Patent Law

Rutabaga

By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn

Samy Gharb fell off the turnip truck and wandered into the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. After having his patent assertion against Unitronics squashed flatter than hammered shit, including "a permanent injunction to preclude Gharb from threatening Unitronics and its customers with infringement litigation," Gharb, unable to read the legal dictum on the wall, appealed.

Unitronics v. Samy Gharb (CAFC 2008-1442)

Gharb's 6,552,654, "Security system with a mobile telephone," was the blunt instrument. The snicker from the CAFC panel: "Gharb's belief... is premised on an incorrect understanding of the law," namely, that infringement requires something less than meeting all limitations of an asserted claim.

None of the evidence put forward by Gharb shows that any Unitronics product contains the "digital recording device having at least one emergency message" or its equivalent, or the "data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information" or its equivalent, of the claimed security system. We find no evidence in the record suggesting that Unitronics made or sold any type of security system at all.

Denial is the longest river....

Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on December 04, 2008 (boomark / email).