Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

Those pointing to Alappat to support modern PTAB panel stacking are, however, grossly misstating the nature of the decision in Alappat, and ignoring the fundamental shift in the adjudicative responsibilities of the Board since passage of the America Invents Act (AIA)… As deeply troubling as Alappat is in terms of process and procedural fairness, the decision of the Federal Circuit to acquiesce to panel stacking in Alappat absolutely does not mean that panel stacking in contested cases under the AIA has been authorized by the Federal Circuit. Indeed, panel stacking, whether overt and on the record or as the result of secret internal deliberations within the PTAB, has never been authorized by the Federal Circuit relative to IPR, PGR and/or CBM proceedings. At some point whether panel stacking and admitted predetermination of outcomes is allowed in AIA contested cases will be a question of first impression at the Federal Circuit.

Great lawyer managers spend time to master the skills required for the job, and being a lawyer manager requires more leadership skill than legal knowledge. Great leaders know how to motivate people to achieve goals over a sustained period. This requires understanding each team member’s legal abilities and motivators… Managing a team of lawyers who are brighter and more educated on a topic than the manager can be difficult. It takes a manager with a lot of self-confidence to feel secure. Yet, the best legal managers always seek to hire lawyers who are smarter and more knowledgeable about certain topics.

I’m not alone in thinking that at least a provisional patent application is extremely important. Stephen Key, the preeminent inventor coach in the United States, advises all his students to at a minimum file a provisional patent application on their inventions in order to establish what he calls “perceived rights.” Key’s strategy, which has been successfully followed by hundreds of his students who do find licensing deals, is to place that marker in the sand and define an invention with a provisional patent application.

Canadian intellectual property owner BlackBerry Limited filed a suit alleging patent infringement claims against Menlo Park, CA-based social media giant Facebook Inc. in the Central District of California. BlackBerry alleges that Facebook, along with its subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram, violate patents held by BlackBerry in the field of mobile messaging communications.

The memorandum points to Amgen for stating that the “newly characterized antigen” test could not stand because it contradicted the quid pro quo of the patent system whereby in order to obtain a patent one must describe an invention (the antibody, not the antigen recognized by the antibody). The memorandum states that in view of Amgen, “adequate written description of a newly characterized antigen alone should not be considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that newly characterized antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional.”

The case is interesting, however, not just because it involved famous subjects – a “renowned photographer” (as the Plaintiff was described in the court’s first sentence), a famous brand (Nike) and one its most well-known logos (“Jumpman”), and a photo of one of the most famous people in the world (Michael Jordan) – although these items alone perhaps merit some attention. But for lawyers and those who deal with copyright protection in the business world, perhaps more interesting is the court’s explication of the classic copyright concept of the idea-expression dichotomy, as well as its holding that the photograph at issue, while not infringed, was entitled to broad protection.

One interesting aspect of IFI CLAIMS’ most recent annual patent analysis is a list of eight areas of technology that have seen the fastest growing increases in patent applications between 2013 and 2017. To do this, IFI computed the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of patent applications for all Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes over the course of the study period to see which CPC codes were receiving the greatest number of patent applications. According to IFI’s analysis, the greatest growth in patent applications were for E-cigarettes and other technologies under the CPC code A24F for smokers’ requisites.

If this practice of phantom expanded panels, with APJs not identified on the record or to the parties, is legal then IPR panel assignments are nothing more than a farce. Any APJ, including Chief Administrative Patent Judge Ruschke, can actively participate in the deliberative process of any IPR without ever disclosing that fact to the public or to the parties. So, in effect, all IPR panels may be secretly stacked!

Among the many bureaucratic changes that resulted from the amendments to the Chinese Constitution included the integration of trademark responsibilities with the other intellectual property activities of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO). Such responsibilities, including the management of trademark applications, grants and administrative adjudications, were formerly the province of China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), which has been disbanded. The newly reorganized SIPO will also handle applications and grants for geographical indications of product origin.

Consumers driving the Wellness industry seek more than just a clothing company, a new workout, or a healthy alternative to the standard lunchtime sandwich – they value brand integrity and want to build relationships with brands that align with the lifestyle they aspire towards. This means Wellness companies should have a solid brand protection strategy in place from the outset. Ideally one that is capable of scaling with your international ambitions, and which can help prioritize spending, save resources and attract investors. Early-stage checks on trademarks, designs and domain names are essential to ensure your business can trade with confidence.

Robins Kaplan LLP® announced that Steven Carlson has joined the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation Group as partner. A seasoned trial lawyer, Carlson will focus his practice on intellectual property litigation, including commercial, patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and unfair competition.

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the song Blurred Lines infringed the copyright in Marvin Gaye’s song Got To Give It Up. See Williams v. Gaye, No. 15-56880. Affirming most of the decision of the district court, the Ninth Circuit also held that the award of actual damages and infringers’ profits, and a running royalty, were all proper. The panel did, however, reverse a piece of the district court ruling, finding that the district court erred in overturning the jury’s general verdict in favor of certain parties because the defendants waived any challenge to the consistency of the jury’s general verdicts.

Banana Republics are societies characterized by their starkly stratified social classes and a ruling-class plutocracy composed of the business, political and military elites. The Elites rule over a servile government that abets and supports, for kickbacks and bribes, the exploitation of the rest of society. Instead of Dole and United Fruit controlling Honduras, we now have Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and other tech giants controlling Congress and the Executive Branch through unlimited lobbying by groups like the Internet Association[1], High Tech Inventors Alliance[2], the Software Alliance[3], Unified Patents[4] and through direct political donations. As demonstrated below, the only difference between Honduras in 1904 and the United States today is that the new bananas are smartphones and the software they contain.

Competitors like Mylan and Teva, rather than inventing better treatments or cures for dry eyes chose the shortcut. They attacked Allergan’s patent in the PTAB. Allergan responded by assigning their patent to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe who in turn invoked sovereign immunity at the PTAB, and demanded their rights in a real court with a real judge and jury. Mylan, Teva, the PTAB, Congress, and class action lawyers have formed a mob to gang up on Allergan for defending their intellectual property rights. They filed hundreds of suits accusing Allergan and the Tribe of fraud, conspiracy, and sham transactions stemming from an “invalid” patent. The attackers are mistakenly focusing on the patent as the problem. The problem is not the patent, but rather all of the incentives that reward copying instead of innovating.

Although it’s not illegal to earn a profit, unfair business practices in the pursuit of holding a monopoly over an entire industry led to the breakup of Standard Oil, especially the rebates from railroad companies for oil shipments which substantially lowered Standard Oil’s transportation costs relative to its much smaller competitors. Recent academic research has suggested that, while the U.S. government acted appropriately to stop the cartelization of an industry, Standard Oil was engaging in typical capitalist activity in securing better deals which optimized oil shipments. This would seem somewhat less nefarious than an outright copying technologies from smaller competitors in an effort to stave off competition.