USPTO Publishes Patent Search Templates

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at November 29, 2005 08:58 AM

 

USPTO Publishes Patent Search Templates
New Tool To Enhance Patent Quality by Helping Examiners Do Better-Focused Research

The Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is building a library of search templates for use by applicants, patent practitioners and patent examiners to assist them in finding evidence, known as prior art, to help determine if an invention is patentable. Similar to a library card catalog, the search templates will direct searchers to information on relevant fields of search, databases and scientific journals considered germane to particular technologies and inventions. The search templates will aid in more thorough prior art searches, which should result in better quality patents.

"These new tools are just part of the USPTO's larger effort to make the U.S. patent examination process even more efficient and effective," noted Under Secretary for Intellectual Property Jon Dudas. "Quality is a shared responsibility. With input and information from our patent examiners and the public, the USPTO can provide a better compilation of relevant resources for all users of America's patent system. Effective search templates will help both the USPTO and the public determine where to find the most relevant prior art more easily and accurately."

An important aspect of examining a patent is the examiner’s review of patent documents, both U.S. and foreign, and other literature related to the invention. During this search, the examiner consults the appropriate patent databases, scientific and technical journals and other printed material, which might disclose the invention claimed in the application. The examiner then can determine the patentability of a claimed invention in light of the prior art discovered by this search.

Thirty-eight templates are available now on the USPTO’s Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/searchtemplates/class.htm, and approximately 50 templates will be added to the site each week. When the initial project is completed, about 1,300 search templates covering more than 600 classes and subclasses of technology will be available.

Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (2005.11.28)

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 28, 2005 12:06 PM

Cases filed since October 28, 2005 (updated).

Please forward this to anyone you think would find it useful. 

Subscription information can be found here:  http://www.rethinkip.com/archives/rss_email_patent_lawsuit_filing_notices.html

Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
ilndce 
1:2005cv06561 
11/18/2005

Arrow Communication Laboratories, Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc 
nyndce 
5:2005cv01456 
11/21/2005

Avery Dennison Corporation v. Mark Andy, Inc. et al 
ohndce 
1:2005cv02676 
11/15/2005

Baxa Corporation v. Forhealth Technologies Inc 
txndce 
3:2005cv02274 
11/18/2005

Borden et al v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp. et al 
ohndce 
5:2005cv02735 
11/22/2005

Brike International, Ltd. v. Invacare Corporation 
ordce 
3:2005cv01754 
11/18/2005

BSN Medical, Inc. v. Royce Medical Company 
ncwdce 
3:2005cv00478 
11/15/2005

Cardiac Science Operating Company v. Medical Research Laboratories, Inc. et al 
mndce 
0:2005cv02669 
11/18/2005

Cherdak v. NextTec International, Inc.
mddce
8:2005cv03146 
11/22/2005

COHEN et al v. ORTHO TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al 
paedce 
2:2005cv06067 
11/18/2005

Cybergym Research, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. 
txedce 
2:2005cv00527 
11/18/2005

DICAR, INC. v. ROBUD et al 
njdce 
2:2005cv05426 
11/16/2005

Dioptics Medical Products, Inc v. Pepper's Performance Eyeware Inc. 
candce 
3:2005cv04605 
11/8/2005

Donnelly Corporation v. Guardian Industries Corporation et al 
miedce 
2:2005cv74444 
11/22/2005

DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Baker et al 
tnwdce 
2:2005cv02853 
11/18/2005

DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Skin Deep, et al. 
caedce 
1:2005cv01482 
11/18/2005

DUSA vs. FRONSTIN 
flsdc 
9:2005cv81042 
11/18/2005

Financial Systems Innovation LLC et al v. Discount Tire Company of Georgia, Inc. et al 
gandce 
4:2005cv00252 
11/21/2005

Flashpoint Technology Inc. v. Concord Camera Corp. 
dedce 
1:2005cv00802 
11/18/2005

Fuji Photo Film Co Ltd v. Achiever Industries Ltd et al 
cacdce 
2:2005cv08044 
11/10/2005

Genmark Automation, Inc. v. Innovative Robotics Systems, Inc. 
candce 
3:2005cv04707 
11/16/2005

Graphon Corp v. Autotrader.com, Inc., et al 
txedce 
2:2005cv00530 
11/22/2005

HIF Bio Inc et al v. Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals Industrial Co Ltd et al 
cacdce 
2:2005cv07976 
11/8/2005

Holland Electronics v. John Mezzalingua Associates Inc 
cacdce 
2:2005cv08076 
11/14/2005

Kwitek et al v. Pilot Pen Corporation et al 
txedce 
2:2005cv00533 
11/23/2005

Lavi Industries v. Summit International Inc et al 
cacdce 
2:2005cv07940 
11/7/2005

Lemont Aircraft Corp v. Thermaltake Tech Co Ltd et al 
ctdce 
3:2005cv01775 
11/18/2005

Litebook Company Ltd v. Apollo Health Inc 
cacdce 
2:2005cv07919 
11/4/2005

Lumileds Lighting U.S. LLC v. Epistar Corporation et al 
candce 
3:2005cv04521 
11/4/2005

Mag Instrument Inc v. LitePro 
cacdce 
5:2005cv01002 
10/28/2005

Mag Instrument Inc v. Lyman Products Corporation 
cacdce 
5:2005cv01003 
10/28/2005

Martim Group Inc v. Royal Pet Incorporated et al 
cacdce 
2:2005cv08103 
11/14/2005

Michael W Watkins et al v. Ronald M George et al 
cacdce 
5:2005cv01036 
11/9/2005

Minka Lighting Inc et al v. Reliance Lighting Inc et al 
cacdce 
5:2005cv01015 
11/3/2005

Multi Technology Industrial, LLC v. Huhtamaki Forchheim 
nhdce 
1:2005cv00403 
11/15/2005

New Generation Devices, Inc. v. Slocum Enterprises, Inc. et al 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09789 
11/17/2005

Oakley v. BMW of North America 
cacdce 
8:2005cv01099 
11/9/2005

Olivadoti v. The Bramton Corporation 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09267 
11/1/2005

Oreck Holdings LLC v. Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc. 
laedce 
2:2005cv05696 
11/16/2005

PDS Electronics, Inc. v. RadialWave, LLC 
ohndce 
5:2005cv02692 
11/16/2005

Progressive International Corporation v. CKC International Inc 
wawdce 
2:2005cv01930 
11/18/2005

Progressive International Corporation v. King Warehousing Inc 
wawdce 
2:2005cv01931 
11/18/2005

Progressive International Corporation v. STK International Inc 
wawdce 
2:2005cv01932 
11/18/2005

Protex International Corp., v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc. 
nyedce 
2:2005cv05355 
11/14/2005

QDS Injection Molding LLC v. Aqua Lung USA 
cacdce 
8:2005cv01125 
11/16/2005

RAMADA WORDWIDE, INC. v. REWARDS HOTEL MANAGEMENT CO., LLC et al 
njdce 
2:2005cv05469 
11/18/2005

Rapiscan Systems Inc et al v. Security Detection Systems Inc 
cacdce 
2:2005cv07855 
11/3/2005

Riverside Millworks Co., Inc. v. Paradigm Window Solutions, Inc. et al 
nhdce 
1:2005cv00402 
11/14/2005

S.O.I. Tec Silicon on Insulator Technologies S.A. et al v. MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. 
dedce 
1:2005cv00806 
11/21/2005

STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Harari et al 
candce 
5:2005cv04691 
11/16/2005

Taylor Made Group, Inc. et al v. Viralex 2000 Inc. et al 
nyndce 
6:2005cv01446 
11/18/2005

Tehrani v. Polar Electro et al 
cacdce 
8:2005cv01113 
11/14/2005

TI Group Automotive Systems, L. L. C. v. Performance Aftermarket Parts Group, L. L. C. 
miedce 
2:2005cv74325 11/10/2005

Torqmaster, Inc. v. Hanaya, Inc. et al 
nysdce 
7:2005cv09836 
11/21/2005

Toshiba Corporation v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. et al 
candce 
3:2005cv04547 
11/7/2005

Tristrata Technology Inc. v. Alticor Inc. et al 
dedce 
1:2005cv00788 
11/14/2005

Tristrata Technology Inc. v. Milbar Laboratories Inc. 
dedce 
1:2005cv00801 
11/18/2005

Truseal Technologies, Inc. v. Techcon Group, Inc. 
gandce 
1:2005cv02947 
11/16/2005

Tyco Healthcare Group, LP v. Argon Medical Devices, Inc. et al 
madce 
1:2005cv12327 
11/21/2005

Valley Custom Tire Inc v. Milano Design and Motoring Inc 
cacdce 
2:2005cv07971 
11/8/2005

Whirlpool Corporation v. Rapid Rack Industries, Inc. 
miwdce 
1:2005cv00778 
11/18/2005

USPTO Receives Record Number of Patent and Trademark Applications for 2005

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at November 23, 2005 09:05 AM

 

USPTO Receives Record Number of Patent and Trademark Applications for 2005

In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) received a record number of patent and trademark applications. The agency received 406,302 patent applications, and 323,501 applications for trademark registration as reported in its fiscal year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report released last week.

"During fiscal year 2005, the USPTO continued its efforts to make the world's best patent and trademark office even better," Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Jon Dudas commented. "We developed aggressive new reform proposals that will enhance quality and improve productivity. This was accomplished while we maintained our commitment to strengthen intellectual property protection and fought piracy and counterfeiting through a variety of educational outreach programs."

The USPTO granted 165,485 patents, including 151,079 utility (inventions), 13,395 design, and 816 plant patents. Since 1790, over seven million U.S. patents have been granted.

U.S. resident inventors received 85,238 U.S. patents in fiscal year 2005. California resident inventors received the highest share (23 percent, 19,928 patents) of these patents, followed by inventors from New York (7 percent, 5,631 patents), Texas (7 percent, 5,660 patents), Michigan (5 percent, 3,907 patents), and Massachusetts (4 percent, 3,443 patents).

The USPTO registered 143,396 trademarks and renewed 32,279 registrations in fiscal year 2005. Over 3 million trademarks have been registered since the first in 1870. At the end of fiscal year 2005, there were 1,255,570 active trademark registrations.

For the complete report, see: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2005/2005annualreport.pdf.

Download PDF Viewer

# # #

Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (2005.11.21)

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 21, 2005 10:44 AM

Cases filed since October 21, 2005 (updated).

Please forward this to anyone you think would find it useful. 

Subscription information can be found here:  http://www.rethinkip.com/archives/rss_email_patent_lawsuit_filing_notices.html

A Major Difference, Inc. v. Erchonia Medical, Inc. et al 
codce 
1:2005cv02325 
11/16/2005

Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
wvndce 
1:2005cv00150 
11/17/2005

Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre v. Rambus, Inc. 
vaedce 
3:2005cv00789 
11/15/2005

AMERICAN ELECTROLIER vs. ROBERTS RESEARCH 
flsdc 
1:2005cv22942 
11/14/2005

Arrow Communication Laboratories Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Associates Inc. 
dedce 
1:2005cv00357 
11/17/2005

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP et al v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. et al 
njdce 
2:2005cv05333
11/8/2005

Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations v. Reedhycalog UK et al 
utdce 
2:2005cv00931 
11/9/2005

Bayou Fitness Products, LLC v. FitnessBargains, Inc 
txsdce 
4:2005cv03814 
11/9/2005

Becton Dickinson and Company v. Med-Design Corporation et al 
dedce 
1:2005cv00771 
11/9/2005

Boston Scientific Corporation et al v. Conor Medsystems Inc. 
dedce 
1:2005cv00768 
11/8/2005

CNX GAS CORPORATION v. CNX GAS COMPANY LLC et al 
pawdce 
2:2005cv01574 
11/14/2005

CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL INC. vs. BALL PLASTIC CONTAINER CORP. 
wiwdc 
3:2005cv00669 
11/15/2005

F & G RESEARCH, INC. vs. SONY CORPORATION 
flsdc 
0:2005cv61751 
11/8/2005

Faro Technologies, Inc. v. Cimcore Corporation et al 
flmdce 
6:2005cv01702 
11/15/2005

Free Motion Fitness, et al v. Cybex Intl 
utdce 
1:2001cv00152 
11/14/2005

Inerface, Inc. et al v. Collins and Aikman Floor Coverings, Inc. et al 
gandce 
4:2005cv00191 
11/15/2005

Inerface, Inc. et al v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. et al 
gandce 
4:2005cv00190 
11/15/2005

Interface, Inc. et al v. Shaw Industries, Inc. et al 
gandce 
4:2005cv00189 
11/15/2005

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA N.V. et al v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. et al 
njdce 
2:2005cv05362
11/15/2005

LavaFlow LLP v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06536 
11/17/2005

Matrix PT LLC v. Evergreen Enterprises, Inc. 
vaedce 
2:2005cv00662 
11/8/2005

McCourt Manufacturing, Inc. v. Lifetime Products, Inc. 
arwdce 
2:2005cv02161 
11/17/2005

Microlinc, L.L.C. v. Acer America Corporation et al 
txedce 
2:2005cv00514 
11/10/2005

Midland Innovations, NV v. Atlas Pen & Pencil Corp. 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09648 
11/15/2005

Midland Innovations,NV v. Pro-Innovative Concepts, Inc. et al 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09642 
11/15/2005

NETALOG, INC. v. TEKKEON, INC. 
ncmdce 
1:2005cv00980 
11/8/2005

Newriver, Inc., v. Mobular Technologies, INC., 
madce 
1:2005cv12285 
11/15/2005

Nike, Inc. v. Hireko Trading Company, Inc. et al 
ordce 
3:2005cv01734 
11/15/2005

Orbsak, L.L.C. v. Directv Group, Inc., et al 
txedce 
2:2005cv00519 
11/14/2005

PhatRat Technology, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. et al 
codce 
1:2005cv02323 
11/16/2005

Polycom, Inc. et al v. Codian, LTD et al 
txedce 
2:2005cv00520 
11/15/2005

QUIC-KEY, INC. v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC et al 
njdce 
2:2005cv05361 
11/14/2005

RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. JERSEY SHORE CHICKEN 
njdce 
3:2005cv05356 
11/9/2005

RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. KLEE'S BAR & GRILL 
njdce 
3:2005cv05358 
11/9/2005

Samsonite Corporation v. Targus Group International, Inc. 
codce 
1:2005cv02301 
11/14/2005

Sandata Technologies, Inc. v. Infocrossing, Inc. 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09546 
11/14/2005

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Rexon Industrial Corp., Ltd. et al 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06542 
11/17/2005

The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. ALPS South Corporation 
ohsdce 
2:2005cv01039 
11/16/2005

The Willow Wood Company v. DAW Industries, Inc. 
ohsdce 
2:2005cv01038 
11/17/2005

Van Romer et al v. Barrett et al 
scdce 
8:2005cv03190 
11/14/2005

WATER RIDE CONCEPTS, vs. PROSLIDE TECHNOLOGY, 
txwdc 
1:2005cv00964 
11/17/2005

Wilson Tool International, Inc. v. WILA B.V
mndce
0:2005cv02624
11/10/2005

YKK Corporation of America Inc. v. Silver Line Building Products Corp.
gasdce 
3:2005cv00155 
11/17/2005

USPTO’s 2005 Performance and Accountability Report Now Available

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at November 20, 2005 09:04 AM

 USPTO’s 2005 Performance and Accountability Report Now Available

The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s annual Performance and Accountability Report is now posted on our website. The report provides a comprehensive account of the agency’s programmatic activities for the year as well as production and financial data for FY 2005.

The 2002, 2003 and 2004 reports received the Association of Government Accountants’ prestigious Certificate of Excellence.

 

 

 

 

You can access the report at the following URL:  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2005/index.html

Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (2005.11.15)

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 15, 2005 10:29 AM

Cases filed since October 15, 2005 (updated).

Please forward this to anyone you think would find it useful. 

Subscription information can be found here:  http://www.rethinkip.com/archives/rss_email_patent_lawsuit_filing_notices.html

ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Commscope Solutions Properties, LLC et al 
mndce 
0:2005cv02584 
11/4/2005

Advanced Audio Devices, L.L.C. et al v. iRiver America, Inc. et al 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06372 
11/7/2005

AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC 
txedce 
6:2005cv00424 
11/9/2005

Alticor Inc. v. Tristrata Technology, Inc. et al 
miwdce 
1:2005cv00763 
11/10/2005

Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al 
madce 
1:2005cv12237 
11/8/2005

APPLIED POLYMERICS, INC. v. URETEK, USA, INC. et al 
ncmdce 
1:2005cv00985 
11/10/2005

Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations v. Reedhycalog UK et al 
utdce 
2:2005cv00931 
11/9/2005

Bayou Fitness Products, LLC v. FitnessBargains, Inc 
txsdce 
4:2005cv03814 
11/9/2005

Becton Dickinson and Company v. Med-Design Corporation et al 
dedce 
1:2005cv00771 
11/9/2005

Boston Scientific Corporation et al v. Conor Medsystems Inc. 
dedce 
1:2005cv00768 
11/8/2005

Bright Ideas Company, Inc. v. Target Corporation 
mddce 
1:2005cv03015 
11/7/2005

Centre Firearms Company et al v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09388 
11/4/2005

Cherdak v. E.S. Originals, Inc. 
mddce 
8:2005cv03051 
11/10/2005

Coleman et al v. Impact Confections, Inc. 
vaedce 
2:2005cv00657 
11/7/2005

Cricket Productions, Inc. v. Excalibur Electronics, Inc. et al 
madce 
1:2005cv12245 
11/9/2005

Digital Innovations LLC v. Sorensen Research & Development Trust 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06428 
11/9/2005

Duhn Oil Tool Inc v. Cooper Cameron Corporation 
caedce 
1:2005cv01411 
11/9/2005

Entegris, Inc. v. Miraial Co., Ltd. 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09342 
11/3/2005

Enterasys Networks, Inc., v. Extreme Networks Inc 
madce 
1:2005cv12235 
11/8/2005

Eon-Net LP v. CoolAnimalStuff.com 
wawdce 
2:2005cv01844 
11/7/2005

Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. 
miwdce 
5:2005cv00160 
11/4/2005

Impax Laboratories Inc. v. Shire Laboratories Inc. 
dedce 
1:2005cv00772 
11/9/2005

J.W. Pet Company, Inc. v. PetEdge 
madce 
1:2005cv12227 
11/7/2005

JELL-E-BATH, Inc. v. Crystal Mud Spa et al 
ordce 
3:2005cv01703 
11/8/2005

L&H Technologies, Inc. v. Technosports, Inc. et al 
ncwdce 
3:2005cv00455 
10/27/2005

MAGIC CIRCLE CORPORATION v. ONYX ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LLC 
insdce 
2:2005cv00270 
11/10/2005

Medical Research Institute v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition Inc et al 
txedce 
6:2005cv00417 
11/4/2005

National Instrument, LLC v. Capmatic, Ltd. 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09502 
11/9/2005

NCR Corporation v. Avon Products, Inc. 
nysdce 
1:2005cv08982 
10/21/2005

Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc., et al 
vaedce 
2:2001cv00905 
11/14/2005

Parker v. Zoll Medical Corporation 
miedce 
2:2005cv74295 
11/8/2005

Prompt Medical Systems, L.P. v. Codecorrect, Inc. 
txedce 
2:2005cv00511 
11/7/2005

REG OK Acquistions v. Taylor Corporation, et al 
okwdce 
5:2002cv00981 
11/8/2005

Safeflight, Inc. v. Chelton Flight Systems, Inc. 
ohndce 
5:2005cv02622 
11/8/2005

Sandata Technologies Inc v. Carewatch Inc 
ctdce 
3:2005cv01714 
11/8/2005

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM, et al v. ANDRX PHARM., INC., et al 
paedce 
2:2001cv02981 
11/1/2005

Sweet Corn Products v. Pacific Currents 
nedce 
8:2005cv00509 
11/8/2005

Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metrologic Instruments, Inc. 
txedce 
2:2005cv00509 
11/4/2005

THE TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY et al v. KORESKO 
paedce 
2:2005cv05862 
11/8/2005

Tillotson Corporation v. West Chester Holdings, Inc. 
gandce 
4:2005cv00235 
11/7/2005

Torq-Masters Technology, Inc. v. Regal-Beloit Corporation 
nywdce 
6:2005cv06597 
11/9/2005

Universal Restraint, L.L.C. v. Valeda Company LLC 
lamdce 
3:2005cv01320 
11/9/2005

Walling Enterprises, Inc v. U.S. Sports Video, Inc 
txsdce 
4:2005cv03819 
11/10/2005

Watlow Electric Manufacturing Company v. Ogden Manufacturing Company 
moedce 
4:2005cv02094 
11/7/2005

Comments on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice (September 2005) (14Nov2005)

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at November 14, 2005 05:18 PM

 

As of September 16, 2005, the organizations and persons listed below have submitted comments in response to the Notice of Availability of and Request for Comments on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice, first published in the Federal Register at 70 Fed. Reg. 32761 [PDF] (June 6, 2005) and then published in the Official Gazette at 1295 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 146 (June 28, 2005), and published to announce an extension of the comment period in the Federal Register at 70 Fed. Reg. 45370 [PDF] (August 5, 2005).

It is hoped that the public will review this list to determine if it is complete. If any person or organization has submitted comments but is not included in this listing, please submit the comment by electronic mail message to Robert.Clarke@uspto.gov, or contact Robert A. Clarke by telephone at (571) 272-7700.

Please note that the following documents are provided as submitted by persons and organizations but may contain spelling corrections, artifacts of scanning, OCR, or document format conversion.

---

A. Intellectual Property Organizations

1. Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Patent, Trademark & Copyright Section [PDF]
2. Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO) [PDF]
3. Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle [PDF]
4. Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA) [PDF]
5. National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP) [PDF]

B. Government Agencies

1. National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services (NIH) [PDF]

C. Corporations

1. Genentech, Inc. [PDF]
2. IBM Corporation [PDF]

D. Individuals

1. Henry, Jon [PDF]
2. Johnson, Robert T. [PDF]
3. Juneau, Todd L. [PDF]
4. Lindeen, Gordon [PDF]
5. Lindon, James [PDF]
6. Morgan, Paul F. [PDF]
7. Parker, Raymond S., III and Knight, Julie Anne [PDF]
8. Webster, Robert J. [PDF]

Some contents linked to on this page require a plug-in for PDF files.

USPTO Co-Sponsors Invention Contest

USPTO Co-Sponsors Invention Contest $25,000 Top Prize Winner Featured on History Channel

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is joining the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the History Channel in sponsoring the Modern Marvels Invent Now Challenge. This is a new contest that invites the everyday inventor to share their vision and ingenious design with the world. Twenty-five semi-finalists will have the opportunity to be recognized, have their invention exhibited and receive valuable information to help them realize the full potential of their invention.. The most remarkable invention submitted will be named the 2006 “Modern Marvel of the Year.” The inventor will win $25,000 and be featured on the History Channel during a special Invention Week of Modern Marvels programs. The deadline for entry is December 31.

United States Postal Service Interruption and Emergency under 35 U.S.C. 21(a) [signed 02Nov2005] (08Nov2005)

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at November 9, 2005 11:08 PM

View and/or download a .pdf of this Notice at the link below:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/usps_wilma.pdf

United States Postal Service Interruption and Emergency under 35 U.S.C. 21(a) [signed 02Nov2005]

View and/or download a .pdf of this Notice at the link below:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/usps_wilma.pdf

Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (2005.11.08)

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 8, 2005 06:25 PM

Cases filed since October 8, 2005 (updated).

Please forward this to anyone you think would find it useful. 

Subscription information can be found here:  http://www.rethinkip.com/archives/rss_email_patent_lawsuit_filing_notices.html

American Medical Systems, Inc et al v. Caldera Medical, Inc 
ndce 
0:2005cv02563 
11/3/2005

Andersen Manufacturing v. Diversi-Tech et al 
utdce 
2:2005cv00923 
11/4/2005

Arthur A Collins Inc v. MCI Inc 
txndce 
3:2005cv02156 
11/3/2005

Card Technology Corporation v. Datacard Incorporated 
mndce 
0:2005cv02546 
11/1/2005

Cardinal Brands, Inc. et al v. ACCO Brands Corporation 
ksdce 
2:2005cv02472 
11/3/2005

Cequent Trailer Products, Inc. v. Intradin (Shanghai) Machinery Co., Ltd. 
ohndce 
1:2005cv02566 
11/1/2005

Corsage Collection, Inc. v. GN Diamond, LLC et al 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09167 
10/28/2005

Cutting Edge Technology LLC v. Paradise Dental Technologies Inc et al 
txsdce 
4:2005cv03727 
11/1/2005

Douglas Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Argonics Inc 
miwdce 
2:2005cv00261 
10/31/2005

Ecolab Inc. v. Betco Corporation 
mndce 
0:2005cv02545 
11/1/2005

Farnen v. Tony Hawk, Incorporated 
miedce 
2:2005cv74213 
11/2/2005

Fiala, Inc. v. Performance Printing Corporation
tnwdce 
2:2005cv02822 
11/3/2005

First Act, Inc. v. Kansas International Ltd 
madce 
1:2005cv12140 
10/27/2005

Forterra Systems, Inc. v. Avatar Factory et al 
candce
5:2005cv04472 
11/3/2005

GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC. v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. 
paedce 
2:2005cv05696 
10/27/2005

Harris Research, Inc. v. Perrine et al 
utdce 
1:2005cv00136 
11/3/2005

Hunter Douglas Window Fashions Division Technologies, Inc. v. Kyong-Buk Trading Corp. 
gandce 
1:2005cv02810
10/31/2005

Longlac Wood Industries, Inc. v. Supra Floors Inc. 
mddce 
1:2005cv03013 
11/4/2005

Mag Instrument Inc v. Gerber Legendary Blades Inc et al 
cacdce
5:2005cv00979 
10/24/2005

Mag Instrument Inc v. Harry Fox and Associates Inc et al 
cacdce
5:2005cv00980 
10/24/2005

Mag Instrument Inc v. Technobrands Inc et al 
cacdce
5:2005cv00981
10/24/2005

Markem Corporation v. Sun Chemical Corporation 
nhdce 
1:2005cv00386
10/31/2005

McGinley et al v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. et al
mowdce 
4:2005cv01018
10/24/2005

McGinley et al v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Company et al
mowdce
4:2005cv01005 
10/21/2005

Meadwestvaco Corp v. Jesyco Packaging LLC 
ctdce 
3:2005cv01670 
10/27/2005

Merlot Communications, Inc. v. SercoNet, Ltd. 
madce 
3:2005cv30235
11/2/2005

Microunity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America, Inc. et al 
txedce
2:2005cv00505 
11/2/2005

Monsanto Co v. Aungst, et al 
miedce
2:2001cv73172 
11/4/2005

Monsanto Company v. Dragan 
nywdce 
1:2005cv00786 
11/2/2005

Monsanto Company v. Strickland
scdce
4:2005cv03062
10/28/2005

Moultrie Products, LLC v. Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC et al
txedce
6:2005cv00409 
10/31/2005

NOVASEPTUM AB et al v. AMESIL, INC. 
njdce 
2:2005cv05175 
10/28/2005

Novo Nordisk Pharm., et al v. Bio-Technology Gen., et al 
dedce
1:2002cv00332 
10/31/2005

Olivadoti v. The Bramton Corporation
nysdce
1:2005cv09267 
11/1/2005

PACKLESS INDUSTRIES vs. NOVATEK INTERNATIONA 
txwdc 
6:2005cv00391 
11/1/2005

Panduit Corp. v. Siemon Company, The 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06304 
11/2/2005

Pogorzelski et al v. Heinzl et al 
azdce
4:2005cv00663 
11/3/2005

Portola Packaging, Inc. v. Blackhawk Molding Co., Inc.
ilndce 
1:2005cv06342 
11/4/2005

Premier International Associates, LLC. v. Apple Computer, Inc. 
txedce
2:2005cv00506 
11/3/2005

Protex International Corporation v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc. et al 
nyedce 
2:2005cv05032 
10/27/2005

QUALCOMM INC vs. NOKIA CORPORATION 
casdc 
3:2005cv02063 
11/4/2005

Red Oak Group, L. L. C. v. W.I.T.T., Incorporated et al
miedce
2:2005cv74242 
11/4/2005

Rubbermaid Commercial Products LLC v. Harper Brush Works, Inc 
vawdce 
5:2005cv00075 
11/2/2005

SCRATCH-ART COMPANY, INC v. ROSE ART INDUSTRIES, INC., 
madce
1:2005cv12193
11/2/2005

SRI Hermetics, Inc. v. Pacific Aerospace & Electronics, Inc. 
flmdce 
6:2005cv01661 
11/7/2005

Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. YDI Wireless Inc. et al 
dedce 
1:2005cv00755 
10/28/2005

Synthon IP, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. 
vaedce 
1:2005cv01267 
11/3/2005

Tillotson Corporation v. Top Glove SDN. BHD et al 
gandce 
4:2005cv00232 
11/1/2005

TiVo, Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corporation et al 
gandce 
1:2005cv02799 
10/28/2005

Toshiba Corporation v. Cyberhome Entertainment Inc. 
dedce 
1:2005cv00757 
10/31/2005

Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Orc Software, Inc. et al 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06265 
10/31/2005

Vanguard Products Group, Inc. et al v. Protex International Corp. 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06310 
11/3/2005

VOLUMETRICS MEDICAL IMAGING, LLC v. GE HEALTHCARE, LTD,et al 
ncmdce 
1:2005cv00955 
10/27/2005

USPTO Patents Search Templates

 

USPTO Patents Search Templates

This website provides access to templates describing search resources for the classified areas of science and technology found in the USPTO Manual of Classification. When completed, this version of the search template project will present almost 1,300 search templates covering the more than 600 USPC classes and subclasses.

Search Templates Defined

Search templates define the field of search, search tools, and search methodologies which should be considered each time a patent application is examined in that classification area. The templates describe search tools for U.S. and foreign patents and non-patent literature. Additionally, general Internet search tools used by patent examiners are listed.

The search templates are based upon input from patent examiners and other searchers at the USPTO and capture their institutional knowledge of the most relevant prior art search sources for determining the patentability of subject matter in the area of technology. The listed areas represent where (what resources) and how (methodology) most of the prior art considered in the examination process is found during the search process.

Benefits

The templates provide more structure to the search activity and set a standard to measure the completeness of any search. Within USPTO, the templates will be especially valuable to new examiners. The USPTO also plans to use the search templates for a pilot program to outsource U.S. patent searches for PCT applications (Support for Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Search Activity). In addition to the "where to search" information, the search templates provide important guidance on what tools and methodologies; e.g. structure searches (tool) and classified searching, respectively, should be employed in the search process.

Applicants can use the templates in formulating their own pre-examination searches prior to the filing of a U.S. patent application or the submission of a "Petition to Make Special" (based on MPEP § 708.02, subsection VIII. - special examining procedure for certain new applications - accelerated examination).

A long-term objective of this effort is to generate discussion, and ultimately consensus, with respect to what should constitute a proper field of search and use of search tools in conducting a search of various subject matters for purposes of the examination process at the USPTO.

Examiners and Search: Background

A patent examiner is responsible for reviewing prior patent documents, both U.S. and foreign, and other printed literature related to an application's subject matter during the examination process. This review, called the search, is performed by consulting the appropriate classes, and their respective subclasses, in the U.S. classification scheme, and classified and text searches of other patent document databases, or any other printed media (also known as "non-patent literature" or NPL), which might disclose the invention disclosed/claimed in a pending application for a patent. This search may include the use of various search tools or methodologies in the process. Once the search is performed, the examiner determines the patentability of a claimed invention in light of the prior art uncovered by this search.

When determining the appropriate field of search for an invention, the examiner must consider three sources of information: domestic patent documents, foreign patent documents, and NPL. The current requirements for conducting that search are set forth in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) section 904.02. An examiner may not eliminate any of these resources from consideration unless the examiner can justify to a reasonable certainty that no more pertinent references will be found in a further search. Although the general guidance set forth in the MPEP is accurate, the search templates will provide additional information that expands upon the MPEP's general guidance. For each particular field of subject matter, the search templates will include what resources should be searched, and by which of the available search tools or methodologies. Detailed guidance on the choice and use of specific search tools are left to be established by each Technology Center (see MPEP § 904.02(b)).

Patent examiners are not required to search every listed resource in the examination of every application. Rather, relying upon their professional judgment and assessment of the disclosed and claimed subject matter in the application under consideration, the examiner will determine the most appropriate resources for that application. What the search templates provide is a compilation of the resources found to most frequently discover the most relevant prior art disclosures for the particular subject matter. Searching is highly dependent upon the experience and job knowledge of the individual performing and/or reviewing the search.

Public Comments on the Search Templates

Public comments on the search templates are invited. Comments should address the points enumerated in the Criteria for Evaluating Recommended Search Resources listed below. Comments can be submitted via the Search Template Project e-mail link on each template page or by mail addressed to:

Mail Stop Patents Search Template Comments
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

Electronic submission is preferred. The Office will respond to comments in writing.

USPTO Criteria for Evaluating Recommended Search Resources

Recommended search resources must be publicly available. The databases and tools will be evaluated based on the criteria listed below. In your submission, please provide as much information as possible on the listed criteria:

• Class/Subclass combination - Identify the class and subclass range for which you are recommending a resource.


• Database/Resource identification - Provide the full name and other names (e.g. acronyms or shortened names) by which a database/resource may be identified; the name, address and phone number for the producer; the name, address and phone number for the entity that provides access to the database/resource.


• Database/Resource scope - Indicate whether this tool is of general or specific use.


• Content - Years of coverage of the database/resource; subject matter of the database; whether the resource is an abstract or full text database; and whether the bibliographic information includes documented publication dates.


• Reasons for Recommendation - Specify the reasons for recommending the database for inclusion in the search template, focusing on the specific value of the content and search features of the database.


• Accessibility - The database/resource must be publicly available. Indicate if there are any restrictions on hours of availability. USPTO must be able to obtain full-text copies of the cited art. The full-text must also be accessible to applicants.


• Technical support - Availability of technical support and hours of availability.


• Continuity - Describe the database policy on maintaining backfile data.


• Mode of Access - e.g. online, web-based, stand-alone system.

Removal of Resources - The public can also suggest that resources be removed from the templates. In this case, the recommender should indicate reasons for removal that focus on coverage, search features, or accessibility.

Updating the Search Templates

The Office will provide periodic updates on the number of published search templates available and the status of the evaluation of public comments. The templates will be updated twice a year.

The search templates will continue to evolve as technologies and search tools evolve. The public will have an ongoing opportunity to comment on how to improve the templates. This process may require several iterations before there is general agreement on the contents of the search templates.

Notice Regarding Certain Requests for Extension of Protection Under Trademark Act § 66(a)

 

Notice Regarding Certain Requests for Extension of Protection Under Trademark Act § 66(a)

Pursuant to Trademark Act § 68(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1141h(c)(1), the USPTO must, within 18 months of the date a request for extension of protection is transmitted to the USPTO, send to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization notice of: (A) a refusal of registration based on examination of the request; (B) an opposition to registration; or (C) the possibility that an opposition may be filed after the conclusion of the 18-month period. If a notice under either subsection (B) or (C) is not sent within the 18-month period, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may not entertain an opposition to registration, and “the Director shall issue a certificate of extension of protection pursuant to the request.” Trademark Act § 68(c)(4), 15 U.S.C. § 1141h(d)(4).

The notice required under § 68(c)(1)(C), 15 U.S.C. § 1141h(c)(1)(C), was inadvertently not sent with respect to a number of requests for extension of protection, which are listed below by serial number. Because in each case more than 18 months has passed since transmission of the request for extension of protection to the USPTO, no opposition or extension of time to oppose may be considered, and if filed, will be dismissed. The USPTO will promptly issue a certificate of protection with respect to the listed requests.

Affected parties are not precluded from filing a petition for cancellation of the certificate of protection, if otherwise appropriate.

79000003	79000836	79001205	79001571
79000022	79000924	79001288	79001576
79000233	79000972	79001346	79001620
79000242	79000987	79001393	79001634
79000297	79001011	79001409	79001635
79000443	79001024	79001438	79001642
79000522	79001025	79001471	79001646
79000534	79001037	79001530	79001658
79000546	79001047	79001551	79001666
79000552	79001048	79001560	79001679
79000584	79001129	79001561	79001680
79000756	79001179	79001568	79001687
79001688

United States and Australian Patent Offices Launch Pilot Project on International Search and Examination Services

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at November 6, 2005 11:07 AM

 United States and Australian Patent Offices Launch Pilot Project on International Search and Examination Services
Pilot part of USPTO effort to reduce backlog of U.S. national patent applications

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and IP Australia, Australia ’s national patent office, has initiated a pilot project to test the feasibility of IP Australia performing search and examination services for the USPTO on international applications filed with the USPTO under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

The pilot, launched last week, is part of ongoing USPTO efforts to bring down the growing backlog of U.S. national patent applications waiting to be examined.

Each year, the USPTO receives nearly 50,000 PCT international applications in addition to over 350,000 national applications. The USPTO is testing whether, by having international applications processed elsewhere, it can dedicate more resources to examining the 600,000 national applications currently in the pipeline, with the goal of increasing productivity and enhancing quality.

Under the terms of the pilot project, IP Australia will process 100 PCT applications covering a wide range of technologies. The USPTO will review IP Australia’s work to ensure that it meets USPTO standards for quality and accuracy.

“Efficient and high quality government operations are cornerstones of the President’s Management Agenda and guiding principles for this effort,” said Jon Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. “A large backlog is bad for U.S. innovation and bad for the U.S. economy. The ability to reallocate resources from PCT-related activities to search and examination of U.S. national applications will allow us to open another front in our battle to reduce our growing backlog.”

Explaining the benefits of the project for his office, IP Australia Director General Dr. Ian Heath noted that “by assisting the USPTO to process applications filed under the PCT, IP Australia will continue to move towards its vision of being an office of choice.” “This opportunity also provides a means for enhancing our international reputation as a quality International Search and Preliminary Examination Authority under the PCT, providing world-class intellectual property services which promote innovation, investment and international competitiveness for the benefit of all Australians,” Dr. Heath said.

The PCT is an international agreement that simplifies the filing of patent applications in its 128 member states. A PCT application may be used as a national application for a patent in any of the designated PCT countries. International applicants request PCT search and examination reports to help them determine if an application meets basic patent criteria before committing to the high cost of translating and filing an application in one or more PCT countries. The USPTO and IP Australia are among the national patent offices authorized to conduct PCT searches and examinations.

The pilot project tracks recommendations in the USPTO “21st Century Strategic Plan” and builds on the long history of cooperation between the the USPTO and IP Australia.

Trademark News and Notices via E-mail

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 3, 2005 12:23 PM

Earlier today we had a reader point out that we didn't provide an easy way to subscribe to the Trademark News and Notices feed via email. To remedy that we created a subscription box which we'll have to incorporate into the border:

Enter your Email





Powered by FeedBlitz

You can also directly access that Trademark Feed sign up form by going to this URL: http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=7256

While I'm at it, here are our Patent Lawsuit email subscription feed and our All USPTO News email subscription feed.

As always, please forward this to any of your colleagues who would find it useful.

Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (2005.11.01)

Posted by Stephen M. Nipper at November 1, 2005 10:50 AM

Cases filed since October 1, 2005 (updated).

Please forward this to anyone you think would find it useful. 

Subscription information can be found here:  http://www.rethinkip.com/archives/rss_email_patent_lawsuit_filing_notices.html

Ablaise Ltd et al v. CDW Corporation 
ilndce 
1:2005cv05799 
10/7/2005

Advanced Card Technologies LLC v. Taylor Corporation et al 
okwdce 
5:2005cv01262 
10/31/2005

Albemarle Corporation v. Chemtura Corporation et al 
lamdce 
3:2005cv01239 
10/25/2005

Altair Instruments Inc v. UBS Aesthetics Inc et al 
cacdce 
2:2005cv07427 
10/14/2005

Andrews McMeel Publishing v. Tara Toy Corp. 
codce 
1:2005cv02161 
10/26/2005

Armanno v. Puricle Incorporated et al 
mddce 
1:2005cv02904 
10/24/2005

Astrazeneca AB et al v. K V Pharmaceuticals 
moedce 
4:2005cv01948 
10/21/2005

AstraZeneca AB v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
nysdce 
1:2005cv09089 
10/25/2005

ASTRAZENECA LP et al v. IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
njdce 
1:2005cv05142 
10/26/2005

Biolucent Inc v. Contour Fabricators et al 
cacdce 
8:2005cv01023 
10/18/2005

Bionix Development Corporation v. Shoney Scientific Inc et al 
wiedce 
2:2005cv01117 
10/20/2005

Biovail Laboratories International SRL v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals LLC et al 
dedce 
1:2005cv00730
10/14/2005

Britesmile Development, Inc. v. Discus Dental Inc. 
candce 
3:2005cv04397 
10/28/2005

Brunswick Bowling and Billiards Corporation v. Qubica USA, Inc. 
flmdce 
6:2005cv01586 
10/20/2005

Brunswick Bowling and Billiards Corporation v. Qubica USA, Inc. 
flmdce 
2:2005cv00510 
10/20/2005

CARDEL CORPORATION v. OPENTECH ALLIANCE, INC. et al 
paedce 
2:2005cv05563 
10/25/2005

Celerity, Inc. v. Ultra Clean Holding Inc. et al 
candce 
3:2005cv04374 
10/27/2005

Craig Fazekas v. Pacific Golf Accessories et al 
cacdce 
8:2005cv01017 
10/14/2005

Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation et al 
dedce 
1:2005cv00737 
10/21/2005

Eastman et al v. Ameristep Blinds, Incorporated et al 
miedce 
2:2005cv74089 
10/25/2005

EUROPEAN NATURAL vs. BEDROCK CREATIONS 
casdc 
3:2005cv02023 
10/26/2005

EXTREME DIMENSION WILDLIFE CALLS LLC v. HUNTER'S SPECIALTIES INC 
medce 
1:2005cv00161 
10/24/2005

First Act Inc. v. Kids Station (U.S.) Incorporated 
madce 
1:2005cv12114 
10/24/2005

Hypertherm, Inc. v. American Torch Tip Company 
nhdce 
1:2005cv00373 
10/21/2005

Intersil Americas Inc v. Soitec S A et al 
txedce 
6:2005cv00405 
10/27/2005

Itex, Inc. et al v. Westex, Inc. 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06110 
10/24/2005

Kamatics Corp v. Niagara Composites Indus Inc 
ctdce 
3:2005cv01648 
10/24/2005

KOWALSKI vs. ANGEL SEAFOOD CORP 
hidc 
1:2005cv00678 
10/26/2005

KOWALSKI vs. MOMMY GINA TUNA RESO 
hidc 
1:2005cv00679 
10/26/2005

KOWALSKI vs. OCEAN CORPORATION
hidc 
1:2005cv00680 
10/26/2005

MCQUEEN v. WOODSTREAM CORPORATION 
dcdce 
1:2005cv02068 
10/21/2005

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc et al 
azdce 
2:2005cv03458
10/27/2005

Mentor Group, LLC v. Randall King Knives, Inc. et al 
ordce 
3:2005cv01640 
10/28/2005

Monsanto Company v. Lee et al 
iasdce 
4:2005cv00597 
10/28/2005

MRSI International v. Bluespan
utdce
2:2005cv00896 
10/28/2005

NCR Corporation v. Avon Products, Inc. 
nysdce 
1:2005cv08982 
10/21/2005

Patent Category Corporation v. Home Depot USA Inc 
cacdce 
2:2005cv07616 
10/24/2005

PATIENTS NOT PATENTS, INC. v. PROTHERA, INC. 
dcdce 
1:2005cv02058 
10/19/2005

PAVILION TECHNOLOGIE vs. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. 
txwdc
1:2005cv00898 
10/21/2005

Prokop International et al v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company et al 
okwdce 
5:2005cv01249 
10/27/2005

Reinalt-Thomas Corporation vs. Acacia Research Corporation, et al. 
azdce 
2:2005cv03459 
10/27/2005

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P., v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated; et al
txedce
2:2005cv00491 
10/21/2005

Rita Medial Systems, Inc. v. Medshphere International, Inc. 
candce 
5:2005cv04278 
10/21/2005

SCHONBEK WORLDWIDE LIGHTING INC., v. FURNITURE GALLERY IMPORTS, INC. et al 
njdce 
3:2005cv05139
10/25/2005

Sensitech, Inc. v. Kvenvold et al 
madce 
1:2005cv12142 
10/26/2005

Sepracor Inc. v. Breath Limited 
lndce 
1:2005cv06095 
10/21/2005

Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc.
candce 
3:2005cv04243 
10/19/2005

Technology Properties Limitied, Inc., v. Fujitsu Limited et al 
txedce 
2:2005cv00494 
10/24/2005

Test Advantage, Inc. 
azdce 
2:2005at03203 
10/25/2005

Test Advantage, Inc. v. Tabor et al 
azdce 
2:2005cv03392 
10/25/2005

The E.H. Wachs Company v. Hurco Technologies, Inc. 
ilndce 
1:2005cv06181 
10/26/2005

Tigercat Industries Inc. v. Deere & Company 
nywdce 
1:2005cv00761 
10/24/2005

Tropos Networks Inc v. IPCO LLC et al 
candce 
3:2005cv04281 
10/21/2005

TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation 
dedce 
1:2005cv00747 
10/25/2005

VIS Racing Sports Inc v. Extreme Dimensions Inc et al 
cacdce 
2:2005cv07552 
10/20/2005