Media Mentions
2008
Paul Devinsky was quoted in the May 15 issue of IP Law360 in an article regarding Professor John F. Duffy's claim that patent appeals judges may have been unconstitutionally appointed since 2000. Mr. Devinsky noted, however, that although this throws into question any decision made by judges appointed since early 2000, few cases will have the information needed to push the issue forward. "It's not like there's this mushroom cloud on the horizon. We're not going to see a widespread number of cases where this is going to come up," Mr. Devinsky said.
Paul Devinsky, Patent Prosecution
Paul Devinsky was quoted in the May 1 issue of CFO Magazine in an article regarding whether business-process methods should be protected by patent law. On May 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear In Re Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw and may deliver a decision that clarifies where to draw the line on patentable subject matter. Mr. Devinsky noted, however, that if Bilski doesn’t decide the matter, the business-method patent issue will be "all teed up for the Supreme Court."
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Litigation - IP, Media & Tech, Patent Prosecution
Paul Devinsky was quoted extensively in the January 2008 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics in an article regarding sublicensing strategies for tech transfer offices. Click here to access the full text article.
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Licensing
2007
Paul Devinsky was quoted in a September 11 article by Technology Daily regarding patent holding firm NTP's decision to sue several of the nation's largest wireless carriers for alleged patent infringement. Mr. Devinsky's prediction is that the defendants would move for an immediate stay pending conclusion of the re-examination and that the stay would be granted. He suggested that NTP may be concerned about pending patent litigation on Capitol Hill and that NTP "is seeking to be certain their damage claim is calculated under the current statute."
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Litigation - IP, Media & Tech, Patent Prosecution
Paul Devinsky was quoted in the May issue of ABA Journal regarding the issues behind patenting tax strategies. Mr. Devinsky states, “If you think a patent claim is invalid, you have to get your patent attorney involved and get an opinion of counsel stating that the claim is invalid—which is one of the best ways to protect yourself...." “That’s a pretty big deal every time you want to file a tax return for a major client.”
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Patent Prosecution, Trademark/Brand Protection & Enforcement
Paul Devinsky was quoted by Reuters on January 9 in regard to the Supreme Court's decision in favor of MedImmune. Mr. Devinsky commented that the decision could prompt patent owners to put conditions in their licenses that trigger immediate termination when a patent's validity is challenged.
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology
2006
On October 25 on AccountingWEB.com, an article on the patenting of tax strategies references the article, "Whose Tax Law Is It?" by Paul Devinsky, John Fuisz and Thomas Sykes published in the October 16 issue of Legal Times. The article references the authors' statement that tax patents could lead to unequal treatment under the tax code, becoming "government issued barbed wire" for some taxpayers.
Paul Devinsky, John R. Fuisz, Thomas D. Sykes, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Tax
On Friday, October 20, the front page of The New York Times business section included an article on the patenting of tax strategies with a significant reference to the article, "Whose Tax Law Is It?" by Paul Devinsky, John Fuisz and Thomas Sykes published in October 16 issue of Legal Times. The Times article also said when asked what John thought Congress would do he said action was possible, recalling that six years ago doctors got Congress to protect them from patent infringement suits over surgical techniques. This article also appeared in the International Herald Tribune on October 19 and the Kansas City Star on October 25.
Paul Devinsky, John R. Fuisz, Thomas D. Sykes, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Tax
Paul Devinsky was quoted by Globe and Mail on April 11 regarding China Unicom Ltd.’s. new push mail service called "RedBerry" and its possible trademark infringement of the "BlackBerry" name. Mr. Devinsky commented that the consumers' likelihood of confusion would be strong enough for Research in Motion (RIM) to have a persuasive case. Mr. Devinsky also said "RIM's position would probably be enhanced in a Chinese court if China Mobile joined any action against RedBerry. Ultimately, any legal fight would hinge on who registered the trademark and service mark for BlackBerry first in China…"
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Litigation - IP, Media & Tech
Paul Devinsky was quoted in the Friday, March 3 release of IPLaw 360 following the Research in Motion (RIM) settlement with NTP, Inc. Mr. Devinsky stated, ""This settlement is not unexpected. Judge Spencer's insistence that he would soon issue a judgment and his impatience that an agreement had not yet been made were clear indicators that the parties needed to come to a business resolution."
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology
Paul Devinsky was quoted in The Globe and Mail on February 25 regarding the Blackberry case and stated, "RIM should go gung-ho and implement its design around and be done with it, or it should settle...". "Obviously, there are huge egos at play here on both sides."
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology
Paul Devinsky was quoted by the National Journal's Technology Daily on January 23 in the article, "Supreme Court Declines Review of Blackberry Dispute." Mr. Devinksy commented, "Basically, RIM has to figure out a way of either getting [U.S. District] Judge [James] Spencer to issue his injunction, and put it on stay pending Patent and Trademark Office developments, or they're going to have to settle..."
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Litigation - IP, Media & Tech
2005
Paul Devinsky was quoted in the December 1 issue of the Globe and Mail regarding the Research in Motion intellectual property litigation. Paul commented that the best legal strategy would be to remove any claims of infringement from the start.
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology
2004
Ray Lupo and Paul Devinsky were quoted in the National Law Journal on February 9 on the Federal Circuit's shifting views on how to define the words or claims that describe the scope of a patent. In Texas Digital Systems it ruled that dictionary definitions are the first source for construing the meaning of a claim. "The court backed off on Texas Digital," commented Mr. Lupo. It has tried to harmonize Texas digital with a 1996 decision (Vitronics) where it established tools courts should use to evaluate claim constructions. In the Vitronics decision specifications in the patent were considered the most important tool. "In Judge Richard Linn's view, you go to the dictionary first, and only if the specification is inconsistent with the dictionary need it be considered," commented Mr. Devinsky. "In Judge Michel's view, the specification has to be consulted in every claim construction."
Paul Devinsky, Raphael V. Lupo, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology, Litigation - IP, Media & Tech
2003
Paul Devinsky was quoted in the February 21 issue of Hedge World in regard to the Sandor Document dispute, and explaining the two types of prior art defenses, anticipation and obviousness, in U.S. patent litigation. Mr. Devinsky outlined that anticipation requires a single piece of prior art that teaches everything within the scope of the plaintiff's patent claims.
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology
2002
Paul Devinsky was quoted in the November 16 issue of International Financing Review regarding the newest U.S. patent law which provides a right of appeal in patent re-examination proceedings. Mr. Devinsky commented on business method patents and the inability to local "prior art," in previous business method patent filings.
Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property, Media & Technology
Paul Devinsky was quoted in the September 5 issue of Financial Times regarding a 30-year old document, unearthed in a Chicago basement that could provide evidence of "prior art" in an electronic trading patent dispute. Mr. Devinsky commented that if the document is prior art, the Wagner patent, which registered the idea of electronic trading for commodity futures in 1990 could be invalid.
