Many kids with autism don’t get mandated early intervention
Despite federal mandates making early intervention programs accessible for kids with autism, a new study finds income and racial disparities in access.
Can bats help prevent the next pandemic?
Bats can teach us a lot about how to manage, and maybe even prevent, future pandemics, researchers say.
Infringement via Multiple Product Lines
by Dennis Crouch
Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) (non-precedential)
Vocalife’s patent covers an enhanced microphone system that identifies the location of a target sound source and then uses beamforming to improve sound collection from the target. U.S. Patent No. RE 47,049. The method for locating the sound requires an array of microphones that record relative timing of receiving sounds. The delay is then used to calculate the location and then direct the beamforming operations.
A key element of the claims is thus the requirement of “determining a delay between each of said sound sensors . . . wherein said determination of said delay enables beamforming for said array of sound sensors in a plurality of configurations.” RE47,049, Claim 1.
A jury sided with Vocalife–finding that Amazon induced its customers to infringe through their use of the Echo product and award $5 million in damages. Judge Gilstrap upheld the verdict–denying Amazon’s renewed motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law (JMOL). On appeal however, the Federal Circuit has reversed finding that the evidence didn’t prove these key limitations.
Amazon states in its documentation that its echo devices include multiple microphones that enable beamforming.
Continue reading Infringement via Multiple Product Lines at Patently-O.
Quick loss of smell predicts dementia brain changes
A rapid decline in sense of smell during a period of normal cognition predicted multiple features of Alzheimer’s disease, report researchers.
Lake mud reveals 700,000 years of glacier history
Mud from a lake high up in the Andes holds an incredible climate history. The find could shed light on how the climate will change in the future.
Team confirms COVID pandemic started in Wuhan market
Researchers say two new studies virtually eliminate alternative scenarios that have been suggested as origins of the pandemic.
Fewer wild bees at fruit farms warrant investigation
Pollination of watermelon flowers at fruit farms by wild bees decreased by more than half between 2005 and 2012, report researchers.
6 tips to keep your pooch cool in the dog days of summer
They might be called the “dog days” of summer, but in areas that experience extreme heat, the outdoors are not the best place for your four-legged friends.
A Judge Just Risked Penn State’s Trademarks — And Those of Other Schools
IPNews® – Penn State lost a recent attempt to dismiss a counterclaim that was filed against it in a trademark infringement lawsuit it filed. The lawsuit was filed against Vintage Brand for trademark infringement due to Vintage Brand’s use of old school logos. However, the judge isn’t so sure Penn State should win the case. … Continue Reading
CareDx v. Natera: A Response To Professor Holman
Guest Post by Edward Reines. Reines Co-Chairs the nationwide Patent Litigation practice at Weil Gotshal. He represents CareDx and Stanford in the pending patent lawsuits.
Professor Holman’s recent post on the Federal Circuit’s CareDx v. Natera opinion is a thoughtful addition to Professor Crouch’s review of that decision. Professor Holman concludes that the Stanford inventions were doomed from the start because they can be labelled as “molecular diagnostics methods” and are thus patent ineligible under Federal Circuit law. Professor Holman’s conclusion is troubling. It would limit the patentability of new inventions in an entire scientific discipline merely based on a label.
This labelling mode of analysis is fundamentally flawed because the Supreme Court’s Alice decision mandates a two-step test focused on the claimed advance of the patent, no matter the field of invention. The test is designed to “distinguish between patents” that would pre-empt a field by broadly claiming “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” and patents that do not pose this risk because they add to these concepts with “human ingenuity.” There is thus nothing inherent about molecular diagnostics that precludes their patentability and merely labelling a method as “molecular diagnostics” should not be a kiss of death.
Continue reading CareDx v. Natera: A Response To Professor Holman at Patently-O.