[Owasp-leaders] Owasp Inquiry on "Cenzic patent on 'Fault injection methods and apparatus' "

Abraham Kang abraham.kang at owasp.org
Fri Feb 18 19:21:46 EST 2011

DISCLAIMER:  I am not a lawyer.  OWASP needs to seek council of a licensed
attorney.  Any opinions stated here are of a student from an academic

After reviewing all of the comments.

I have a strong feeling that the companies that are being sued will be
putting forth the corresponding arguements to fight the Cenzic patent.

Patent defense is usually a costly endeavor (legal fees, experts, etc.).  I
feel that OWASP should stay out of the fight against the Cenzic patent.

However, it should be noted that if OWASP knows of Cenzic's patent and
understands that some of their products may infringe, OWASP could become a
willful infringer. Which would result in enhanced damages if sued.

I think it would be a good idea for someone at OWASP to contact legal
council at Cenzic.  In addition, it might be a good idea to freeze all work
on possibly infringing OWASP projects as well as stopping distriubtion of
potentially infringing products.

Again, OWASP needs to contact a licensed attorney to understand all of the
implications of the Cenzic patent.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:

> >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
> reexamination.
> > 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
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20110218/d760c18f/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list