Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

If there was a theme that emerged in 2017 it is the necessity to have what is specifically innovative disclosed in the claims. While not a particularly new concept, there were cases in 2017 where the Federal Circuit acknowledged that a patent eligible innovation may well have been disclosed in the specification, but which was not found in the claims. With many legacy software patents the description of the technology (if one actually existed) was only in the specification while the claims were written to be quite broad. The Federal Circuit requires both a thick technical description of the innovation and why it is an improvement (see Enfish) and incorporation of what is innovative into the claims… What follows picks up where my 2016 article left off and provides summary and analysis of the notable software patent eligibility cases decided by the Federal Circuit in 2017.

A Confidentiality Agreement, which is also known as non-disclosure agreement or simply as an NDA, is simply a contract between two or more parties where the subject of the agreement is a promise that information conveyed will be maintained in secrecy… These types of agreements are particularly useful when one is disclosing information that is valuable so long as secrecy is maintained (i.e., a trade secret), which can include both invention related information and business related information.

The Federal Circuit decision in the case of CRFD Research v. Matal resolves three appeals involving a single patent: CRFD’s ‘233 patent describing methods and systems that allow a user to begin a session on one communication-enabled device and transfer it to another… Lack of anticipation based on a single reference does not preclude a finding of obviousness based on the same reference. Even if a reference’s is insufficient for anticipation, which is a question of fact, that same reference teachings may be used to find obviousness, a question of law based on underlying factual findings.

When infringement claims are legitimate, Take Downs can be a useful mechanism for getting counterfeit or infringing products taken off the online retail platform website. In turn, sellers protect their hard-earned consumer brand confidence. However, not every seller in the online realm plays fairly, and countless honest and legitimate sellers have found themselves in a position where their products have been removed from online platforms for alleged IP infringement and they do not know what they can do about their situation… If there is an urgency to get back into the online marketplace – for instance, in order to participate in the Holiday shopping season – disadvantaged online sellers who have had their products unfairly removed from an online retail platform through a Take Down Notice need legal recourse, and they need it quickly.

With new social media platforms and photo sharing apps becoming more and more popular, the risk of copyright infringement through the sharing of photos is more present now than ever before. Not to mention, many social media platforms give the ability to re-post, save or share other people’s content. When so many options are available, allowing you to share someone’s photo at the click of a button, it is easy to forget about the possible legal implications of what you do on social media.

A cross-licensing patent agreement is a contract between at least two parties that grants mutual rights to both parties’ intellectual property. The agreement may be a private one between two specific companies or a small consortium of companies. Or it may be a public agreement such as a patent pool, in which IP management is shared amongst a relatively large group of patent holders who share patents. Patent pools are typically industry-based, and companies active in the sector are free to join the pool.

Earlier today President Trump’s nominee to become the new Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee… Favorably reporting Andrei Iancu to the full Senate for confirmation as Director of the USPTO is an important next step along the nomination path. This being done today sets up a possibility that Iancu could be confirmed by the full Senate before the end of 2017, although time is fast running out.

Failure is success if we learn. So why shouldn’t failure qualify as a trade secret? Competitors would love to avoid making the effort and taking the risk… Negative information is most commonly put at risk not by theft of the records of R&D, but by departing employees who are familiar with how a particular technical solution was created or optimized. Eager to help their new colleagues, a recent arrival may wince at a suggested development path and blurt out a warning not to go there. Even very general pointers about an engineering direction to try or to avoid can help a competitor reduce risk and shorten development time. That is why hiring someone who has worked on a similar project for a competitor can lead to trouble.

With December here, it really ’tis the season to be jolly’, and with that, many employers indulge in the festive merriment with an annual tradition; the office Christmas party. The afternoon ‘Out of Office’ goes on, the sparkly attire comes out and, many an ear drum is burst as teams of Mariah aficionados compete to hit those harmonic high notes. Karaoke-keen or not, the office Christmas party is the perfect opportunity for employers to thank employees for their contributions over the last year, to bond, share a drink and relax into the holiday season. However, with a glass quickly turning into a bottle, the party can be (and often is) a recipe for disaster that creates consequences extending far beyond the next-day hangover. With many employers well underway in their planning of this year’s Christmas party, we provide a 5-point guide highlighting the steps that can be taken to help avoid any HR headaches.

Squire Patton Boggs welcomes Kerry Lee, the former Head of Group Intellectual Property of Walgreens Boots Alliance, as a partner in the Intellectual Property & Technology Practice in the Manchester and London offices. He has extensive experience in contentious and non-contentious IP enforcement and e-commerce matters in relation to trademark, design, patent, copyright, domain name and other IP matters across Europe, South East Asia and North America.

The Fed has been oblivious to the mechanisms of market economics and technology investment driven by the degradation of patent rights in recent years. While the Fed focuses exclusively on inflation and the labor market, they have ignored factors driving technology investment and the disintegration of the patent system that has underscored the declining business investment trend. With a degraded patent system, investors have shifted to other asset classes or markets rather than investing in technology.

On Thursday, December 14th, the commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will convene an open meeting to discuss several subjects, one of which is titled Restoring Internet Freedom. According to news reports, the FCC is likely to approve this order in a 3-2 vote along party lines to return the classification of broadband Internet access service to its prior classification as information service… Despite the high likelihood that the order will be passed by the FCC’s commissioners, or maybe more because of that likelihood, there has been a lot of recent press on how the FCC under current Chairman Ajit Pai has drawn the ire of net neutrality supporters.

Unfortunately, there’s every indication that today’s event at Brookings will feature more of the same kind of misguided rhetoric on perceived issues with the patent system which don’t truly exist. The evidence for this starts with the moderator for the day’s final roundtable discussion, titled Realigning Incentives to Increase Patent Quality. The moderator for this discussion will be Tim Lee, senior reporter of tech policy for Ars Technica. Lee has written in the past on the effects of “ridiculous patent litigation” and has given space to viewpoints which want to limit patentability in certain sectors, such as in business methods. Lee has also been very critical of appellate court decisions in patent cases in recent years to the point that assertions he’s made on case law regarding the patentability of software inventions border on the ridiculously absurd. This individual, who has a clearly anti-patent viewpoint, will be controlling the discussion during the final panel roundtable on patent policy.

Globally, a total of 3.1 million patent applications were filed with patent offices worldwide during 2016, an increase of 8.3 percent over 2015’s filing numbers and the seventh straight year in which saw a year-over-year increase in global patent application filings. About 1.3 million patent applications were filed with China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), a record number of patent applications received by any patent office in a single year. China’s 2016 patent application total is greater than the combined total of patent applications filed in 2016 in the United States (605,571), Japan (318,381), South Korea (208,830) and Europe (159,358). These five jurisdictions accounted for 84 percent of all patent applications filed during 2016.

On December 1st, Niwot, CO-based shoe manufacturer Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ:CROX) filed a motion for sanctions against Las Vegas, NV-based rival firm USA Dawgs Inc., which outlined a series of harassing legal moves in which Dawgs has engaged in recent years. Crocs is asking the District of Nevada to award Crocs costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by a lawsuit which Crocs alleges that Dawgs has pursued in bad faith.