April 18, 2007
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: Patent Office Grants PUBPAT Request to Reexamine Opsware Remote Computer Management Patent
Date: Wed, 2007-04-18
Dr. David E. Martin April 18, 2007
PATENT OFFICE GRANTS PUBPAT REQUEST TO REEXAMINE OPSWARE REMOTE COMPUTER MANAGEMENT PATENT: Government Agency Believes There are ‘Substantial Questions’ About Whether The Patent Was Preempted by Open Source Projects
New York, NY — April 18, 2007 — The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has granted the Public Patent Foundation’s (“PUBPAT”) formal request to review a patent held by Opsware Inc. (NASDAQ: OPSW) related to remote computer management that was preempted by the work of open source projects. In its February filing, PUBPAT submitted prior art that the Patent Office was not aware of when reviewing the application that led to the issuance of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,124,289), described in detail how the prior art invalidates the patent and asked that the patent be revoked. In response, the Patent Office has now found that PUBPAT’s filing indeed raised “substantial questions” regarding the validity of the Opsware patent.
The challenged Opsware patent claims methods for automatically configuring or installing software on a plurality of computing devices having different respective sets of software and/or configurations of operating parameters. When Opsware announced the issuance of their patent, Ben Horowitz, CEO of Opsware, was quoted as commenting, with respect to the ”˜289 patent: “This patent solidifies and protects the work we’ve done to greatly advance the automation of data centers.”
The work that Opsware claims to have done, however, may be found in publicly available references, including open source software projects that are directed to configuring and installing software on computers, and that were available and in public use in the United States more than a year before the filing date of the ”˜289 patent. Moreover, the ”˜289 patent may impact the developers and users of open source projects, including Cfengine, LCFG, Quattor, and BCFG.
“Individuals, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, and businesses throughout the United States rely on these open source software tools to manage their computers,” said PUBPAT’s Executive Director Dan Ravicher. “We are glad that the Patent Office has begun a process to review the evidence we submitted that proves the technology claimed in the ”˜289 is not the work of the inventor named in the ”˜289 patent, but rather, is the work of open source developers, who have provided their code for the benefit of the public good.”
A copy of the Patent Office’s Order granting PUBPAT’s Request for Reexamination of the Opsware remote computer management patent can be found below this post:
April 10, 2007
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: PUBPAT Request to Reexamine Patriot Scientific Microprocessor Patent Granted by U.S. Patent Office
Date: Tue, 2007-04-10
Dr. David E. Martin April 10, 2007
PUBPAT REQUEST TO REEXAMINE PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC MICROPROCESSOR PATENT GRANTED BY U.S. PATENT OFFICE: Government Agency Determines ‘Substantial Questions’ Exist Regarding Patent Licensing Company’s Widely Asserted Patent
New York, NY — April 10, 2007 — The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has granted the Public Patent Foundation’s (“PUBPAT”) formal request to review a patent held by Patriot Scientific Corp. (OB: PTSC) that the company, which boasts of “primarily focusing on deriving revenue from licensing patents”, is widely asserting against producers of computer microprocessors. In its February filing, PUBPAT had submitted prior art that the Patent Office was not aware of when reviewing the application that led to the issuance of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336) and described in detail how the prior art invalidates the patent. In response, the Patent Office has now found that PUBPAT’s filing indeed raised “substantial questions” regarding the validity of the Patriot Scientific patent.
Despite no longer making any product or service itself, Patriot Scientific is asserting the patent against those that produce or distribute microprocessors, either alone or with a computer. Patriot Scientific’s assertion of the patent has included the filing of infringement lawsuits and the sending of over 150 letters threatening litigation. PUBPAT challenged the patent because Patriot Scientific’s aggressive assertion of it is causing substantial public harm by threatening to levy additional costs on the production of microprocessors, which could make every computer Americans buy more expensive. Having now granted PUBPAT’s request to review the patent, the Patent Office will turn to decide whether the patent deserves to exist or not.
“We are very pleased that the Patent Office has agreed with us that there are indeed significant questions regarding with the validity of the Patriot Scientific patent,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “This is the first strong step towards ending the harm being caused to the public by the company that is little more than a corporate front for contingency fee patent attorneys to sue and threaten productive members of society.”
Copies of the U.S. Patent Office’s Order Granting PUBPAT’s Request for Reexamination of the patent Patriot Scientific is widely asserting against microprocessors can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/patriotscientific.htm.
April 2, 2007
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: PTO Rejects Human Stem Cell Patents At Behest of Consumer Groups
Date: Mon, 2007-04-02
Dr. David E. Martin April 2, 2007
PTO REJECTS HUMAN STEM CELL PATENTS AT BEHEST OF CONSUMER GROUPS: Re-examination Was Initiated by Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and Public Patent Foundation
Santa Monica, CA — April 2, 2007 — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has upheld challenges by consumer advocates to three over-reaching patents on human embryonic stem cells and rejected patent claims by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said today.
“This is a a great day for scientific research,” said John M. Simpson. FTCR stem cell project director. “Given the facts, this is the only conclusion the PTO could have reached. The patents should never have been issued in the first place.”
The challenges were filed last July by FTCR and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) because the three WARF patents were impeding scientific progress and driving vital stem cell research overseas. FTCR and PUBPAT argued that the work done by University of Wisconsin researcher James Thomson to isolate stem cell lines was obvious in the light of previous scientific research, making his work unpatentable. To receive a patent, something must be new, useful and non-obvious. The PTO agreed with the groups.
Its decision said, “It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to the method of isolating ES cells from primates and maintaining the isolated ES cells on feeder cells for periods longer than one year. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to isolate primate (human) ES cells, and maintained in undifferentiated state for prolonged periods, since ES cells are pluripotential and can be used in gene therapy.”
The PTO decisions were dated Friday, March 30 but were received today. WARF has two months to respond to the PTO ruling and seek to change it. Third party requests for patent re-examination, like the ones filed by FTCR and PUBPAT, are ultimately successful in having the subject patent either changed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.
Dr. Jeanne Loring, a stem cell researcher at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, filed statements in support of the re-examination requests.
“The real discovery of embryonic stem cells was by Martin Evans, Matt Kaufman, and Gail Martin in 1981, and none of these scientists considered patenting them,” said Loring. “It is outrageous that WARF claimed credit for this landmark discovery nearly 15 years after it was made.”
In the face of the challenges by FTCR and PUBPAT WARF announced in January that it would ease its licensing requirements on human embryonic stem cells.
“Now that the PTO has ruled, WARF should simply drop all its claims,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT Executive Director.
The groups said the patents’ dubious validity is underscored by the fact that no other country in the world honors them. As a result, U.S. researchers have sent research monies abroad where they can avoid paying royalties to WARF.
California voters approved the nation’s largest publicly funded stem cell research program in 2004 with Proposition 71, which allocated $3 billion in grants over the next 10 years.
More information about FTCR and PUBPAT’s challenges to the WARF stem cell patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,843,780, 6,200,806 and 7,029,913), including copies of the Patent Office’s Orders rejecting the patents, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/warfstemcell.htm
Read John Simpson’s Op-Ed explaining the need for the patent challenges at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/co/?postId=6532
March 26, 2007
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: PUBPAT Takes On Key HIV/AIDS Drug Patents
Date: Mon, 2007-03-26
Dr. David E. Martin March 26, 2007
PUBPAT TAKES ON KEY HIV/AIDS DRUG PATENTS: Non-Profit Submits Prior Art to U.S. Patent Office and Asks For Revocation of Four Gilead Sciences Patents
New York, NY — March 26, 2007 — The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that it has filed formal requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging four key HIV/AIDS drug patents held by Gilead Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: GILD). As part of its requests, PUBPAT submitted prior art that the Patent Office did not review before granting the patents to the Foster City, California, biopharmaceutical giant. PUBPAT also explained how the submitted prior art invalidates the patents and asked that the Patent Office initiate a process to revoke them.
Roughly 40 million people worldwide are infected with HIV/AIDS, including more than 1.2 million Americans. The patents challenged by PUBPAT, U.S. Patents Nos. 5,922,695, 5,935,946, 5,977,089 and 6,043,230, relate to the drug known generically as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a key weapon in the battle against HIV/AIDS. Gilead markets TDF in the United States under the brand name Viread and as a part of its Atripla combination product.
“Every person afflicted with HIV/AIDS has the right to obtain the best medical treatment available, without any improper obstacles placed in their way,” said the Requests for Reexamination submitted by PUBPAT. “More specifically, American men, women and children suffering from HIV/AIDS are entitled to access the best pharmaceutical treatments available without undeserved patents making those treatments either too expensive or too limited in supply.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will not allow anyone other than Gilead distribute TDF in the United States because Gilead claims the four challenged patents give them the exclusive right to do so. Gilead has applied for similar patents on TDF in other countries throughout the world, including India, where they have received fierce opposition by non-profit AIDS patient groups.
“Gilead is using the four patents our requests show are invalid to prevent anyone else from offering TDF to HIV/AIDS patients in the United States,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “Since the patents are undeserved, they are unjustified barriers preventing American HIV/AIDS patients from getting the medical treatment that they need and deserve.”
The Requests for Reexamination filed by PUBPAT against the Gilead Sciences TDF patents can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/gileadhivaidsdrug.htm
March 20, 2007
In
News Archive
M·CAM speaks on “Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning in the World of Finance” at the IRAHS Symposium in Singapore
Date: Tue, 2007-03-20
Dr. David E. Martin March 20, 2007
Risk Assessment/Horizon Scanning (RAHS) is the art and science of detecting “weak signals” emanating from the total security environment so as to forewarn policymakers, the private sector and the public about approaching “shocks” such as terrorism, pandemics, energy crises and other easy-to-miss trends and ostensibly distant events. The Symposium is being put on by The Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS). CENS is a research unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. CENS is devoted to rigorous policy-relevant analysis of a range of national security issues. The CENS team is multinational in composition, comprising both Singaporean and Foreign Analysts who are specialists in various aspects of national homeland security affairs.
March 1, 2007
In
News Archive
M·CAM CEO participates in panel discussion at the Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning (RAHS) Media Briefing in Washington, DC
Date: Thu, 2007-03-01
February 19, 2007
In
News Archive
M·CAM President, Ned Goldstein, named to Ampex (NASDAQ: AMPX) Board of Directors
Date: Mon, 2007-02-19
February 15, 2007
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: PUBPAT Executive Director Testifies Before U.S. House of Representatives on Patent Reform
Date: Thu, 2007-02-15
Dr. David E. Martin February 15, 2007
PUBPAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TESTIFIES BEFORE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON PATENT REFORM
NEW YORK — February 15, 2007 — Public Patent Foundation (“PUBPAT”) Executive Director, Dan Ravicher, will testify today to the U.S. House of Representatives on the subject of patent reform. Ravicher will begin with an opening statement and then answer questions from Representatives on the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, including Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) and Ranking Member Howard Coble (R-NC), at the oversight hearing on “American Innovation at Risk: The Case for Patent Reform” scheduled for 2:00 pm this afternoon.
“The interests of the non-patent holding public are almost always absent from any meaningful participation in decision making about the patent system, despite the fact that they bear the brunt of its burdens,” Ravicher stated in written testimony submitted as part of his testimony at the hearing. “As with any body of law that applies to and affects all Americans, patent policy should be made with consideration of all of the public’s interests, not just the specific interests of patent holders, patent practitioners, and large commercial actors.”
Patent reform has been a topic of extensive discussion in Washington the past few years, with both the House and Senate introducing bills and holding hearings on the subject. Many of the most frequently discussed proposals aim to improve patent quality, such as by limiting the ability of patent applicants to file unlimited numbers of continuation applications and by creating a post-grant opposition procedure allowing the public to more efficiently challenge the validity of issued patents. In his written testimony, Ravicher commented on these specific proposals and also raised several other ways in which the patent system should be reformed.
More information about PUBPAT’s testimony to the House of Representatives on patent reform, including a complete copy of Mr. Ravicher’s written statement, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/advocacypolicy.htm. The hearing can be seen live by webcast via the House of Representative’s website below this post:
February 12, 2007
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: Opsware Remote Computer Management Patent Challenged by PUBPAT
Date: Mon, 2007-02-12
Dr. David E. Martin February 12, 2007
OPSWARE REMOTE COMPUTER MANAGEMENT PATENT CHALLENGED BY PUBPAT: U.S.P.T.O. Asked to Review and Revoke Patent That Was Preempted by Open Source Projects
New York, NY — February 12, 2007 — The Public Patent Foundation (“PUBPAT”) announced today that it has filed a formal request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to review a patent held by Opsware Inc. (NASDAQ: OPSW) related to remote computer management that was preempted by the work of open source projects. In its filing, PUBPAT submitted prior art that the Patent Office was not aware of when reviewing the application that led to the issuance of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,124,289), described in detail how the prior art invalidates the patent and asked that the patent be revoked.
The challenged Opsware patent claims methods for automatically configuring or installing software on a plurality of computing devices having different respective sets of software and/or configurations of operating parameters. When Opsware announced the issuance of their patent, Ben Horowitz, CEO of Opsware, was quoted as commenting, with respect to the ”˜289 patent: “This patent solidifies and protects the work we’ve done to greatly advance the automation of data centers.”
The work that Opsware claims to have done, however, may be found in publicly available references, including open source software projects that are directed to configuring and installing software on computers, and that were available and in public use in the United States more than a year before the filing date of the ”˜289 patent. Moreover, the ”˜289 patent may impact the developers and users of open source projects, including Cfengine, LCFG, Quattor, and BCFG.
“Individuals, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, and businesses throughout the United States rely on these open source software tools to manage their computers,” said PUBPAT’s Executive Director Dan Ravicher. “The technology claimed in the ”˜289 is not the work of the inventor named in the ”˜289 patent, but rather, is the work of open source developers, who have provided their code for the benefit of the public good, which must be protected.”
The Request for Reexamination filed by PUBPAT against the Opsware remote computer management patent can be found below this post:
February 9, 2007
In
News Archive
Ten Years Hence 2007 Speech “Emergence of the Fusion Economy” By: Dr. David Martin
Date: Fri, 2007-02-09
From the birth of modern treasury-based economies in the 15th century until today, global power and wealth have been centered around, and measured by, manipulation of supply and demand. Seeds and land generate traded crops. Extracted minerals are refined into weapons, tools, machines, and infrastructure. Complex materials using proprietary formulae generate technology. Knowledge guilds create data and information to share with selected networks. However, the systems and metrics developed over the past half millennium have strained – many, to the breaking point. Global financial and knowledge fulcrum are being transported by economies and cultures that have been excluded from the seats of power at the world’s table since the “Age of Enlightenment”. Beginning with a modern-day parable of a Jesuit-trained Egyptian Muslim, Dr. Martin will explore the applications of the new levers upon which the world finds itself being moved and discuss the implications of Archimedes’ paradigm in the Next Ten Years.
January 29, 2007
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: Patent Office Grants PUBPAT Requests to Reexamine EpicRealm Dynamic Website Patents
Date: Mon, 2007-01-29
Dr. David E. Martin January 29, 2007
PATENT OFFICE GRANTS PUBPAT REQUESTS TO REEXAMINE EPICREALM DYNAMIC WEBSITE PATENTS: Government Finds PUBPAT Raised ‘Substantial Questions’ Regarding Patent Licensing Company’s Widely Asserted Patents
New York, NY — January 29, 2007 — The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has granted each of the Public Patent Foundation’s (“PUBPAT”) formal requests to review two patents held by EpicRealm Licensing Inc. that the patent licensing company is widely asserting against providers of dynamic websites, i.e. websites that can produce custom responses to individual visitors or users. In its filings, PUBPAT had submitted prior art that the Patent Office was not aware of when reviewing the applications that led to the two patents and described in detail how the prior art invalidates the patents. The Patent Office found that PUBPAT’s filings indeed raised “substantial questions” regarding the validity of the EpicRealm patents.
Despite no longer making any product or service itself, EpicRealm is asserting the patents against those that provide information and services to the public over the internet, a group which includes many private citizens, public service organizations and even the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office itself. EpicRealm’s assertion of the patents has included the filing of infringement lawsuits against more than a dozen mere end users of allegedly infringing web site systems. PUBPAT challenged the patents because EpicRealm’s aggressive assertion of them is causing substantial public harm by threatening the way in which much of the most useful aspects of the Web are provided to the public. Having now granted PUBPAT’s requests to review the patents, the Patent Office will turn to decide whether the patents deserve to exist or not.
“EpicRealm is yet another example of the growing trend of businesses whose sole purpose and activity is to sue others for patent infringement, but the fact that they are claiming rights over the vast majority of websites based on these patents that the Patent Office has now found have substantial issues relating to their validity only makes the matter that much more unsettling,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “Perhaps some day soon Congress will fix the patent system so that such exploitation cannot occur. In the interim, with respect to these specific patents, now that the Patent Office has looked at the new evidence we provided and agreed with us that there is substantial doubt about the worthiness of the patents, we expect that the Patent Office will withdraw the patents from issuance.”
Copies of the U.S. Patent Office’s Orders Granting PUBPAT’s Requests for Reexamination against the two patents EpicRealm is widely asserting dynamic websites can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/epicrealmdynamicwebsites.htm
January 23, 2007
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: Wisconsin Group Eases Stem Cell Patent Restrictions After FTCR – PUBPAT Legal Challenge
Date: Tue, 2007-01-23
Dr. David E. Martin January 23, 2007
WISCONSIN GROUP EASES STEM CELL PATENT RESTRICTIONS AFTER FTCR – PUBPAT LEGAL CHALLENGE
Santa Monica, CA — January 23, 2007 — Policy changes announced today that ease licensing requirements on human embryonic stem cell patents held by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) are a step in the right direction, but don’t go far enough the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said.
FTCR and the Public Patent Foundation have challenged the validity of three WARF patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,843,780, 6,200,806, and 7,029,913) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has begun re-examination proceedings on each. WARF clearly softened its position on the patents as a result of this challenge, FTCR said.
“WARF’s action demonstrates that their previous stance was indeed detrimental to stem cell research in the United States,” said John M. Simpson, FTCR Stem Cell Project Director. “While I welcome this step forward, the best thing would be for WARF to abandon its claims to these over-reaching patents that are recognized nowhere else in the world.”
WARF said it would allow industry-sponsored research at academic and non-profit institutions without a license; allow easier and simpler cost free cell transfers among researchers and would not require a license or agreement from California’s taxpayer-funded stem cell research program. Further, WARF said it did not expect California’s program to pay any portion of revenues it receives from research it funds.
Californians have approved a $6 billion state-funded stem cell research program to be run by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
“This change in licensing policy ignores the underlying fact that WARF’s patents are wholly without merit because James Thomson did not — in fact — invent human embryonic stem cells,” said Dan Ravicher executive director of the Public Patent Foundation. “The right thing for WARF to do is admit that it doesn’t deserve the patents and abandon them in their entirety.”
The patents are now being re-examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. In July FTCR and the Public Patent Foundation filed requests for re-examination and charged that WARF was hindering stem cell research in the United States and driving some efforts overseas. Dr. Jeanne Loring, a stem cell researcher at the Burnham Institute filed a statement in support of the re-examination request.
“This change in policy is a step in the right direction and academic scientists will be pleased that they can collaborate with other scientists without interference from WARF,” said Loring. “But a change in licensing policy of the human ES cell patents doesn’t solve the fundamental problem that the patents should not have been issued in the first place.”
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is California’s leading non-profit and non-partisan consumer watchdog group. For more information, visit FTCR on the web at http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org.
FTCR’s stem cell information page is located at http://www.stemcellwatch.org/.
Copies of the challenges filed by FTCR and PUBPAT against the three WARF patents can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/warfstemcell.htm.
January 19, 2007
In
News Archive
M·CAM Hires New Director of Innovation Literacy
Date: Fri, 2007-01-19
December 8, 2006
In
News Archive
M·CAM CEO Delivers Keynote Address to AMCF 60th Annual Meeting
Date: Fri, 2006-12-08
November 30, 2006
In
News Archive
PUBPAT News: Monsanto Anti-Farmer Patents to be Reexamined at PUBPAT Request
Date: Thu, 2006-11-30
Dr. David E. Martin November 30, 2006
MONSANTO ANTI-FARMER PATENTS TO BE REEXAMINED AT PUBPAT REQUEST: Patent Office Finds “Substantial Questions” Regarding the Validity of Each of Monsanto’s Four Widely Asserted Patents
NEW YORK — November 30, 2006 — In response to requests filed earlier this year by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), the United States Patent and Trademark Office will undertake a comprehensive review of four patents related to genetically modified crops held by Monsanto Company that the agricultural giant is using to harass, intimidate, sue – and in some cases literally bankrupt – American farmers. In its Orders granting the four requested reexaminations, the USPTO found that PUBPAT had submitted new evidence that raised “substantial questions of patentability” for every single claim of each of the four patents.
Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year’s crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.
Now that PUBPAT’s requests for reexamination proceedings have been granted, Monsanto has the opportunity to make opening statements to the Patent Office, to which PUBPAT has the right to respond. After opening statements, if any, the Patent Office will proceed to determine whether the four patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,164,316, 5,196,525, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605) are indeed invalid in light of the new evidence presented by PUBPAT in its requests. Third party requests for reexamination, like the ones filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the challenged patent either changed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.
“We are extremely pleased with the Patent Office’s decision to grant our requests to reexamine the patents Monsanto is using to bully American farmers,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “This is the first step towards ending the harm being caused to the public by Monsanto’s aggressive assertion of these patents, none of which would ever have been issued by the Patent Office had they known of the prior art that we uncovered and submitted as part of our reexamination requests.”
Copies of the Patent Office’s Orders Granting Reexamination of the four Monsanto patents can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm.