within a method claim
« Reply #16 on: 04-09-18 at 11:47 am »

Claim 1 of Lilly's US 6,906,086 recites, "A method of inhibiting post-menopausal bone loss in a post-menopausal woman in need of treatment to prevent or treat post-menopausal osteoporosis comprising administering a single daily oral dose to said woman of an effective amount of [raloxifene] hydrochloride."

How is that in any way applicable to OP's claim?

Travel Sentry?  Really?

Wow.  You might want to read, and even more importantly understand, the cases you cite.  Do you think it might be more persuasive to discuss Muniauction or BMC Resources instead of hanging your hat on some USDC decision?

Do you want to provide a particular cite to Akami v. Limelight, or are we supposed to guess?


(1) Hrmm, which case was it I mentioned that was USDC decision? TravelSentrY?
  Better let the CAFC know: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/node/22760
Or was it Eli Lilly? No, not that one either : http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-2067.Opinion.1-10-2017.1.PDF
Maybe you mean Akamai vs. Limelight, the one that went to the supreme court?

Or, you can just say, "oops, none are USDC decisions, I was wrong."

(2) Oh, so I should cite BMC and Muniauction, huh? Thats interesting, here is what CAFC said in TravelSentry a few months ago:
"In reaching this conclusion, the district court erred in a number of ways. The district court interpreted Akamai
V too narrowly when it concluded that the decision “did not disturb” any aspects of our holdings in BMC andMuniauction. While we did reaffirm the concept of an single-actor theory of direct infringement, we made clear that the restrictive view of when the acts of a third party can be attributable to another evidenced in those cases is no longer the governing law. "

The restrictive view of BMC and Muniauction is NO LONGER THE GOVERNING LAW-- yes, but lets cite those, with the confidence of a million suns!!! What is your billable rate?

(3)   Also, you clearly havent read any of the three cases. Here is what you said:
"All anybody looking to treat X in a patient with the composition has to do to avoid infringing the claim is have somebody else "preforming" the composition.  Anybody preforming the composition but not implanting it into a patient is not infringing the claim."

Here is why this is likely wrong according to the three cases I just cited:

Eli Lilly claimed administering three separate compounds. The courts found that a party could be liable for infringement even if they only administered two of the compounds, and did not administer a third, but instructed other parties to administer the third.

Travel Sentry claimed marketing a device and using a device. The courts found that a party could be liable for infringement even if that party only marketed the device, even if another party altogether used the device.


Both of these findings rely on Akamai vs. Limelight, which states pretty clearly that a party can infringe a patent even if it only carries out certain (but not all) steps of a patent, if another party carries out the remaining steps in order to "receive a benefit".

All of these speak to the fact that, if one claims: "(a) making a product, and (b) using the product", I can go after a company that only uses the product, if they instruct another company to make it, OR I can go after a company that only makes the product, IF they instruct another company how to use it. This goes exactly against what you said (which was, to remind you, "All anybody looking to treat X in a patient with the composition has to do to avoid infringing the claim is have somebody else "preforming" the composition.  Anybody preforming the composition but not implanting it into a patient is not infringing the claim.")

« Last Edit: 04-09-18 at 12:06 pm by eighteighteight »
Logged

CharlesJones

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Method within a method claim
« Reply #17 on: 05-28-18 at 02:13 am »

Nobody I'm training thinks that "go on the internet and ask dumb question" is an effective learning technique.  And I know because I ask them when they interview, "Do you think asking stupid questions on the internet is an effective way to learn to practice law?" 

So no clarification needed.

The original question was valid, not at all stupid, and led to several useful replies and dialog. And anyone -- attorney, other professional, non-professional -- who attacks questions as stupid simply demonstrates an abrasive, corrosive personality. It's not necessary and not called for. And you've likely lost a great many good potential trainees/attorneys because if they have any sense of self-respect, they had the sense to recognize that you are not a person for whom they'd want to work.
Logged
The above is not legal advice, and my participation in discussions on this forum does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Pages: 1 [2]
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 21 queries.