Posts in Inventors Information

On November 16, innovation intelligence firm Patsnap published the results of its 2023 Global Innovation Report, which measures a range of patent metrics to determine the most innovative companies in the world. This year’s Global Innovation 100 listing represents about a quarter of the globe’s entire patent filing activity. The report also includes a Global Disruption 50 listing of actively growing and young companies, reflecting the strength of both the United States and China in emerging technology fields.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its one millionth design patent on September 26, 2023. U.S. Patent No. D1,000,000 claims the ornamental design for a dispensing comb. This milestone comes during a particularly prolific period for design patents. In 2022 alone, the USPTO received more than 50,000 design patent applications. The Office has seen a 20% growth in design patent applications over the last five years. It is not hard to understand why inventors are seeking design patent protection at previously unseen levels. In an age of complicated technologies, design patents can protect marketable appearances of products in the same manner generally as trademarks identify source. Understanding design patent benefits underlying the recent growth in application numbers is a good lesson for businesses seeking to distinguish a brand—but keep an eye out for further developments and be prepared to adjust business and IP strategies.

Just a few weeks after Google waived its right to respond, the Supreme Court denied a petition challenging a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that held a Texas district court erred in ruling against the search engine and tech behemoth. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found the inventors of a method for protecting computers from malware—Alfonso Cioffi and Allen Rozman (the patent is now assigned to Melanie, Megan and Morgan Rozman)—had proven that Google’s Chrome web browser infringed their reissue patents RE43,500, RE43,528, and RE43,529 and that the claims were not invalid. After a first time at the Federal Circuit in which the case was remanded to the district court, a jury awarded Cioffi, et. al. $20 million in past damages and the district court in post-trial review rejected Google’s “original patent defense.”

The President’s recent Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence instructs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director and Copyright Registrar to collaboratively issue recommendations to the President on further actions for advancing AI innovation through intellectual property, particularly with respect to AI inventorship and AI authorship. But the two offices currently regard AI differently in terms of assessing the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines, which poses a potential contradiction in how intellectual property law treats AI.

In today’s high-tech landscape, the ancient fable of the goose that laid the golden eggs imparts profound wisdom. The farmer in that tale weighed the decision to continue accumulating wealth slowly by selling the golden eggs that his magical goose laid (one per day) or taking a risk by killing the goose to harvest all of the gold within it at once. (Ultimately, the farmer chose the murderous path only to discover the goose did not contain any riches.) Just as the farmer faced thorny decisions in the tale, modern tech executives grapple with complex choices between immediate returns and long-term potential while also maintaining a competitive edge. In the real world, an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can generate patentable outputs (such as designs for new drugs) stands as the metaphorical “goose” while the inventions it produces are analogous to the “golden eggs.” Steadfastly guiding this delicate dance is the patent attorney with expertise in AI technology.

The Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing today featuring witnesses who weighed in on the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, which was introduced in June by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI). Today’s was the sixth hearing of the IP Subcommittee this year. The goal of the PREVAIL Act is to reform the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a number of ways.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied certiorari to HIP, Inc. in a case that asked the Court to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) standard for determining joint inventorship. The petition, filed in August, asked the Court to resolve what it called “an indisputable conflict between the express language of Section 116(a) of Title 35, informed by the legislative history of its 1984 amendments, and requirements the Federal Circuit has imposed on the joint inventions statute since the 1984 amendments.”

Startups often face many competing pressures. Two such pressures that are frequently at odds with each other are the need to adequately protect the intellectual property that will be the basis for future revenue and investment, and the need to bring such revenue and investment into the business to allow for continued technology development and commercialization. Many startups are aware of how the on-sale bar interacts with these pressures and the associated need to file patent applications on any technology prior to offering or placing it on sale. However, fewer startups are aware of the public-use bar and how activities pursued with the goal of growing their businesses may unwittingly invoke it.

Inter partes review (IPR) is a legal process conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to assess patentability based on anticipation or obviousness using prior art publications and patents. Congress established IPR to offer an efficient alternative to litigating patent disputes before the district courts. This article discusses some practice tips for both challenging and defending patents in IPRs before the PTAB.

Yesterday, Google waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by the inventors of a method for protecting computers from malware. The inventors, Alfonso Cioffi and Allen Rozman (the patent is now assigned to Melanie, Megan and Morgan Rozman), are appealing a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that reversed a district court ruling and $20 million verdict for the inventors. The CAFC held that the Texas district court erred in ruling that four claims across the three patents were not invalid and agreed with Google’s argument that the claims were invalid under the “original patent requirement” because they contained reissue claims not disclosed in the original patent.

On October 23, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) published a report detailing patent application filing trends at the USPTO related to COVID-19 diagnostics technologies. The OCE found that filing activity surged following the arrival of the novel coronavirus in early 2020, with much of that increase driven by small companies and research institutions. The report found further evidence suggesting that federal funding had a significant impact on driving innovation into COVID-19 diagnostics at small R&D entities.

Judicial rulings have muddied the waters of patent eligibility, with judges themselves expressing uncertainty. In the case, Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judge Kimberly Moore openly shared the challenge of applying Section 101 consistently, explaining that “the majority’s blended 101/112 analysis expands § 101, converts factual issues into legal ones and is certain to cause confusion for future cases.” This haze has driven innovators to tread cautiously, often sidelining potential patents for fear of 101 rejections—stifling the American dream of groundbreaking innovation. Stakeholders craft tactics to dodge these pitfalls while lawmakers propose reforms.

On October 2, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet announced that Hungarian-American biochemist Katalin Karikó and American immunologist Drew Weissman were awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries related to modified messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) for use in vaccines. A critical part of the world’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA vaccines were not an effective option until the pioneering work of these two scientists, one of whom faced considerable rejection while laying the foundation that answered one of the world’s greatest public health crises.

PERA is no doubt an ambitious bill. In terms of its design, the proposed legislation attempts to deal with each of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice, Mayo and Myriad, plus all of their progeny applications thereafter engendered by the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), all the way down to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examining corp. In a nutshell, the bill, if passed, would return us to a time when Bilski was the law of the land, which will no doubt be welcomed by many innovators.

The single best tool available to increase patent value and decrease patent costs is not directed to application drafting or patent prosecution or law firm selection. Instead, it occurs much earlier in the process. The best tool is meeting with inventors. When I was outside counsel and I received a new application to draft, the very first thing I did was set up a meeting with the inventors. As in-house counsel, when I receive a new invention submission, I do the same. It does not matter if the invention is simple, non-enabling, or incomplete. It does not matter if the inventor is familiar, experienced, or knowledgeable. It does not matter if we meet in person, by phone, or by video. For every invention, we meet.