●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, February 23, 2025 ●● ● Feb 23 [02:46] *frontin has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) ● Feb 23 [03:15] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [03:17] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 23 [05:47] schestowitz[TR2] "Calling Python from C# using Python.NET" [05:47] schestowitz[TR2] # needles say, that R-Bloggers post should not be linked to ● Feb 23 [09:14] *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [09:14] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes [09:14] *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [09:14] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@jcfiaarnjjqje.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 23 [10:23] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [10:24] *frontin (~haver@freenode-drv.aab.2jssns.IP) has joined #techbytes [10:27] schestowitz[TR2] very good [10:28] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 23 [11:50] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [11:50] schestowitz[TR2]
    SiFive's HiFive Premier P550 is a strange, powerful RISC-V board
    [11:50] schestowitz[TR2]
    [11:50] schestowitz[TR2]

    But it's very much a board I think you should be interested in.

    [11:50] schestowitz[TR2]

    Why? Because more than twice as fast as the first RISC-V SBC I tested, the VisionFive 2. And the new Framework RISC-V Mainboard? It uses the same JH7110 SoC as the VisionFive 2, so it's also left in the dust. It's even faster than the Milk-V Jupiter with it's 8-core Spacemit M1 I tested last year, using half the CPU cores at a lower clock speed (1.4 vs 1.8 GHz)!

    [11:50] schestowitz[TR2]
    [11:50] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [11:50] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.jeffgeerling.com | SiFive's HiFive Premier P550 is a strange, powerful RISC-V board | Jeff Geerling ● Feb 23 [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-description-of-patent-should-always.html?showComment=1740246545773#c8901294039032432033 [13:30] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The description of a patent should "always" be used to interpret the claims (DexCom vs. Abbott, UPC_CFI_230/2023) - The IPKat [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] "That the CoA states that the description should be taken into account when interpreting the claims does not come as a surprise. In view of its chairperson, who comes from the German Federal Court, where this is standard practice, known under Auslegung, something else would not have been expected. It is thus not surprising that the CD Section Paris took the same position.

    The opposition had indeed been rejected an [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] d no appeal was filed. The opponent at the EPO was defendant 2 in the UPC case. In view of the litigation pending in Germany, the intervener at the EPO was defendant 8 in the UPC case,

    The part of the reasoning on added matter is similar to that of the OD.

    Before the OD, lack of inventive step was argued over US 015/0205947= D14op=D1upc +common general knowledge or, US 2015/0038818=D2op=D2upc + common general [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] knowledge as well as US 2011/0213225=D7op=D3upc + common general knowledge. A further line of attack was over US2014/266785=D4op + D2op=D2upc or + D7op=D3upc or + D14op=D1upc.

    The UPC decided that claim 1 as granted lacked IS over US 015/0205947= D14op=D1upc +common general knowledge.

    As the OD rejected the opposition, none of the 27 auxiliary requests filed in opposition by the UPC claimant were discussed a [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] t the EPO. The two auxiliary requests filed before the UPC have not been checked against the 27 auxiliary requests filed at the EPO. Those 27 auxiliary requests could be considered as having been admissibly raised, and would most probably have to de used in a possible appeal.

    Knowing that 70% of decisions of ODs are set aside by the boards, and that after appeal, only 15% of patents survive an opposition, but 50% are rev [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] oked, it could have been worth for the opponent and the intervener to appeal the ODs decision which was so to say set aside by the UPC CD.

    It can be expected that an appeal will be filed by the claimant, and only after the appeal we will know the fate of EP3435866.

    Whatever G 1/24 brings, it is to be hoped that leaving a different possible interpretation of claimed features in the description, especially [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] a more limited one, compared to that in the claim, should not any longer be tolerated at the EPO.

    It is also to be hoped that in G 1/24, the EBA will follow what it said in G 2/12 and does not abolish the notion of directly and unambiguously derivable set out in G 2/10 and G 2/98." [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-description-of-patent-should-always.html?showComment=1740236796568#c2653124749190165216 [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] "I agree with the first "anonymous". I t...
    I agree with the first "anonymous". I think they are just saying that you need to look at it on a case-by-case basis - there's rarely a one-size fits all approach when it comes to patents. Sometimes a description amendment might be useful, sometimes it might not. Obviously tinkering with the meanings of terms in the description is risky, but no [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] one seems to be suggesting doing that. I'm also not sure the US approach of leaving the description untouched is necessarily the right model for Europe - in the US, they've developed their long line of case law to take into account the amendments and arguments that were made in exam (file wrapper estoppel and all that). That's an alternative in some ways to just amending the description and ending up with a self-contained patent [13:30] schestowitz[TR2] monopoly that makes sense as a standalone document." [13:30] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The description of a patent should "always" be used to interpret the claims (DexCom vs. Abbott, UPC_CFI_230/2023) - The IPKat [13:31] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-benefits-and-pitfalls-of-drug.html?showComment=1740223517805#c3769662632043127828 [13:31] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The benefits and pitfalls of drug manufacturing IP (T 2543/22) - The IPKat [13:31] schestowitz[TR2] "It does not seem correct to say that the opponent was anonymous. The opponent was a Danish firm of patent monopoly representatives. An anonymous opposition is by no means admissible.

    It is however the case that the real opponent wanted to remain anonymous.

    Since G 4/97, OJ 1999, 270, filing an opposition on behalf of a third party is perfectly legal.

    Why is it a pitfall when a method of manufact [13:31] schestowitz[TR2] uring is patented, and gives the possibility to find turn-arounds?

    Is it not the essence of the whole patent monopoly system to obtain a temporary monopoly in exchange for a technical disclosure in order.

    For example looking at tiotropium bromide, the manufacture of which is rather delicate, the company behind it, has managed to keep its monopoly well beyond the life span of the product patent. Inhalers for t [13:31] schestowitz[TR2] iotropium bromide have changed over years, but tiotropium bromide is still only sold by the same company. " [13:31] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-description-of-patent-should-always.html?showComment=1740218144648#c1264449730514306876 [13:31] schestowitz[TR2] "Note the guardrail against a narrowing interpretation based on the description, laid out in the recent decision LD Dsseldorf 355/2023 28 January 2025 Fuji v Kodak :
    Headnote 2.
    "The terms used in a claim should normally be given their broadest technically sensible meaning in the context of the claim in which they appear. Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol do not provide a justification for excluding what is literally c [13:31] schestowitz[TR2] overed by the terms of the claims by a narrowing claim construction based on the description or the drawings. A narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by a skilled person can only be permitted if there are convincing reasons based on the circumstances of the individual case in question."

    The broadest technically sensible meaning (w [13:31] schestowitz[TR2] ell settled in the EPO case law) is the claim interpretation rule which reflects the primacy of the claims. It precludes reading into a claim a feature only disclosed in the description." [13:31] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The description of a patent should "always" be used to interpret the claims (DexCom vs. Abbott, UPC_CFI_230/2023) - The IPKat ● Feb 23 [14:43] *psydroid3 (~psydroid@8p6k6zizq5nqc.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 23 [15:35] *psydruid has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Feb 23 [16:53] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 23 [17:02] *psydruid has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [17:19] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:22] *psydruid has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [17:56] *psydroid3 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.6 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/) ● Feb 23 [18:12] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 23 [21:48] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:52] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Feb 23 [22:44] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes