MyPatentCourse and Inventions

Tristar Products Vs Penn 2:17-cv-02067 Filed: 03/29/2017  http://www.mypatentcourse.com/lawsuit-updates/ D778664S1 Pan 01/24/2016 D772641S1 Pan 01/24/2016 D777506S1 Round Pan 01/24/2016 D778103S1 Pan 01/24/2016 Plaintiff: TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC. Defendant: PENN LLC and PULSE DIRECT, INC. Case Number: 2:2017cv02067 Filed: March 29, 2017 Court: New Jersey District Court Office: Newark Office County: Atlantic Nature of Suit: Patent Cause of Action: 35:271 Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff Penn LLC Penn LLC Pulse Direct, Inc. 2:17-cv-02067 03/29/2017 Ocean State Jobbers Incorporated Ocean State Jobbers Incorporated 2:17-cv-01767 03/16/2017 Zhejiang Cooker King Cooker Co.,... Zhejiang Cooker King Cooker Co.,... 2:17-cv-01767 03/16/2017 Telebrands Corporation Telebrands Corporation Bulbhead.com, LLC 1:17-cv-01206 02/21/2017 E. Mishan & Sons E Mishan and Sons Incorporated 1:17-cv-01204 02/21/2017 TV Direct LLC TV Direct LLC 1:17-cv-00060 02/15/20

Team Worldwide Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al Plaintiff: Team Worldwide Corporation Defendant: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, Wal-Mart.com USA LLC and Sams West, Inc. d/b/a Sams Club Case Number: 2:2017cv00235 Filed: March 29, 2017 Court: Texas Eastern District Court Office: Marshall Office County: Anderson Nature of Suit: Patent Cause of Action: 35:271 Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff http://www.mypatentcourse.com/lawsuit-updates/ US 7,346,950 B2 Inflatable Product Provided With Electric Air Pump 06/22/2001 US 7,246,394 B2 Inflatable Product With Built In Housing And Switching Pipe 06/22/2001 US 9,211,018 B2 Inflatable Airbed Provided With Electric Pump Having Pump Body Recessed Into The Inflatable Airbed 04/04/2000 US 6,793,469 B2 Inflatable Product Equipped With Pump 04/04/2000

Orbit Irrigation Products v. Melnor 1:17-cv-00046 Filed: 03/28/2017 D782340S1 Timer 02/03/2016 http://www.mypatentcourse.com/lawsuit-updates/ Orbit Irrigation Products v. Melnor Plaintiff:   Orbit Irrigation Products Defendant:   Melnor Case Number:   1:2017cv00046 Filed:   March 28, 2017 Court:   Utah District Court Office:   Northern Office County:   Davis Presiding Judge:   Dustin B. Pead Nature of Suit:   Patent Cause of Action:   35:0271 Jury Demanded By:   Plaintiff

Yardstash Solutions, LLC v. Marketfleet, Inc. et al Plaintiff:   Yardstash Solutions, LLC Defendant:   Marketfleet, Inc. and Does 1 through 25 Case Number:   3:2017cv00625 Filed:   March 28, 2017 Court:   California Southern District Court Office:   San Diego Office County:   San Diego Presiding Judge:   Gonzalo P. Curiel Referring Judge:   Mitchell D. Dembin Nature of Suit:   Patent Cause of Action:   28:1338 Jury Demanded By:   Plaintiff https://twitter.com/MyPatentCourse/status/847505147357937666

IPS Group, Inc. v. Civicsmart, Inc. et al 3:17-cv-00632 Filed: 03/29/2017 US 8,749,403 B2 Parking Meter Communications For Remote Payment With Updated Display 09/04/2009 US 9,424,691 B2 Parking Meter Communications For Remote Payment With Updated Display 09/04/2009 US 9,391,474 B2 Power Supply Unit 03/31/2008 US 8,513,832 B2 Power Supply Unit 03/31/2008 US 7,854,310 B2 Parking Meter 02/25/2008 US 8,595,054 B2 Parking Meter And A Device Therefor 12/04/2006 IPS Group, Inc. v. Civicsmart, Inc. et al Plaintiff:   IPS Group, Inc. Defendant:   Civicsmart, Inc., Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. and Duncan Solutions, Inc. Case Number:   3:2017cv00632 Filed:   March 29, 2017 Court:   California Southern District Court Office:   San Diego Office County:   San Diego Presiding Judge:   Anthony J. Battaglia Referring Judge:   Nita L. Stormes Nature of Suit:   Patent Cause of Action:   28:1338 Jury Demanded By:   Plaintiff parking meter of the future

35 U.S.C. 112  SPECIFICATION http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/112.html (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. (c) FORM.—A claim may be written in independent or, if the nature of the case admits, in dependent or multiple dependent form. (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and the

Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997) citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The Examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976). “Although the applicant does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In r