Difference between revisions of "HW 5 Fernando Rodriguez ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc."

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc. 533 F.Supp.2d 397 First Started on District Court and then was sent to the Court of Appeals. This case dealt with ResQNet bringing suit against ...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.  
 
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.  
 
533 F.Supp.2d 397
 
533 F.Supp.2d 397
First Started on District Court and then was sent to the Court of Appeals. This case dealt with ResQNet bringing suit against Lansa for ther product called NewLook infringing one of their patents for screen recognition software for terminal emulation. There were 2 claims of 2 patents whent his was sent to the Court of Appeals, it was found that the Lanasa software did infringe one of the patents but not both. It did not infringe the ' patent as it only shared with it the use of a term User ID. However it did infringe by utilizing ResQNet claim ' that . Important to notice is that Lansa tried to get the patents invalidate under due to prior public publication in a instuction manual for the Flashpoint software, which details a method of GUI grabbing screens for emulation. However it was deterined that a user manual is not was not a public publication, as it is not accesible by everyone without buying the software and as a result could constitute prior art.
+
First Started on District Court and then was sent to the Court of Appeals. This case dealt with ResQNet bringing suit against Lansa for ther product called NewLook infringing one of their patents for screen recognition software for terminal emulation. There were 2 claims of 2 patents whent his was sent to the Court of Appeals, it was found that the Lansa software did infringe one of the patents but not both. It did not infringe the '608 patent claim 1 as it only shared with it the use of a term User ID, not how to detect whether or not a user logged in to a terminal. However it did infringe by utilizing ResQNet claim '075 that claimed an algorythm to detect similar screens by comparing the IDs to previously saved costume made GUIs . Important to notice is that Lansa tried to get the patents invalidate under due to prior public publication in a instruction manual for the Flashpoint software. This details a method of a GUI grabbing screens for emulation and easier access. It was deterined that a user manual is not was not a public publication, as it is not accessible by everyone without buying the software and as a result could constitute prior art.

Latest revision as of 11:45, 23 March 2011

ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc. 533 F.Supp.2d 397 First Started on District Court and then was sent to the Court of Appeals. This case dealt with ResQNet bringing suit against Lansa for ther product called NewLook infringing one of their patents for screen recognition software for terminal emulation. There were 2 claims of 2 patents whent his was sent to the Court of Appeals, it was found that the Lansa software did infringe one of the patents but not both. It did not infringe the '608 patent claim 1 as it only shared with it the use of a term User ID, not how to detect whether or not a user logged in to a terminal. However it did infringe by utilizing ResQNet claim '075 that claimed an algorythm to detect similar screens by comparing the IDs to previously saved costume made GUIs . Important to notice is that Lansa tried to get the patents invalidate under due to prior public publication in a instruction manual for the Flashpoint software. This details a method of a GUI grabbing screens for emulation and easier access. It was deterined that a user manual is not was not a public publication, as it is not accessible by everyone without buying the software and as a result could constitute prior art.