In her prepared remarks, Lee substantively will begin by saying she is pleased that Congress approved “a FY 2015 appropriation bill that provides USPTO with the authority to spend anticipated fee collections as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.” Sadly, this is something to be thankful for as odd as it seems. While significant user fees are generated by the USPTO, without the approval of Congress the USPTO cannot keep and spend the funds collected. Lee explained that by being granted permission to keep and use collected user fees the Office will “continue reducing the patent application backlog, shortening patent pendency, improving patent quality, enhancing patent administrative appeal and post-grant processes, fine tuning trademark operations, expanding our international efforts and investing in our information technology (IT) infrastructure.”
Canon’s immense amount of activity in the world of U.S. patents makes them a great business to feature in our Companies We Follow series here on IPWatchdog. As always, we scan the recent publications of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including both patent applications and issued patents, to share our favorite collection of inventions from each corporation we profile. In our new format, we’re able to delve deeply into Canon’s most recent innovations, which represent a great deal of research and development in medical imaging, business administration, photography and videography.
In Joe Allen’s recent column Does Innovation Lead to Prosperity for All? he ended with a quote by Alexander Fraser Tyler from The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic, which suggested that a democracy cannot continue to exist once the majority realizes they can vote for candidates that promise a never ending stream of benefits. Eventually, the result of politicians handing out money and benefits for votes leads to a collapse as the result of unsustainable fiscal policy. Allen quizzically ends by stating that this couldn’t ever happen in the United States, could it? Sadly, we know it is happening in America.
Saying the United States has a spending problem is an extraordinary understatement, but spending continues. The public demands spending and so many people now erroneously believe that the way to improve the economy is for the government to spend ever more sums while at the same time regulating business like never before. Taking the foot off the throat of the private sector and reducing government spending has been a time tested and effective way to stimulate activity, create jobs and improve the overall economic condition of the U.S. economy. So there is an extreme disconnect between historical reality, what the people want and the policies America is pursuing.
We start today’s column with an exploration of our featured patent application, which would protect a method of better compensating remote workers who contribute to tasks assigned through project crowdsourcing programs. The system it describes would analyze the work returned by those contributing to the crowdsourced project, judging the quality of the work returned against certain thresholds to create a fairer system of compensation. Other patent applications would protect means for storing handwritten marks made by digital pens as well as a system for encouraging more efficient printing techniques among users of a printing network.
There’s a famous Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” which certainly applies now. It seems that every cornerstone we’ve relied on has slipped, creating instability in all aspects of modern life. As humorist Ogden Nash remarked: “Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long.”
We live in a world where seemingly everyone has a cell phone —and a rifle. Every day we learn of breathtaking scientific discoveries and atrocities straight from the Dark Ages. Thanks to technology images of beheadings travel instantly around the world.
Debates rage over hot button topics widening divisions in society. One is over the merits (or demerits) of the patent system. That’s really a subset of a larger question: does innovation lead to prosperity for most people or does it merely widen the gap between the haves and have not’s?
What, if anything, should be done to correct “income inequality” is a point of contention in our political system. President Obama says that growing income inequality and a lack of upward mobility is “the defining challenge of our time.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) ads: “Trickle down (economics) doesn’t work. Never did.”
In a memorandum decision handed down July 2, 2014, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, most of the plaintiff claims in case 7:13-cv-02880, Leason Ellis LLP v. Patent & Trademark Agency LLC have been allowed to proceed in the face of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The multi-count Federal Complaint filed in April 2013 alleged that the defendants marketed their promotional materials to cause consumers to wrongly believe that it is an official governmental entity. The complaint asserted claims of federal unfair competition under 15 USC 1125(a), federal false advertising under 15 USC 1125(a) and New York statutory law, unfair competition under New York common law, deceptive acts and practices under New York statutory law, and tortious interference with prospective economic relations. The complaint also specifically alleges that the defendants are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
The complaint explained that Leason Ellis, which is a well regarded intellectual property firm particularly in the trademark law space, frequently “receives inquiries from clients who have received unsolicited offers for trademark-related services in the United States from various entities located in the U.S. and abroad.” The complaint goes on to further state: “Trademark scams are not new. The International Trademark Association (“INTA”)… has previously warned trademark owners about unsolicited offers for trademark-related services in the United States.
Before June of 1995, the patent laws in the United States provided that the term of a utility or plant patent ended seventeen years from the date of patent grant. To comply with Article 33 of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement resulting from the Uruguay Round Agreements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the United States was required to establish a minimum term for patent protection ending no earlier than twenty years from the date the application was filed. Thus, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended 35 U.S.C. § 154, and these amendments took effect on June 8, 1995.
Generally speaking, utility and plant patent applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, have a term that begins on the date the patent issues and ends on the date that is twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States. If the application that ultimately issues contains a specific reference to an earlier filed US or international application, the term ends twenty years from the filing date of the earliest such application. This patent term provision is referred to as the “twenty-year term.”
Over the last several days I have heard of an alarming trend from the United States Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Examiners are canceling Notices of Allowance and yanking previously granted claims back into prosecution while citing the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank. In some instances granted claims are being pulled back into prosecution only to be rejected as lacking patent eligible subject matter even after the issue fee has been paid. I have also been told that an Examiner in one case has issued a new Examiner’s Answer to include a new Alice 101 rejection.
Rejecting claims after the issue fee has been paid represents an extraordinary disconnect from the initial USPTO guidance that essentially said that Alice changed nothing from a substantive point of view. I was shocked that the USPTO issued such guidance because if you actually read the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice you could hardly walk away with the belief that nothing had changed.
In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice the USPTO told examiners that the reason Alice’s claims were determined to be patent ineligible was because “the generically-recited computers in the claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.” The USPTO, by and through the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, Andrew Hirshfeld, then went on to point out to patent examiners that there is no new category of innovation that is patent ineligible, nor is there any new or special requirements for the eligibility of either software or business methods. Hirshfeld explained: “Notably, Alice Corp. neither creates a per se excluded category of subject matter, such as software or business methods, nor imposes any special requirements for eligibility of software or business methods.”