Posts Tagged: "inventor"

With congress out of session this week, it is a good time to meet the members of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which—unlike the Senate IP Subcommittee—has not yet convened this term. While the House may be largely preoccupied with issues outside the IP realm thus far, other House committees and subcommittees have been actively debating a number of topics relevant to IP. The 116th Congress brings both new and old faces to the Subcommittee with varying levels of IP knowledge and activity. Many of its members, such as Hakeem Jeffries and Zoe Lofgren, are well-versed in IP issues, starting with the full Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jerrold Nadler.

Representative Steve Stivers (R-OH) and Representative Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced the Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act, which would in part restore injunctive relief as a remedy for patent infringement, in the U.S. House of Representatives in March of last year. While there has been much talk about closed-door discussions taking place on Capitol Hill recently around fixing Section 101 law, the House has not yet re-introduced the STRONGER Patents Act, and has thus far been focused on other issues this term. But Rep. Stivers seems confident that the Act has a chance this term, and says that this could be the consensus legislation the House needs. Read below for more on Rep. Stivers’ thoughts about patent reform in the 116th Congress, where the America Invents Act went wrong, and how we ensure the U.S. patent system is restored to number one.

This week on Capitol Hill, both houses of Congress are abuzz with a full schedule of hearings related to science, technology and innovation topics. In the House of Representatives, various committees explore a proposed net neutrality bill, innovation in the aviation industry, and ways to improve competition in the pharmaceutical industry—a hot topic of debate in recent weeks. Both the House and the Senate will hold hearings on the future of America’s space program. The Senate will also consider consumer data privacy regulations, rural broadband investments, and military applications of artificial intelligence. On Tuesday, a pair of events at the Brookings Institution will look at the impact of technological advances on public policy, as well as the artificial intelligence race between the U.S. and China.

What happens when technology convergence fundamentally changes your patent risk profile? What do you do when your customer demands broad intellectual property (IP) indemnification and your supplier provides almost none? Industries that clear patents as a standard practice are integrating technology from industries that specifically do not clear patents. If this sounds like a potential train wreck, well, it is. We recently completed a survey of 16 companies’ activities with respect to freedom to operate. In that study, we found substantially divergent patent risk mitigation strategies. For example, as you would expect in the chemical industry, companies did full patent clearance searches of their new molecules and processes—they wanted freedom to operate. That means they searched in all their major markets for any patents they might infringe prior to releasing new products. In contrast, high technology companies did no clearance search prior to product launch, but they adopted other techniques for reducing their overall risk—they wanted freedom of action. For professionals in each Industry, their respective risk mitigation strategy makes sense. But how can it be that in one industry people review and clear patents and in another they do not? The answer lies in the specific patent risks faced in each industry, and we will explore some of those risks.

The shifting status of marijuana from an illegal controlled substance to regulated medicinal product to, in some jurisdictions, legalized recreational activity has created a market that promises to be incredibly valuable in the years to come. An April 2018 report from Grand View Research predicted the global market for legal marijuana products to exceed $146 billion by the year 2025. A 2018 cannabis report by Deloitte forecast Canada’s cannabis market to reach $7.17 billion in total sales during 2019, including $4.34 billion in sales of legal marijuana products. In the U.S., 2017 sales of legal recreational and medicinal marijuana products resulted in revenues of up to $6.6 billion, a fraction of the estimated $50 billion to $55 billion of total U.S. demand for recreational cannabis products. Last year, Reuters reported that the USPTO issued 39 patents containing the word cannabis during 2018 through late November. The USPTO only issued 29 such patents during 2017 and 14 during 2016.

As mentioned in Part I of this series, many inventors will seek to obtain some kind of patent protection so they can stake claim to their invention. Filing at least a provisional patent application is a necessary strategy, because when you file a patent application you are articulating your invention and getting on record with a filing date that cannot be taken away from you with respect to whatever is in your patent application. A provisional patent application can be a great first step, particularly if you are going to need some assistance later to develop your invention. It is also a good first step because you do not need a confidentiality agreement when dealing with a patent agent or patent attorney because the law already requires that information learned from clients or even prospective clients must remain confidential. So, even if you just seek the advice of a patent attorney or patent agent and never wind up hiring them, they are legally required to keep what you tell them confidential. This legal requirement is much stronger than any confidentiality agreement you could ever have them sign. This is true because any confidentiality agreement will say that if the information becomes public the signer is no longer obligated to keep the information secret. There is no such “out clause” in the attorney-client privilege. What you tell a patent attorney or patent agent about your invention is confidential and will remain confidential even if no representation relationship ever is undertaken.

The Federal Circuit recently overturned a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) inter partes review decision finding that an IPS Group (IPS) patent was not unpatentable as anticipated, holding that the Board erred when determining the inventive entities of the asserted IPS patent and the asserted prior art, which was a different IPS patent that shared an inventor with the other IPS patent. See Duncan Parking Techs. v. IPS Group, Inc., Nos. 2018-1205, 2018-1360, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3137 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 31, 2019) (Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto, J.) (Opinion for the Court, Lourie, J.). The claims at issue related to parking meter technology. IPS has two relevant patents for this technology, the ’310 patent and the ’054 patent. The ’054 patent issued in 2013 from a 2006 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application. It named the Founder of IPS, Dave King, and the Chief Technical Officer of IPS, Alexander Schwarz, as inventors. The ’310 patent was issued in 2010 and based on an application filed in 2008. The ’310 patent named King, along with three other engineers, as inventors. The ’310 patent, however, did not disclose Schwarz as an inventor.

Is an invention arrived at by multiple inventors within a short space of time necessarily obvious? If not, how far may the evidence of simultaneous or contemporaneous invention go toward proving obviousness? Simultaneous invention is not common, but evidence of such invention, when present, can be important for reaching a conclusion of obviousness. Simultaneous invention can sometimes occur in the aftermath of the introduction of an enabling or foundational technology, when multiple groups working independently solve a problem, which, but for the foundational technology, would not have been possible. A recent example of this scenario can be found in the litigation related to the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, which culminated in a decision by the Federal Circuit in September 2018. University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (UC v. Broad).

Patent professionals encounter many different personality types working with their colleagues and inventors. On one end, there are those who do great work but lack confidence in their abilities, and on the other there are those who overestimate their abilities and lack the skills to do an efficient job. Those who are competent, but lack confidence, often believe others are smarter and more capable then they are. This can be particularly problematic when that individual is an engineer or scientist hired by a company to invent, or even an independent inventor who toils for years thinking that what they are doing just isn’t good enough. Building confidence in those who have creative abilities seems like a difficult task, but it can be even more challenging to work with someone who believes they are great at what they do when they clearly lack abilities, or what they do create is a modest improvement, or even trivial advance that the law is unlikely to recognize as a patentable invention. These individuals typically are completely unaware that they lack the necessary skills, they overestimate their contributions, and often become extremely defensive or even angry when others do not seem to appreciate what they consider to be their own brilliance. This phenomenon is not uncommon and has even been given a name by two psychologists who studied how individuals at different ends of the spectrum see themselves and the value of their contributions—the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The Dunning–Kruger Effect is based on the principle that, in order to know you are bad at something you must have at least a moderate understanding of it. Thus, when an individual lacks ability in a certain area, they cannot recognize that they are lacking. That is, in order to recognize their deficiencies, they must have at least a moderate understanding of the subject.

On February 7, the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce held its 2019 U.S. Chamber International IP Index Reception to announce the findings of this year’s International IP Index, which saw the United States patent system shoot from twelfth place last year to second place this year. Following are remarks delivered by United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu at the event, after being introduced by GIPC President and CEO, David Hirschmann.

When you see a docket report with a patent lawsuit filed by a non-practicing entity (NPE), do you think it’s just another ‘patent troll’ taking advantage of the system? Or would you be willing to consider that underlying every patent litigation is a human story of invention, which is the embodiment and manifestation of an innovator’s aspirations and sacrifices? These human stories are too often marginalized in the ‘patent troll’ debate. One such story is that of Wayne Evans. His life took him from the depths of poverty and loss to the struggles of being an entrepreneur raising a family and, ultimately, to late-in-life success as an inventor, innovator, and author.

Selling an idea and waiting for lottery-like winnings to arrive at your doorstep seems to be the American dream. It is certainly the dream of every inventor, and it is a dream fanned by late night television commercials that suggest all you need is an idea companies will be falling over themselves to pay you for the rest of your natural life for the right to use it.

It all sounds too good to be true! Well, that’s because—in its most simple terms—it is. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a kernel of truth to the story. There’s just a little more to it than suggested by those late night commercials.

Let’s begin with a simple question: Can you sell your idea for profit? The short answer is yes, absolutely. And, if you come up with the right idea, you can make a very handsome profit. But there is a bit of a catch (or problem really). The problem (or catch) has to do with the definition of what qualifies as an idea worth paying for and what qualifies as something too vague to be worth anything.

It is worth remembering, however, that an invention notebook is not just for proving when you invented aspects of your invention, which will rarely if ever be necessary for the overwhelming majority of inventors now that the U.S. follows first inventor to file laws. An invention notebook or invention record is comprised of a collection of notes that will be critical for you as you progress down the invention path. While we might all like to flatter ourselves with how capable our memories are, you are likely to try so many different things that either fail or succeed to varying levels that days, weeks or months later you will not be able to remember every aspect of your efforts. This can and will lead to a need to recreate the wheel. So, keeping a good invention notebook is far more useful as a personal reference than it is for evidentiary reasons.