[Updated 18, 21, 24 April 2009, and 7 May] - I suggest you read this in conjunction with the excellent 21 April piece from Michael Feldstein, and this piece by Jeff Bohrer.]
18/4/2009 update. Yesterday,
the US Patent Office, which has been
re-examining US Patent 6,988,138 since early last year in response to
inter partes and ex parte applications from Desire2Learn and the
Software Freedom Law Centre, issued a non-final "Action Closing Prosecution" rejecting the whole of that patent.
Blackboard now has one month in which to respond, and assuming (which I
don't) that any such representations have no effect on the results of the Patent
Office's re-examination of the patent, it would then be open to Blackboard to appeal against the
final results of the re-examination through the US courts.
Will Blackboard be exercised by this development? I'm happy to stand corrected on issues that are not in my area of expertise, but my
instinct tells me that Blackboard may not be too fussed about the
non-final action by the US Patent Office. This is because the company's new US Patent 7,493,396 [PDF] (see relevant section of 10 April round-up below):
- incorporates Patent 6,988,138 in its entirety;
- includes in its "Other References" section a comprehensive
list of most if not all of the "prior art" cited in Desire2Learn and the
Software Freedom Law Centre's re-examination requests on 6,988,138, and by
Desire2Learn in its appeal against Blackboard Inc.'s successful infringement case, and in Desire2Learn's original defence (even the Sheffield-based EU Framework 4 Renaissance Project, in which
I and several readers of Fortnightly Mailing were involved in 1996ish,
gets referenced).
Provided the US Patent Office got its teeth into the the listed prior art (which I'm told Blackboard would have been required to cite in its application) and came to a proper judgement that it did not affect the validity of the claims in the patent, then the new patent will be tougher to challenge than if the Patent Office has only considered the prior art superficially, if at all.
Is it sufficient to entitle citizens to a 2 megabits per second Internet connection?
Posted on 18/04/2009 in News and comment | Permalink | Comments (0)
|