Facebook
Home Patent

Patent

Kolon Industries Executives Stole DuPont’s Kevlar Trade Secrets

Kolon Industries Executives Stole DuPont’s Kevlar Trade Secrets


On October 18, 2012, the Department of Justice announced that executives and employees for Kolon Industries Inc were indicted for stealing trade secrets concerning DuPont’s Kevlar para-aramid fiber and Teijin Limited’s Twaron para-aramind fiber.  


The indictment is asking Kolon Industries to forfeit $225 million of proceeds.  


Kolon is headquartered in South Korea and it makes a product called Heracron—a recent product in the para-armind fiber market.  These types of fibers are used to make body armor, automotive parts, fiberoptic cables, and other industrial parts.


The indictment states that Kolon wanted to improve its products by targeting both current and former employees for DuPont and Teijin.  In 2002, Kolon received inside information about the manufacturing process used by DuPont, and the company started using the same process in just three years.  


The indictment also states that Kolon received information from five employees that formerly worked for DuPont.  These employees provided information about the manufacturing process, blueprints, prices, and even emerging technology.  One specific employee gave Kolon information on a CD about costs for a range of Kevlar products, pricing information for customers, market trends, and more.  


Five men under Kolon were charged.  They are Jong-Hyun Choi, In-Sik Han, Kyeong-Hwan Rho, Young-Soo Seo, and Ju-Wan Kim.  Choi was the senior executive of the Heracron Business Team.  Han led Kolon’s research and development.  Rho was the head of the company’s Technical Team.  Seo was a general manager for the company from November 2006 and on and Kim was a manager from September 2007 to February 2009.  


The theft of trade secrets carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000 or twice the gain for each defendant as well as a $5 million fine or twice the gross gain or loss for the corporation.  Since the company tried to conceal the theft, the defendants are also facing 20 years in prison for obstruction of justice and multiple fines.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation
 

Open Source

The United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent

The United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent

What is the USTPO?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office is a government agency in the United States Department of Commerce, which issues patents to inventors and businesses for the production of new inventions. The United States Patent and Trademark Office also will supply individuals or businesses with trademark registrations for products and intellectual property identification purposes. The USTPO is located in Alexandria, Virginia, following a 2006 move from the Crystal City jurisdiction of Arlington, Virginia. 
The USTPO is headed by David Kappos, who was sworn into office following the United States Senate’s confirmation of his appointment by the President Barack Obama. The USTPO cooperates with various patent offices, such as the European Patent Office and the Japan Patent Office as one of the three international Trilateral Patent Offices. 
The Mission of the USPTO is legally based in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, where the powers of Congress are defined as possessing the ability to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
The mission of the United States Patent and Trademark Office is to promote industrial and technological progress in the United States and to strengthen the United States economy by administering the laws relating to patents and trademarks; advising the President of the United States, the Secretary of Commerce and the administration on patent, trademark and copyright protection and to provide advice on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property. 
What is a USTPO Patent?

A USTPO patent is an exclusive right granted by a state, particularly a national government, to an inventor or assignee, for a limited amount of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention or idea.
 
The procedure for issuing a USTPO patent, the requirements placed on the holder of the USTPOI patent and the extent to which the exclusivity rights protect the invention or idea will remain constant in varying locations. That being said, there are different types of USTPO patents available depending on the underlying invention or idea. In most cases, a USTPO patent application will include one or more claims to define the invention; to obtain a USTPO patent, the idea or invention must be new, useful, non-obvious or industrially applicable. 
A USTPO patent offers the creator of a particular invention or idea the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, distributing or selling the patented invention without permission. A USTPO patent is simply, a right to prevent other manufacturers, individuals or producers from using the underling invention or idea. 
Patents are regulated under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; this organization will make patents available to WTO member states for any inventions or ideas relating to all fields of technology. The terms attached to such patents will offer exclusive rights to holders for a minimum of twenty years; however, different types of patents may have varying terms attached to the exclusivity of the underlying patent. 

World Intellectual Property Organization Patent Search

World Intellectual Property Organization Patent Search

What is the WIPO Patent?

The World Intellectual Property Organization is one of the sixteen recognized agencies of the United Nations. The WIPO was created in 1967 to promote and encourage creative activity in alignment with the tangible production of inventions. Furthermore, the WIPO was created to inform and protect the protection of intellectual property throughout the world. The WIPO has 184 member states and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. 
As a result of the WIPO’s mission, the agency aims to inform inventors and those seeking to protect their inventions, as to the intricacies associated with their respective country’s patent laws. One of the fundamental resources offered by the organization is the WIPO patent search. 
The WIPO patent search enables an inventor or business entity to search through over 1.9 million international patent applications to view the latest documents and information available to the International Bureau.  As a result of this comprehensive research tool, the WIPO patent search is used by inventors to cross-reference their particular invention to ensure that they have not infringed upon any previously-invented goods or products. 
The WIPO Patent search sifts through the 1.9 million patented inventions by sorting the various products or creations based on their publication number, application number, publication date, inventor name, English title, national phase country, English abstract international class, a description of the invention or any claims associated with the invention. 
Why is the WIPO Patent Search Important and how do I conduct one?

The WIPO Patent Search is crucial for all inventors because researching which creations are already patented will allow the inventor to refrain from infringing on any ideas or inventions. If an inventor creates something that already has a patent in place, the individual would be unable to create or distribute the product. As a result of this impediment, it is necessary to observe all issued patents if you are interested in obtaining a patent for your unique invention. 
To conduct a WIPO patent search you must visit the World Intellectual Property Organization’s website, located at www.wipo.int. Once you arrive at the WIPO’s website, you can search for the WIPO search tool or you can simply go to www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ to access the WIPO patent search tool directly. When you access the tool you can enter information regarding your invention or you can research patents that have been issued for a creation similar to yours.

Apple Patents Multi-Touch 3-D Applications

Apple Patents Multi-Touch 3-D Applications

A new Apple patent reveals the company’s ambition to integrate more gesturing into the iPhone, iPad and other devices produced by the leading tech innovator.
The patent covers a gesture-based editing toolbar for the iPad; it suggests a novel approach to manipulating and controlling media by using gestures in the form nearly everything—shapes, symbols, letters or even user-created patterns.
The patent reveals a menu of selected gestures for a number of actions, including facial recognition, creating associations among objects and pointing—thinks Tom Cruise operating the holographic glove-controlled crime-fighting system in Minority Report.
The patent labels a master table of gestures that is not latent in the patent documentation; however, it seems that a user will be able to create new gestures, raising an extensive freedom for use.
The premise of the patent is gesturing by making motions with hand movements or fingers across a multi-touch screen. The patent also mentions 3-D gesturing using the device’s front-facing camera.

Amazon in the Midst of Patent Battles

Amazon in the Midst of Patent Battles

In a recent filing to American financial regulators, Amazon—the online retail force—said that it has been sued 11 times concerning over 30 alleged patent infringements since the beginning of 2011. The claims suspect Amazon’s website personalization technology, cloud computing services, web service and technologies used in the Amazon Kindle are in violation of United States’ Patent Law.
Thus far, two of the 30 allegations have dismissed by the U.S. court system. 
Amazon, in a statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission, said that it would dispute the remaining claims with vigor. These disclosures draw Amazon further into the sticky realm of patent suits. So far, in 2011, the online retail giant has faced three times as many patent infringement suits than it did in the whole of 2010.
Amazon is likely to be targeted by more claimants as it becomes more of a force in the mobile hardware business with the introduction of the Kindle Fire—slated to hit shelves next month. Currently, all of the major tablet and smartphone makers—including Apple, Google, Microsoft, HTC, Samsung and Nokia—are engaged in patent litigation, both against one another and other companies that habitually exploit patent rights. 

Oracle-Google Patent Trial Postponed to 2012

Oracle-Google Patent Trial Postponed to 2012

The judge presiding over the Oracle Corp’s patent lawsuit against Google said in a filing this week that the trial will not happen until next year.
United States’ District Court Judge William Alsup attempted to get Google CEO Larry Page and Oracle CEO to negotiate out of court in numerous face-to-face meetings in San Jose earlier this month.
With mediation and out-of-trial meetings proving fruitless, Alsup is preparing for a trial that he claimed is likely to take a long time; Alsup also claims that the jury selection process will prove arduous.
In the suit, Oracle claims that Google should pay over $6 billion for java technology it used in its Android mobile operating system—Oracle acquired the technologies latent in the system when it purchased Sun Microsystems.
Google’s legal professionals reject the claim and promise to vigorously defend the tech giant in court next year.

Breast Cancer Gene Patents Still Legal Issue

Breast Cancer Gene Patents Still Legal Issue

 

Can companies patent the genes that cause some types of breast cancer, so that only they can perform the tests for these genes?  The Federal Circuit has said yes—twice—but their decision is being appealed.  The case, started by the ACLU in 2009, may wind up back in front of the Supreme Court again in 2013 if the court grants certiorari.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 were two of the first genes to be identified in causing breast cancer.  Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation obtained patents on these two genes, and they were the only entities that were allowed to license tests that could detect the presence or absence of the genes.  These patents were rigorously enforced, leading many researchers to halt research on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes due to fears of being sued for patent infringement.

Myriad and the University of Utah Research Foundation even controlled the ability of researchers to look at the genes and create their own testing protocols.  Patent law has long held, even since before the beginnings of the United States, that patents were not available on “products of nature.”  The ACLU interpreted this to mean that the patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 was in violation of existing patent law, and they sued in federal district court.

The district court ruled at trial that the patents were illegal, but the appeals court reversed.  The Supreme Court first looked at this issue two years ago and sent the case back to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that it needed to change the way it was looking at the patents.  In September of 2012, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled once again that the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene patents did not violate United States law.

The suit is being filed on behalf of several women with the genetic mutation, including women who were unable to find out about their genetic mutations for some time due to the extremely high cost of testing.  At the time when the lawsuit was filed, testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes could cost more than $4,000.

While the Court of Appeals ruled against the ACLU about the specific patents on the genes, there was a silver lining for people hoping for better access to testing in the future.  The Court of Appeals also ruled that any patents on methods for comparing the genes to “wild-type” genes were not in fact legal according to United States patent and trademark law.

The Appeals Court based its ruling on the idea that once the genes being tested are reproduced in a laboratory and divorced from their constituent chromosomes, they are no longer “products of nature” but rather patentable objects of scientific study.  The court said in its decision that if the United States Congress wanted to, it could constitutionally alter patent law in order to forbid the patenting of specific isolated genes, but that no such laws had been passed by Congress.

Sources: uscourts.gov, aclu.org

Patent Forms

Patent Forms

COVER SHEET:

APPLICATION:
Application Data Sheet (Instructions)
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL FORMS:
DECLARATION FORMS:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT:
Disclosure Statement (Instructions)

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

What is the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988?

The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which garnered Royal Assent on November 15th of 1988. The Copyright Designs and Patens Act reformulate the statutory basis of copyright law, including all performing rights, present in the United Kingdom. Before the issuance of the Copyright Designs and Patent Act, the United Kingdom’s patent and copyright law was governed by the Copyright Act 1956. 
The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 creates and unregistered design right and includes various modifications to the law of the nation of Registered Designs and patents. In essence, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act establishes that copyrights, in the majority of works, will last 70 years following the death of the creator (if known) or 70 years after the work was originally created or published. The laws attached to computer-generated works, according to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, will place a formal copyright that is valid for fifty years. 
Part 1 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988:
Part 1 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act restates and amends the statutory basis for the nation’s copyright law. Part 1 of the Act extends to the entire United Kingdom and simplifies the different categories of creation or work which are protected by copyright. In essence, this portion of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act eliminates the specific treatment of various art-forms by creating the following classification system:
Literary, dramatic and musical works: these works must be record in writing or otherwise to be granted copyright. The copyright will subsist from the date at which recording takes place.
All artistic works, including photographs, buildings, works of artistic craftsmanship and engravings.
 Broadcasts: this form of art work is defined as a transmission by wireless telegraphy which is intended to be heard by members of the public
Cable Programs: refers to a part of service which transmits images, sounds or other forms of information to two or different places or to members of the public by any means other than wireless forms of telegraphy.
Published Editions: refers to published works of the whole or part of one or literary, dramatic or musical works. 
The following forms of art are exempted from copyright by the transitional provisions of Schedule 1:
All artistic works created before June 1, 1957 which constituted a design which could be registered under the Registered Designs Act 1949 or were used as a model for reproduction for an industrial process
All films created before June 1 1957 and broadcasts made before this date.
Other Features of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act:

Part II of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act created a series of performers’ right in application of the various patents laws established in previous forms of legislation. Furthermore, this aspect of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act elucidates upon the duration of the copyright for each form of art form or work. The duration for each copyright is administered in a streamlined and easy-to-understood fashion as a result of the organizational model that the Copyright Designs and Patents Act utilize. 
123Page 1 of 3
Facebook

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©

Attorneys, Get Listed

Free Coupon
X