WASHINGTON -- A government patent office has upheld a controversial patent on radar technology developed by a former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist despite claims by another scientist that he discovered the technology.
The patent has been the subject of a six-year fight over who actually invented the technology, which is expected to be used in a wide range of commercial purposes from measuring fluid levels and helping motorists detect blind spots to enhancing home security systems.Livermore scientist Tom McEwan developed the system in 1993 and filed a patent, only to be challenged later by a Huntsville, Ala., company, Time Domain Corp., which claimed one of its scientists had developed the technology six years earlier.
Although McEwan is now retired from Livermore, he remains part owner of the technology. The patent is held by the University of California, which manages the federal Livermore lab.
In what Livermore officials said should settle the issue, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the final arbiter of such disputes, concluded recently that McEwan's patent was valid and reaffirmed all of the Livermore lab's 20 patent claims.
Laboratory officials and an attorney representing McEwan, provided a copy and details of the patent office finding, dated Nov. 23, to the Associated Press.
"This vindicates Tom McEwan," Paul Johnson, the former Livermore scientists' lawyer, said Friday. "We've always maintained these were very different technologies and that's what (the patent office) found."
But the dispute may not yet be over because Time Domain Corp., proclaimed victory as well.
Ralph Petroff, president of Time Domain said in a telephone interview that the patent decision significantly narrowed how Livermore's and McEwan's technology was to be used. That claim was disputed by Livermore officials.
Petroff said it will force Livermore "to greatly limit its claim" and "removes any doubt that Time Domain owns the fundamental patents in this field." He said that the radar technology developed by his company's scientist, Larry Fullerton, will continue to be marketed and compete with Livermore's technology.
"We're satisfied with this decision. It gives us what we want," said Petroff, whose company originally challenged McEwan and accused him of basing his invention of data Fullerton developed.
The patent office found that McEwan's technology was fundamentally different from Fullerton's and it upheld the Livermore patent and all of its claims.
Ron Cochran, executive officer at Lawrence Livermore, disputed suggestions that the patent had been narrowed. "We received everything we had requested on our original 20 claims," he said.
Cochran said the decision should reassure the 28 licensees who have entered into agreement with Livermore on use of the technology, known as "micropower pulse radar," or MIR in various commercial applications.
Johnson accused Time Domain of waging a "smear campaign" against McEwan because McEwan's patented technology was superior to the technology developed by the Alabama company.
In a statement issued through his lawyer, McEwan said the patent office decision had vindicated him. "But that doesn't make up for the damage that's been done," said McEwan, who had been accused of essentially stealing the technology from Time Domain.
The patent dispute earlier this year prompted an investigation by the House Science Committee, largely at the prompting of Rep. Robert Cramer, D-Ala., in whose district Time Domain is located.
The congressional report, released last April, raised questions about how the technology had been sold by Livermore. The report maintained that licensees, many of whom paid $100,000 for the right to use the McEwan technology, had been misled about the patent dispute and about possible hurdles in getting the devices approved by federal regulators.
In October, an independent review requested by the University of California, found no evidence that Livermore or McEwan acted improperly in pursuing the patent, but raised questions about how the technology initially was marketed.
The review also said that licensees were not fully informed of potential problems the technology might have in getting Federal Communications Commission approval, but that there had been no intentional attempt to mislead the licensees.