[Owasp-leaders] Owasp Inquiry on "Cenzic patent on 'Fault injection methods and apparatus' "
abraham.kang at owasp.org
Sat Feb 19 11:48:10 EST 2011
I forgot to mention that many law firms are required to do pro bono work.
OWASP being a non-profit might qualify for free legal advice.
If someone can give me authorization (to be OWASP's agent in this matter) I
can try try to contact some law firms to see if they would be willing to
help us out.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Abraham Kang <abraham.kang at owasp.org>wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OWASP-Leaders