Today's Date: April 23, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Most Recent Articles on IPWatchdog.com


Compulsory Licenses Won’t Solve a Healthcare Crisis

Posted: Tuesday, Apr 1, 2014 @ 8:00 am | Written by Dr. Kristina Lybecker | No Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Dr. Kristina Lybecker, Guest Contributors, India, International, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Pharmaceutical, TRIPS

The WTO-negotiated Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) was the first international trade agreement to incorporate intellectual property law.  Though the Agreement remains controversial, the TRIPS Agreement struck an important balance between the long term benefits intellectual property rights generate through knowledge creation and short term costs resulting from market exclusivity.  The TRIPS Agreement introduced more predictability into the international trade environment, and also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes in a systematic way.  As with many international agreements, however, future viability lies in fair and uniform adherence to the agreed-upon principles.

To date, the most contentious aspect of the TRIPS Agreement is the IP protection surrounding pharmaceutical products.  The debates are vitriolic, pitting the long term incentives to innovate against the immediate public health needs of society.  In particular, innovators and public health advocates disagree on the use of compulsory licensing to address public health emergencies.   The concern over public health emergencies and the periodic need to increase access to existing medications led WTO Member States to adopt the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health. The Doha Declaration emphasizes that the TRIPS Agreement should not be interpreted as preventing countries from taking extraordinary actions relative to intellectual property in the event of a public health emergency. One of the extraordinary measures authorized to give governments more flexibility to address a public health crisis is compulsory licensing.





Missed Opportunities for Alice, Software at the Supreme Court

Posted: Monday, Mar 31, 2014 @ 6:45 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 19 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Bilski, Business Methods, Computers, Gene Quinn, Government, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patentability, Patents, Software, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court

Justice Antonin Scalia, who seemed most favorable to Alice.

Once Chief Justice John Roberts said “[t]he case is submitted,” which occurred this morning at 11:05 a.m., the reading of the tea leaves began.

The Supreme Court was very hot Court, with a lot of questions on the mind of the Justices. After reviewing the transcript I am left believing the Court is likely wondering whether it is possible to find the Alice patent claims to be patent ineligible while also ruling that software patent claims are not all patent ineligible. Surprisingly, it seemed as if Justice Scalia was most persuaded by the patent eligibility of the claims, directly saying at one point that the issues circling the case seem to really be about 102, not 101.

While I support the patent eligibility of the patent claims, particularly the patent claims drawn to a system, it seems undeniable that Alice missed many opportunities to score easy points. Indirect arguments were made by Alice that didn’t seem very persuasive. Indeed, if one is to predict the outcome of the case based on oral arguments alone it did not go well for Alice today. Only three things give Alice supporters hope after this oral argument as far as I can tell. First, the government seems to be asking the Supreme Court to overrule precedent in Bilski that is not even four years old, which simply isn’t going to happen. Second, the egregious overreach and outright misleading nature of the CLS Bank argument should raise a legitimate question or two in the mind of the Justices.  Third, the reality simply is that at least the systems claims recite numerous specific, tangible elements such that it should be impossible to in any intellectually honest way find those claims to cover an abstract idea.





Patent Legislation Gives FTC Power to Regulate Demand Letters

Posted: Monday, Mar 31, 2014 @ 8:46 am | Written by Andrew Baluch | 18 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, Federal Trade Commission, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

On Thursday, March 27, 2014, the Senate Judiciary Committee held another meeting on patent reform legislation.  A markup of Senator Leahy’s bill (S. 1720, “Patent Transparency and Improvements Act”) may happen as early as this week.  During Thursday’s meeting Senator Leahy, who Chairs the Committee, indicated a willingness to incorporate in his bill other provisions from Senator Cornyn’s and Senator Hatch’s bills.

Momentum is clearly building for more patent legislation, but the myriad bills and provisions make it difficult even for folks close to Capitol Hill to keep track of them all.  To fill that need, today’s post is part of a series of articles based on the white paper, Patent Reform 2014.  IPWatchdog.com has already published articles on Joinder of Interested Parties and Loser-Pays Fee-Shifting. Today’s focus is on the proposed FTC enforcement provisions found in several pending bills.

In September 2013, Senator Klobuchar’s staff circulated draft language that would require the FTC to initiate a rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. §553, to prohibit the assertion or enforcement of patents in a manner that is an unfair method of competition, or unfair or deceptive act or practice, under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).





Prelude to SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Alice v. CLS Bank, Part 3

Posted: Sunday, Mar 30, 2014 @ 3:50 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 29 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Computers, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, Software, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court

Eric Gould Bear

This is the third and final installment of my conversation about software, patents and software patents with expert and inventor Eric Gould Bear. To begin reading our conversation from the beginning please see A Software Conversation with Eric Gould Bear.

BEAR: In Judge Michel’s brief, he writes about not confusing §101 with §102 and §103. I’m also looking at this and thinking that patentability questions regarding “abstract ideas” may, perhaps, be better handled under §112 on specificity grounds.  What do you think about that?

QUINN: I totally agree.  And I think that that was the way that Director Kappos meant it when he was at the Patent Office and the Bilski case came out.  That was what he was urging the examiners to do. Do not to make this a §101 issue but instead get the §112 issue. I think that’s the exact right approach because the real question I think they’re struggling with is whether there is an invention there.  You can’t know whether there is an invention there until you ask what does somebody of skill in the art understand by reading the disclosure.  And what some want to do is make it a §101 question so that they don’t have to do any analysis or heavy lifting.





Patent Business: Litigation, Deals, Licenses & Settlements

Posted: Sunday, Mar 30, 2014 @ 8:00 am | Written by Gene Quinn | No Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Companies We Follow, Gene Quinn, IBM, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Microsoft, Patent Business & Deals, Patent Litigation, Patents, Qualcomm

Periodically I stumble across a number of items that catch my attention, so I have occasionally published a monthly column that incorporates various items of possible interest. As I was reviewing the wire I noticed that this past week was particularly busy. Obviously, this is not intended to be an exhaustive summary, but rather interesting items that might be worth knowing about in order to keep your finger on the pulse of the industry.

Without further ado, here are some interesting patent business items from the past week.





Prelude to SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Alice v. CLS Bank, Part 2

Posted: Saturday, Mar 29, 2014 @ 1:38 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 10 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Computers, Gene Quinn, Interviews & Conversations, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patentability, Patents, Software, US Supreme Court

Eric Gould Bear

Eric Gould Bear knows software. He is a successful inventor, has spent over 25 years working with numerous Fortune 500 corporations and he is also a testifying expert witness for patent infringement cases. With the oral argument in Alice v. CLS Bank scheduled for Monday, March 31, 2014, we recently sat down to talk about the briefs filed and issues in the case. In part 1 of our conversation we discussed the false distinction that is erroneously made between hardware and software, as well as the ACLU amicus brief, which he called “embarrassing.”

In part 2, which follows below, we discuss why software start-up companies need patents. Bear also further analyzes the briefs filed, including the one filed by LinkedIn, Netflix, Twitter, Yelp and Rackspace, which he characterizes as taking “a fairly radical stance.”

Without further ado, here is part 2.

QUINN: I was hoping you might be able to give us an idea of how a software startup company uses patents as an asset to leverage building, growing, and further innovating?

BEAR: Sure.  Startups have to move with velocity and with a high level of excellence simultaneously.  And they’re fiscally challenged for the most part, so have to operate very lean.  There’s a challenge with regards to patent filing because the costs are hard to justify as having any immediate benefit.  And when you weigh your weekly or daily burn, it’s really hard to swallow the costs of investing in patents. That’s certainly the case for startups like the ones I advise at the Capital Factory incubator in Austin.  Most don’t know with certainty if they’re even going to survive to the next year.





Alice at Court: Stepping Through the Looking Glass – Part II

Posted: Saturday, Mar 29, 2014 @ 8:00 am | Written by Robert Sachs | 2 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Computers, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patentability, Patents, Software, US Supreme Court

An illustration of Alice by Lewis Carroll circa 1887.

In Part I, I addressed many of the issues that are being considered by the Supreme Court in the Alice v. CLS oral arguments, and continue the analysis here, looking at particular issues and what various amicus briefs argue, and whether those arguments hold up or not.

The Equivalence of Software and Hardware

There is a further gulf between those who view In re Alappat as sound logic and engineering (ABL, AIPLA, Alice, Mr. Ronald Benrey, BSA, CCIA, Mr. Dale Cook, Prof. of Computer Science Lee A. Hollaar, IEEE-USA, Microsoft) and those who it as mistaken (Electronic Frontier Foundation, Prof. Robin Feldman, Red Hat) and primarily responsible for an increase in such patents (Electronic Frontier Foundation, Google, “Law, Business and Economics Scholars”). The IEEE-USA provides an excellent analysis of the relationship between software and hardware, pointing out the incontrovertible principle of equivalency, that “special-purpose programming of general-purpose hardware” is “equivalent to special-purpose hardware,” though IEEE-USA fails to mention that this is a fundamental principle of computer science, as established by Alan Turing in the 1930s. To assert, as does the EFF, that the Federal Circuit “concocted” the equivalency of hardware and software goes beyond denying the foundational work of Turing and others.  The equivalency of software and hardware is what makes it possible for Java to run on any type of computer using the Java Virtual Machine, as well the electronic design automation industry, which enables complex electronic circuits to be entirely designed in software before being implemented in hardware.





Prelude to SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Alice v. CLS Bank: A Software Conversation with Eric Gould Bear

Posted: Friday, Mar 28, 2014 @ 12:44 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 27 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Computers, Gene Quinn, Interviews & Conversations, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patentability, Patents, Software, US Supreme Court

Eric Gould Bear

Eric Gould Bear is an inventor on over 100 patents and patent applications in the software space. He has spent over 25 years working with numerous Fortune 500 corporations with respect to assisting them in the creation of new user experiences. He is also a founder of the design studio MONKEYmedia, who signed onto the Trading Technologies amici brief filed in Alice v. CLS Bank at the Supreme Court. Bear is also a testifying expert witness for patent infringement cases. He is an expert in the software/patent space, and has seen the industry from multiple different angles over the years.

With the oral argument in Alice v. CLS Bank scheduled for Monday, March 31, 2014, I reached out to Bear to see if he would go on the record to discuss the issues he saw in the various briefs filed, what was good, what was problematic, and how he as a software expert would try and convey the issues to a layperson, or scientifically untrained jurist such as the Justices on the Supreme Court. He agreed and we spoke on the record about the issues, using as our focal point several of the high profile amici briefs filed.

What appears below is part 1 of my 3 part substantive software converation with Bear. In part 1 we discuss the false distinction between hardware and software, and Bear goes into deal with examples, saying at one point that most of the innovation today relates to software. He also takes issue with the ACLU amicus brief, calling it “embarrassing.”