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

Abraham Kang 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.
Regards,
Abe
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
> perspective.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Abe
>   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/20110219/d6220031/attachment.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list