Posts Tagged: "Patent Reform"

It has been more than two years since I last wrote here that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision has left the IP bar without a clear and reliable test to determine when exactly a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” It is now mid-2019, and the USPTO’s newest Section 101 guidelines interpreting Alice—and the accompanying examples—have not cleared the confusion, and Alice continues to distract the USPTO, courts, and practitioners from focusing properly on Sections 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness). The net effects still being increased cost, lower patent quality, lower patent portfolio valuations, wasted patent reform lobbying dollars and, in many instances, the denial of patent protection for worthwhile software inventions. Meanwhile, in the real world, which is experiencing the Fourth Industrial Revolution—where even the average modern car contains roughly 150 million lines of code—the importance of software is undebatable.

Now that the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property has concluded its hearings on patent eligibility reform, it appears that the draft changes to Sections 100 and 112 are the last great danger in the overall patent eligibility debate and we must not let our guard down. A new version of the bill is due out sometime after the July 4 holiday; please send the following text with any of your edits to [email protected].

IPWatchdog’s third Patent Masters Symposium was held this past week in Arlington, Virginia, and included some of the best and brightest in the patent world. The event focused on the effects of Alice five years on, but more importantly, identified practical approaches for navigating Section 101 law now and in the future. Throughout the event, I also asked attendees to vote on several statements in an effort to come to consensus on certain points relating to the pending patent reform legislation. Those statements that received at least 80% of the vote are included in the letter below, which will be sent to the Senators and Representatives working on the next draft of the new Section 101.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: The Supreme Court today agreed to hear two trademark cases next term; Senators Thom Tillis and Chris Coons issue a statement regarding the recent round of patent eligibility hearings by the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee; four bills that would impact pharmaceutical patents and practices have passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Huawei publicly calls out negative impact of Senator Marco Rubio’s legislative amendment preventing it from seeking U.S. patent infringement damages, one day after losing its trade secret case against CNEX Labs; Spotify settles a pair of major copyright suits targeting its music streaming service; Intel will reportedly auction thousands of IP assets related to wireless device technology; and revised data shows that U.S. GDP grew 3.1% during the first three months of 2019.

One of the more dramatic moments in my $20 million dollar patent brawl occurred in the pivotal preliminary injunction hearing at the courthouse in downtown Tyler, Texas. I learned that Walmart was coming to monitor the proceedings. I think they were curious to meet the crazy inventor who dared to sue the largest retailer on the planet. The proposal on the table was that I dismiss the suit with prejudice (i.e., drop the suit and waive all my rights) or else Walmart would never buy another product from my exclusive licensee, Zuru—no balloons, no robotic fish, no dart guns. Distraught, I hid in a side room and didn’t show for the meeting where my lawyers had advised me to capitulate. Curiosity heightened; the Walmart attorney unexpectedly suspended all demands and invited me to sit down and explain my point of view. I pointed to the infringing spiral-faced Battle Balloons and told her they were selling my invention without permission, thereby harming me and my family. The Walmart attorney was flummoxed and suggested that I didn’t understand how the patent system worked and was overreaching. Here I was claiming to have invented this apparatus that looked different than mine. It had a spiral face and mine was flat. This is the problem with our patent system; it is run by people who don’t understand invention. Think about it, we have to use this bizarre legal document not only to describe our discovery but to describe the boundaries of it. For inventors, there are no boundaries—why would we stop applying and extending our discoveries? We do our best to describe it, but in the end, non-inventors write and interpret the laws that determine our rights.

The United States is on the brink of making changes to the U.S. patent law that would be modeled on India’s Patent Law. At a Senate Judiciary Committee markup scheduled for tomorrow, June 27, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) plans to offer language as an amendment in the form of the No Combination Drug Patents Act. The language of the bill would prohibit the patenting of new forms, new uses and new methods of administration of new medicines unless the patent applicant can show “a statistically significant increase in efficacy”. This language is oddly similar to India’s Section 3(d), something the Trump Administration’s U.S. Trade Representative has complained “restricts patent eligible subject matter in a way that poses a major obstacle to innovators” (see here, page 49). Other Senators have also weighed in against “a generally deteriorating environment for intellectual property” in India (see here), including Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Judiciary Committee members Mike Crapo (R-ID), Amy Klobuchar(D-MN)and Chris Coons (D-CT).

Seventy-two companies and organizations, ranging from Tivo to Bristol-Myers Squibb and from the American Conservative Union to the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs (USIJ)— as well as retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel—have sent a letter to Senators Thom Tillis and Chris Coons and Representatives Hank Johnson, Doug Collins, and Steve Stivers in support of the current draft language to reform Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act. The letter comes as the patent community eagerly awaits a new version of the bill, following three hearings and 45 witnesses in which most voiced their general support for the approach taken in the draft, but several sticking points were identified. The next iteration is expected soon after Congress’ July 4 recess.

Panelists in this past Thursday’s IPWatchdog webinar, “Dissecting Alice,” gave credit to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for the steps it has taken to minimize the damage caused by the courts’ lack of action on patent eligibility, but expressed concern that it simply isn’t enough. USPTO Commissioner for Patents Drew Hirshfeld joined the webinar to report on the progress made since the decision came out and said that, while Alice undoubtedly caused some confusion and disarray for practitioners, “we’re in a better place today than we were two or five years ago.” Hirshfeld explained that the Office’s initial approach to providing guidance for examiners on Alice was to use a “case law matching process,” which eventually became untenable after years of case law had built up. He said that the January 2019 Guidance—which Hirshfeld noted is also binding on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—was developed over an intensive eight-month period by a small team of people that included Director Andrei Iancu himself and involved at least one full Sunday. He added that the examiner training effort for the 101 Guidance has also been more thorough than any he’s seen in his 25 years at the USPTO. The Office is currently in the process of developing additional concrete case examples for examiners and practitioners to work with in order to further enhance the guidance.

When it was announced that I would be testifying to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on IP about Section 101, I was surprised. Not only did they grant a critic of the 101 roundtables a chance to speak, but not one inventor who used patents to fund a startup has testified in any patent-related hearing in decades. This gave me faith that Senators Tillis and Coons are serious about fixing 101 right by considering what inventors need. When the hearing was announced, several inventors contacted me. They wanted to personally tell their stories to Congress. They trusted the government to protect them, but instead lost their careers, their secrets, and their investments of hard work and money. A few even lost their families, their home, or their health. The inventors were happy about eliminating all 101 exceptions, but the draft language of 100(k) and 112(f) transfer the damage to those sections.

The growing debate over the effects of patents on the rising price of pharmaceuticals continues to encourage the introduction of drug pricing-focused bills in Congress over the past few months. Most recently, a pair of proposed bills have been introduced which seek to limit the ability to patent follow-on innovations involving medicines which have already received patent protection in one level of dosage or method of administration. On June 12, a press release announced the introduction of the Terminating the Extension of Rights Misappropriated (TERM) Act into the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is sponsored by a bipartisan coalition including Representatives Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Doug Collins (R-GA), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) and Ben Cline (R-VA). According to the release, this proposed law looks to change the burden of proving patentability of a drug-related invention under existing patent statute from generic drugmakers challenging drug patents to the pharmaceutical research and development firms filing patent applications.

Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice v. CLS Bank five years ago today, patent eligibility jurisprudence and practice have become increasingly chaotic—at least in the opinion of many IP stakeholders and the members of Congress who are spearheading the effort to rectify the situation. Today, to commemorate Alice’s five-year anniversary/ birthday, IPWatchdog posed the following—admittedly somewhat leading—statement to a cross-section of the IP community, and gave them a chance to agree or disagree with it. Many did not respond—including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Google—perhaps because of the sensitive moment in the history of patent eligibility law in which we find ourselves right now. However, the responses below do reflect a range of views on the impact of the case so far.

Today is Alice’s fifth birthday; some may not be celebrating, but as a birthday gift, John Vandenberg argues the decision was not new law and should not be abrogated. – On the third day of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee – IP Subcommittee’s hearings this month on whether to radically revise the standards for patent eligibility, I testified on behalf of our patent system’s under-appreciated second engine of innovation. Below are some of the key arguments I made in my oral and written testimony and my thoughts on why the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision was good law that should not be abrogated. Much of the anti-Alice commentary touts our patent system’s first engine of innovation, which uses the lure of monopoly profits or royalties to incentivize innovation and the public disclosure of those innovations. Today’s Sec. 101 jurisprudence is said to harm that first engine of innovation, particularly in life sciences where it is easier to get a patent in Europe and China than in the U.S., causing investment in personalized therapy and medicine R&D in the U.S. to suffer. While some question those factual premises, the “101 status quo” camp primarily responds that Alice (along with IPRs) has curtailed abusive patent troll litigation, cutting patent litigation costs by 40% or more. But, another important point has received little attention: expanding what can be patented, and how claimed, risks harming our patent system’s second engine of innovation.

Here’s the hypothetical: A patent application has been filed for a new medical device. The device reads various physiological signals from a patient and presents, with previously unheard-of accuracy and reliability, the condition of the patient’s immune system.

Your client, who made a heavy investment in research and development of this device, wants U.S. patent protection, and is willing to pursue remedies in court if necessary.

A patent application has been filed. The subject matter has been claimed as a device and as a method. The claimed method recites actions performed with the physical components of the device.
To your client’s disappointment, a hypothetical examiner has rejected the claims as patent ineligible under section 101. The examiner relied principally upon the case of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018), concluding that the method claims and the device claims “are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, namely, collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”  If the “directed to” inquiry means that patent eligibility depends upon what the device does, then the examiner has a legitimate point invoking the Electric Power case. Your client’s device does indeed collect information, analyze that information, and display the results of the analysis. Even though the examiner had a legitimate point, that does not mean the examiner is correct; but it does mean that there is a good chance that the examiner will not reverse the stated position on ineligibility. You have, therefore, advised your client of the foreseeability that your quest for patent protection will have to go to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and may well end up in court. Your client is ready to go the distance. Your immediate job is to respond to the pending rejection. You must argue in favor of patent eligibility under section 101. You must preserve the arguments you expect to make in the foreseeable appeals, even if you have confidence that the examiner’s ruling on patent eligibility will not be reversed by the examiner. You do not want to be in the position where an appellate tribunal points out that you are making arguments for the first time on appeal.

Coverage of the ongoing patent reform debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee by the popular press has been alarmist and largely incorrect. For example, even just yesterday—five days after the final hearing on patent eligibility reform concluded—the top story in Google’s patent alert results was “Corporations shouldn’t be able to patent your DNA,” which leads with the sentence, “The practice of patenting genes, once banned by the Supreme Court, may come back soon despite a measure of horror the very idea once inspired.” It would seem that those companies and entities that oppose reform to patent eligibility requirements are not going to meaningfully participate in the political process, and instead will wield their considerable PR machines in an effort to confuse, conflate and misdirect the public as part of their ongoing scheme to suppress innovation in America. Indeed, we know that the high-tech industry was invited to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but refused, as Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) explained at the second hearing. Why would the high-tech industry choose to ignore these Senate hearings, where many dozens of witnesses both for and against reform were invited to share their views?

This week, the U.S. Senate will hold hearings on enhancing drone innovation and addressing cybersecurity concerns; reducing prescription drug prices; and developments in geothermal energy technologies. The House of Representatives will host a hearing on clean energy tech development as well as a markup meeting on a proposed bill to increase participation in STEM careers. Meanwhile, think tanks the American Enterprise Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation will take a look at the patent reform debate with Representative Steve Stivers (R-OH) and explore the potential effects of proposed drug pricing reforms on innovation in the pharmaceutical sector, respectively.