Patents Don’t Monetize Themselves: Turning Portfolios from Cost Centers into Revenue Assets

Imagine a company spends millions of dollars constructing a new office building in a prime downtown location. The company pays for maintenance, utilities, insurance, landscaping, repairs, security, and taxes. The building is well designed, professionally managed, and expensive to maintain. But it sits empty. No tenants. No leases. No revenue. That would strike most executives as irrational. Yet many companies treat patent portfolios in exactly the same way. They spend millions building and maintaining patent portfolios around the world. But when asked what revenue the portfolio generates, the silence is deafening.

Automating the Patent Process at the USPTO to Save Inventors Money

Have you ever drafted a claim set with a second claim that began, “the system of claim 2, wherein…” when you meant to write “the system of claim 1”? It’s embarrassing because every first-year patent attorney knows that a dependent patent claim cannot depend on itself. However, making the error is inevitable when you draft a large number of patent applications. The good news is, if you upload such a claim to today’s Patent Center (where patent applications are filed), you will be provided with the following alert: “The claims appear to contain an improper dependency with at least one claim that depends on a missing or canceled claim. Please review and revise if necessary”. How beautiful is this? Now you can self-correct before your patent application is even filed. Ten years ago, you would have to go back and forth with a patent examiner to correct the error.

CAFC Rejects Inventor’s Sotera Stipulation Challenge against LG, Affirms Google and Microsoft Win at PTAB

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday in Hafeman v. Google LLC affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions (FWDs) invalidating all claims of three related patents owned by inventor Carolyn Hafeman.  The court also dismissed Hafeman’s argument that the inter partes reviews (IPRs) should have been terminated based on the district court’s finding that LG–a real party in interest to the IPRs–violated its Sotera stipulation.

Readers React: What to Expect After the Supreme Court’s Hikma Ruling

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling in Hikma v. Amarin has been discussed as a definitive win for the generics industry and may have implications beyond pharmaceutical and Hatch-Waxman cases. The Court criticized the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for its trend of what the Court called focusing on “whether the relevant statements could be read by medical providers as instructions to infringe” when judging induced infringement in Hatch-Waxman cases. Below, stakeholders weigh in on the upshot of the ruling and what it means for pharmaceutical innovation going forward.

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 5: Trump Auto Industry Comments Bolster REPAIR Act; House IP Subcommittee Debates Generics Legislation Following Hikma; and X Seeks Modification of FTC Order on Account Security

This Week in Other Barks & Bites: the Seventh Circuit remands a Schedule A trademark case to determine whether the Hague Convention’s terms on proper service apply to particular Chinese defendants; President Donald Trump criticizes the automotive industry’s alleged efforts to impede consumer choice on auto repairs; he Eleventh Circuit finds no valid copyright termination notice sent in a case involving members of 2 Live Crew; and more.

Harrity & Harrity is Seeking a Patent Prosecution Attorney/Agent for 5G/6G

Harrity & Harrity, LLP is looking for remote (within the U.S.) or local patent professional superstars to prosecute 5G patent applications for leading global technology companies, including numerous Patent 300® companies.

Hikma Ruling Looms Large in House IP Subcommittee Hearing Debating Legislation Favoring Generic Drugmakers

At approximately the same moment that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down today’s landmark ruling in Hikma v. Amarin, the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet began a hearing on balancing medical innovation and access to generic drugs. Much of the hearing’s discussion was focused on proposed patent bills that favor generic drug makers–though whether they would ensure that Americans actually pay less for any drug, branded or otherwise, remains unclear.

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates