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

Tin Zaw tin.zaw at owasp.org
Sat Feb 19 17:01:07 EST 2011


Hi Abe,

Thank you for pointing out a couple of important points -- OWASP may be at
risk on patent infringement and OWASP needs to consult with a lawyer.

There is a possibility that Cenzic will license the patent in question to
OWASP, free of charge. They can't publicly comment as they are in the middle
of a law suit, so this is a situation that our lawyers need to talk to their
lawyers on getting the patent license.

I believe we can, as OWASP leaders, seek out a lawyer who is interested in
this case on pro bono basis and introduce to the board. The board should
take it from there.

I can contact a friend of mine who is a patent law professor to see if any
lawyer interested to represent OWASP on pro bono. I don't want to duplicate
the effort though, if the board has its own plans underway.

What does the board think?

Thanks.

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Abraham Kang <abraham.kang at owasp.org>wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>
>


-- 
Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter<http://www.owaspla.org/>
Chair, OWASP Global Chapter
Committee<http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Chapter_Committee>|
Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20110219/97c167e6/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list