Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate Judiciary Committee will debate passage of the IDEA Act and the ARTS Act, while House subcommittees will explore pathways to sustainable technologies, especially those used to develop aviation fuel from biomass. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation hosts a series of events this week, including an event to clarify march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act featuring Joe Allen, a key staffer for Senator Birch Bayh during passage of Bayh-Dole and a regular IPWatchdog contributor. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will also host its regular trademark and patent workshops, as well as events to celebrate Women’s History Month, including a Women’s Entrepreneurship Symposium event focused on funding resources for women entrepreneurs.

Gloria Steinem wrote Moving Beyond Words: Age, Rage, Sex, Power, Money, Muscles: Breaking Boundaries of Gender in 1994. Steinem was an iconic figure in a movement that began several decades earlier and continues today to close the gender gap and ensure women have equal pay for equal work, among many other issues. In the intellectual property world, this movement is presently playing out in efforts to bring more women into STEM fields, as well as the patent bar and inventorship. There has been much debate about whether these efforts are misguided and how we should proceed, so IPWatchdog reached out to the experts—women at the top of their fields in IP—for their take on the challenges that they’ve faced and ways forward. From personal experiences to practical advice, here is what they had to say.

A strong and predictable intellectual property system is crucial to protecting and promoting American innovation around the globe. It allows American businesses of any size to compete globally, creating millions of American jobs. Strong intellectual property rights provide a strong foundation for America’s role as the world’s innovation and technological leader, powering our world with the next generation of technology to help kids learn, to connect remote workers, provide better access to healthcare and help make our planet more sustainable. The role of innovation (from vaccines to communication technology, content creation, etc.) has never been more crucial than during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The ability to protect what one creates or invents grows our economy and GDP, generates incentives to continue the innovation process, and makes our country safer and more secure from foreign adversaries.  

On March 16, the European Patent Office (EPO) released the Patent Index 2020, which gives the public a snapshot view of the filing activities going on at the EU’s patent granting agency during the past year. Total patent application filings declined only slightly during 2020 to just over 180,000 patent applications, a reduction of 0.7% compared to the EPO’s 2019 patent filing totals. Despite a 4.1% decrease in patent application filings at the EPO, the United States still held the top spot among individual countries with 44,293 EPO patent filings. Patent application filing totals also dropped in Germany (down 3% to 25,954 filings) and Japan (down 1.1% to 21,841). The United States, Germany and Japan were ranked first, second and third, respectively, in the EPO Patent Index 2020.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings held at 25 this week, with one post grant review (PGR) and 24 inter partes reviews (IPRs); district court patent filings jumped significantly, however, to 95, with Cannon’s lengthy scorched-earth filings against dozens of competitors making up the bulk of that jump. The IPRs were propped up by a handful of Samsung-filed petitions against Aquis; Samsung also continued to trickle out petitions against Ericsson related to the now-infamous FRAND 5G rate case ping-ponging between China and the Eastern District of Texas. Hisense and LG filed a number of IPRs related to a semiconductor dispute with Polaris, and Qualcomm continued to battle Vector Capital-backed Monterey Research at the Board over non-practicing entity (NPE) semiconductor assertions, earning institution on at least three of the IPRs they’ve filed to date. And Amazon is having mixed luck with IPRs against a failed voice technology company they have a long history with.

As an update to my posts from 2017, 2019, and 2020, it has now been more than seven years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Yet the debate still rages over when a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none” (as eloquently phrased over 73 years ago by then-Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.). Further, it has been 10 years since famed venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote an influential op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “Why Software Is Eating the World.” This digital transformation where software is “eating the world” is undeniable.

On March 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ motion to dismiss Mylan Laboratories’ appeal and denied Mylan Laboratories’ request for mandamus relief, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear Mylan’s appeal and that Mylan had failed to qualify for mandamus relief. In 2019, Janssen Pharmaceuticals sued Mylan Laboratories in district court for infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (the ‘906 patent). In response, Mylan Laboratories petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘906 patent, raising four grounds for the unpatentability of certain claims, all based on 35 U.S.C. §103. In opposition to the institution of the IPR, Janssen Pharmaceuticals argued that the IPR “would be an inefficient use of Board resources,” due to two co-pending district court cases: the suit against Mylan Laboratories and another against Teva Pharmaceuticals, arguing “that both actions would likely reach final judgment before any IPR final written decision.”

On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to hold the rejected claims from Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) were not patent eligible because the claims are drawn to abstract mathematical calculations and statistical modeling. The examiner rejected claims 1, 4 to 11, 14 to 25, and 27 to 30 of U.S. Application Nos. 13/445,925 (‘925 application), “methods and computing systems for determining haplotype phase,” for involving patent ineligible subject matter. The CAFC applied the two-step framework under Alice v. CLS Bank to determine whether the claims were patent eligible.  

As we celebrate Women’s History Month, it is important to point out the role of women in the field of patent law. Women have been members of the patent bar since as early as 1898, when Florence King became the first woman registered to practice before the U.S. Patent Office, as well as the 685th registrant. She became a lawyer first, and then went back to school to obtain a degree in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering so that she could register on the patent bar. As a woman patent practitioner with a mechanical engineering degree, I feel a lot of gratitude to women like Florence King, who paved the way for me. Yet, despite her trailblazing efforts over a century ago, there is still a considerable lack of gender diversity in the patent bar.

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) recently issued its Final Report outlining a strategy for the United States to “win” the artificial intelligence (AI) era. Critically, the Commission argues that the United States government is not currently organizing or investing to win the technology competition in AI against a committed competitor (i.e., China), nor is it prepared to defend against AI-enabled threats and rapidly adopt AI applications for national security purposes. In addition to the potential patent-eligibility and data ownership IP issues noted in the Report, other IP uncertainties unique to AI technology continue to persist, such as machine authorship and machine inventorship of valuable contributions. As part of the United States’ overall strategic interests in winning the AI era, the Commission recommends that the United States adopt IP policies to incentivize, expand, and protect AI and emerging technologies, as well as recognize IP as a national priority. But significant questions remain as to whether U.S. courts will reliably permit IP holders to proceed with AI-focused IP infringement claims against potential offenders, or if patent-eligibility, inventorship, fair use, and other defenses will tip the scales towards trade secret protection.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled yesterday in Uniloc v. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc. that the “no appeal” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314 does not preclude the court from reviewing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that a petitioner is not estopped from maintaining an IPR proceeding under the IPR estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). However, the court noted that its decision was based on the particular facts of this case, where “the alleged estoppel-triggering event occurred after institution.”

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings are way down for the third week in a row, with 15 inter partes reviews (IPRs) and two post grant reviews (PGRs) filed compared to 59 district court complaints. A few big-ticket suits were renewed—the older capital-backed Fundamental Innovation Systems International [Centerbridge Partners] and Solas Oled [Magentar Capital] suits saw new defendants—and some well-known smaller ones soldiered on.  The aggressive EcoFactor competitive suit rolls on in the ITC and now across Texas, with a number of new suits filed by the IoT company. There’s a new suit by a Quest Patent Research Corp subsidiary and a smattering of other campaign-adds listed below; and it’s worth noting that DynaIP subsidiaries have exploded with litigation these past few months, with the forecast promising more rain on the horizon.

Representative Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH) yesterday reintroduced the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement Act (IDEA Act), which seeks to direct the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) “to collect demographic data – including gender, race, military or veteran status, and income level, among others – from patent applicants on a voluntary basis.” Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) are co-sponsors of the legislation.

Last week the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held the first of five discussions that will take place every Wednesday in March during its Women’s Entrepreneurship Symposium series. While participants discussed the challenges they’ve faced as women in leadership, they also noted that the USPTO has been ahead of the curve when it comes to promoting women into executive positions and shared tips to help more women rise to the top.

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee convenes a hearing to discuss antitrust reforms meant to address increasingly dominant tech platforms, while House Subcommittees on Innovative Technologies and National Security will review the final recommendations recently issued by the National Security Council on Artificial Intelligence. Elsewhere, the Smithsonian Institute explores the innovative careers of Jerome Lemelson and InBae Yoon, the Brookings Institute discusses what role government should play in addressing algorithmic biases, and the week closes with a Center for Strategic & International Studies event introducing the Renewing American Innovation Project, which welcomes Former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu as a non-resident senior fellow.