[Discussioni] Fwd: [Patents] Pubpat Kills JPEG Patent

[Alessandro Rubini]

> From: Seth Johnson
> To: [...], patents aful.org [...]
> Subject: [Patents] Pubpat Kills JPEG Patent
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:21:12 -0400

> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: PUBPAT News: PATENT ASSERTED AGAINST JPEG STANDARD
> REJECTED BY PATENTOFFICE AS RESULT OF PUBPAT REQUEST
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 07:08:56 -0400
> From: Public Patent Foundation <info-pubpat.org>
> To: PUBPAT News List <news-pubpat.org>
> 
> PATENT ASSERTED AGAINST JPEG STANDARD REJECTED BY PATENT OFFICE
> AS RESULT OF PUBPAT REQUEST: Public Interest Group's Review
> Results in Broadest Claims of Forgent Networks Patent Being Ruled
> Invalid
> 
> NEW YORK -- May 26, 2006 -- In the reexamination proceeding
> initiated late last year by the Public Patent Foundation
> ("PUBPAT"), the United States Patent and Trademark Office has
> rejected the broadest claims of the patent Forgent Networks
> (Nasdaq: FORG) is asserting against the Joint Photographic
> Experts Group (JPEG) international standard for the electronic
> sharing of photo-quality images. In its Office Action released
> yesterday, the Patent Office found that the prior art submitted
> by PUBPAT completely anticipated the broadest claims of the
> patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,698,672 (the '672 Patent).
> 
> Forgent Networks acquired the '672 Patent through the purchase of
> Compression Labs, Inc. in 1997 and began aggressively asserting
> it against the JPEG standard through lawsuits and the media in
> 2004. The company has the opportunity to respond to the Patent
> Office's rejection, but third party requests for reexamination,
> like the one filed by PUBPAT, result in having the subject patent
> either modified or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.
> 
> "The Patent Office has agreed with our conclusion that it would
> have never granted Forgent Networks' '672 patent had it been
> aware of the prior art that we uncovered and submitted to them,"
> said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director.  "Making matters
> worse here is that this new prior art was known by those who
> filed the application that led to the '672 patent, but none of
> them told the Patent Office about it, despite their duty to do
> so."
> 
> More information about the reexamination the Forgent Networks
> patent being asserted against the JPEG standard, including a copy
> of the Patent Office's Office Action rejecting its broadest
> claims, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm.
> 
> Contact:
> 
> Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director
> Public Patent Foundation
> (212) 796-0570
> info-pubpat.org
> 
> About PUBPAT:
> 
> The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal
> services organization working to protect the public from the
> harms caused by the patent system, particularly the harms caused
> by wrongly issued patents and unsound patent policy.  To be kept
> informed of PUBPAT News, subscribe to the PUBPAT News List by
> sending an email with "subscribe" in the subject line to
> news-request-pubpat.org.  To be removed from the PUBPAT News
> List, send an email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line to
> news-request-pubpat.org.
> 
> ###
> 
> 
> -- 
> Subscription management: http://www2.aful.org/wws