Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

In yesterday's edition, the Chicago Tribune published a commentary on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 by Cummins-Allison Corp.'s Chairman William J. Jones -- Cummins-Allison is based in Mt. Prospect, Illinois and develops and distributes coin and currency handling/counting machines.  Jones has strong feelings about the Act and offers some unique opinions.  First, he is against "harmonizing" US law with international patent laws, arguing that the European and Japanese systems are "parochial."  He also makes the, in my experience unfair although widely held, argument that the Chinese system "specializes in intellectual property theft."  I believe if you look at recent Chinese cases or the experts on Chinese IP law -- like the excellent IP Dragon -- you will see that China has become increasingly willing to protect the intellectual property of foreign entities, as long as the entities have invested in the necessary Chinese patents, trademarks, etc.

Jones notes that at the recent Congressional hearings, no manufacturing firms testified, despite some interesting statistics:

U.S. manufacturers undertake 60 to 70 percent of the nation's research and development and hold 60 percent of its patents.

                                                                   * * *

. . . .  Roughly one-third of all patent applications are made by independent inventors, small manufacturers, universities and non-profit research groups. Their efforts are crucial for leading-edge scientific advances, and their views should be heard.

Jones is against the proposed post-grant review process because he believes it will diminish the value of patents by making their strength very uncertain.  He also suggests that instead of giving an "overburdened" PTO broad, new rule-making powers, Congress should fully fund the PTO so that it can hire and retain a high quality staff of sufficient size to expedite the prosecution of patent applications.  Finally, Jones points to what he believes is the diverse opposition to the Act, which he argues warrants taking the time for additional, robust debate.

Jones has some very strong views, not all of which I agree with.  But I do not see how additional debate and discussion could harm the Act at this point.  There are some strong dissenting voices, the Federal Circuit's Judge Michel for example.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., No. 02 C 7008 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2007) (Posner, J.).

Judge Posner, sitting by designation, entered an order dismissing all claim and counterclaims without prejudice and terminating the case, on what appeared to be near the eve of trial.  The parties filed a Stipulated Dismissal earlier in the month.  No further settlement details were readily available. 

The Court's order ended what had been a fairly protracted patent dispute between the two parties centering around patents covering money-counting and bill-sorting devices.  You can read more about prior rulings from the Northern District case in the Blog's archives.  You can read about several opinions from the related Eastern District of Texas case here and here at Michael Smith's E.D. Texas Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., No. 02 C 7008, 2007 WL 487564 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2007) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall denied summary judgment of invalidity for defendant in this patent dispute (you can find the Court's prior claim construction ruling here).  Defendant argued that plaintiff's public use of money-counting machines embodying the patented inventions in banks more than one year before filing of the patent application invalidated the patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b).  Defendant relied upon the testimony of several bank employees that the machines were beta-tested by banks in locations that bank patrons could see without signing any confidentiality agreements.  But plaintiff put forth evidence that defendant had taken steps to keep the use confidential and that, even if the use was public, it was only an experimental use which does not create a Section 102(b) bar.  Based on the conflicting evidence, the Court held that there were questions of material fact as to the patents' validity and, therefore, denied summary judgment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., __ F.Supp.2d __, 2006 WL 2931999 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2006) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall performed a very thorough claim construction in this opinion, but what is most interesting about it is the procedural history.  The Court (with another judge presiding) initially construed the claims at issue in March 2005, without holding a Markman hearing.  Plaintiff then sought reconsideration regarding one of the patents at issue and defendant sought reconsideration regarding the other.  The Court ultimately granted both motions and held a Markman hearing, which is the basis of this opinion.   

While the initial claim constructions and those issued in this opinion were authored by two different judges, this is still the relatively rare case where the Court proves that claim construction is a matter of law which a court can continue to revisit throughout a proceeding. 

This opinion may also show the importance of a Markman hearing -- maybe with the additional information from the hearing reconsideration would not have been necessary.  Of course, the opinion may not suggest that, it is impossible to make that judgment without having both been involved in the case and having been privy to the Court's reasoning over time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks