ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> IP Dragon

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: IP Dragon

WorkTools: "We Won Judgement But it Did No Good"

ADVERTISEMENTS
Yesterday I blogged about an interview on WorkTools' patent challenges in Taiwan and China, read here.

I was like Mr Stan Abrams of China Hearsay, who came up with some interesting suggestions here, very interested to know the real answer. So I asked Mr Mike Marks by email who came up with some very interesting and elaborate answers and is also referring the answer to his partner Brad Golstein, who manages WorkTools' IP for more detail:

1. How is it possible that although you won at court in Taiwan it really did no good whatsoever? Was it the enforcement of the judgement that did not work? Or did Taiwanese infringers continue under a different name?
2. Why don't you publish your Chinese and Taiwanese patents online?

Mr Mike Marks' answer:
"My recollection is that we won our case in Taiwan but the penalty was so minor that it was meaningless. We should publish ALL of our patents online, both US and International, including Taiwan and China. Thanks for the push. I have some updating to do on the website!"

"On another note, one thing we've seen from Taiwan and China are companies that pursue and receive patents on top of our patents. Example: Company-1 has a patent on a pneumatic tire. Company-2 gets a patent on a pneumatic tire that's filled with a mixture of 1/3 helium and 2/3 nitrogen. Company-2 can't use its patent without violating the patent of Company-1, but Company-2 can claim "patented". Company-2 presents its claim to retailers to make them feel comfortable buying Company-2's tire. Now Company 1 must educate retailers that Company-2 is selling a patent-infringing pneumatic tire, that the patented "improvement" does not give Company-2 any meaningful rights. In short: Company-1 can prevent Company-2 from making and selling ANY pneumatic tire. Company-2 can prevent Company-1 from making a version of pmeumatic tire."

Mike Marks
http://worktools.com/
http://inventioncity.com/

Full post as published by IP Dragon on March 20, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.002 secs (from cache 10/31/26 10:49:10)