[Owasp-leaders] Owasp Inquiry on "Cenzic patent on 'Fault injection methods and apparatus' "
jim.manico at owasp.org
Fri Feb 18 16:58:08 EST 2011
>From an "almost Lawyer"
First I want to preface this with a disclaimer. Although I have graduated
from Lincoln Law School of San Jose. I am not a lawyer. To get adequate
advice I recommend seeking council of a licensed attorney.
After skimming the MPEP, there are two direct means to challenge a patent.
Inter parte and ex parte reexamination. Prior art is used as evidence that
claims in a patent invalid due to novelty, non-obviousness, or violated a
statuory bar. Prior art in reexaminations is limited to prior patents or
printed publications. There are also specific procedures which need to be
followed when submitting prior art including serving the patent holder with
a copy of the prior art.
The specific details are in MPEP section 2200-.
It probably would be a good idea to gather as much prior art using the
"community" before making the formal request for inter parte or ex parte
> Funny old world.....
> Sent from my HTC hero.
> owasp board member
> On 18 Feb 2011 15:14, "Mark Curphey" <mark at curphey.com> wrote:
> Pure FYI and not that it has any relevance whatsoever to this but cenzic
> was founded by HB Gary (Penny and Greg). Hmmmm.
> Sent from my Phone
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:30 AM, "Eoin" <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>> Who on the list uses Cenzic?
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
More information about the OWASP-Leaders