Homework 3/22 901479977

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 05:18, 23 March 2011 by 901479977 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''Hazani v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n (1997)''' '''Summary''' Hazani contended that it's patent No. 5166904 of semiconductors had claims infringed upon by various other compani...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Hazani v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n (1997)

Summary

Hazani contended that it's patent No. 5166904 of semiconductors had claims infringed upon by various other companies. Hazani's complaint was filed with the US International Trade Commission (ITC). The administrative law judge ruled against them stating that all but one claim was anticipated under 35 USC 102(e) by a different Kuo patent. The one remaining claim was ruled to not be infringed so Hazani appealed contending the Kuo structure does not store charge in all modes of operation as theirs does, and it's structure does not satisfy the limitations of claim 1. Because these claims were raised late, at reconsideration, they were ignored by the ITC. Even if this is considered, it is not sufficient reason to have Hazani's patent held valid. The claims stated in the patent are not the same as those suggested in court and therefore are not considered. Also implied parts of claims are to be allowed, everything does not need to be stated in black and white terms. Experts contended that Kuo's patent achieved things Hazani's unrightfully claimed in their patent. Hazani continues to state that someone skilled in the art would not be able to assume the implied terms in the Kuo patent and therefore have reduced capabilities with it, while if they used Hazani's there would be enhanced capabilities. Therefore the US Court of Appeals upheld the administrative law judge's ruling of an invalid patent on the part of Hazani. Overall Hazini lost their patent rights because they tried to clarify on old claims of Kuo, and their responses were untimely.