Posts in Government

Congress created AIA trial proceeding to combat trolls, not create an altogether new class of them. Since the initial filings of Hayman, the STRONG ACT has been introduced in the Senate and includes a provision that would require standing for IPR petitioners (presumably to thwart such filings). However, companies not only employ IPR as an alternative to ongoing litigation but as a due diligence tool to avoid such situations in the first instance. Innovators looking to develop a new product line, or new area of business should have the freedom to clear the landscape of improvidently granted patents via the PTAB without having to wait for a lawsuit, or threat of one. Such knee-jerk legislative fixes will have unintended, and unfortunate consequences.

The definition of indigenous innovation is “enhancing original innovation through co-innovation and re-innovation based on the assimilation of imported technologies.” Those familiar with China’s joint venture rules for foreign businesses, which require them to transfer some patent licensing powers to Chinese companies in order to enter their market, are wary of statements like this that essentially support a siphoning of foreign intellectual property.

Time and time again throughout the legislative history post grant proceedings were explained as being a faster, low-cost alternative to litigating validity disputes in Federal District Court. That being the case, it would seem extremely odd that any petitioner could bring a post grant challenge to a patent when that petitioner would not have standing to sue to invalidate the patent in Federal District Court. However, the statute does say that a person other than the patent owner can file a petition to institute an inter partes review.

Google’s self-driving car development has advanced so far beyond what our country’s laws are currently able to regulate that the technology has hit some legal stumbling blocks. As a result, Google has been focusing recently Google First Quarter 2015 Text Clusteron inventing pedestrian safety systems to be incorporated with its self-driving car, even receiving a patent for an airbag that would protect pedestrians in a collision. The company even has its focus on surgical robotics, recently announcing a partnership with Johnson & Johnson to develop surgical robots that would assist human surgeons.

Earlier today the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 9,000,000. The invention that was awarded this historic patent is a system and method of collecting and conditioning rainwater and other moisture from a windshield of a vehicle and utilizing the collected fluid to replenish the fluids in the windshield washer reservoir. Undeterred by my inaccurate prediction on when the USPTO would issue Patent No. 9,000,000. I predict that the Patent Office will issue Patent No. 10,000,000 on November 28, 2017.

This year we’re placing our focus on the rapid pace of development in autonomous vehicles and self-driving car technologies here on IPWatchdog. We’re still a fair ways off from the entrance of a self-driving vehicle into the consumer marketplace; some with a knowledge of the industry believe that the debut for autonomous vehicles won’t be experienced until 2020, with widespread…

Gulbrandsen’s chief complaint with the U.S. system centers around the fact that it has become enormously easy to challenge issued patents once they have been granted. In fact, organizations in pursuit of acquired technology are leveraging the kill-rate at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to negotiate lower licensing payments. Threats are made that patents will be challenged in Inter Partes review, “so that you amend the license and reduce the fees,” Gulbrandsen explained. “So, immediately you know that devalues the patent and devalues the license agreement that you’ve got.”

The USPTO today announced the appointment of Meryl Hershkowitz as Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations. In her new position, Hershkowitz will oversee the examination and processing of applications throughout trademark operations. Hershkowitz has been one of two group directors for trademark operations of the USPTO for the last seven years. As group director, she led a staff of 10 law offices comprised of more than 200 trademark examining attorneys.

The immediate modification to the page limits for motions to amend is more in line with reality given the high burdens placed on patent owners. Even when patent owners sought additional pages, the norm was a three to five page extension. So getting ten extra pages is a welcome change. Changing the page limits, alone, is unlikely to impact the calculus underlying the strategic choice to amend. But when the choice is made to amend, patent owners will be better able to meet their burden.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation addressed whether unmanned aerial systems (UAS), also known as drones, could be further incorporated into American airspace for commercial purposes. Drones have enjoyed a growing profile in our collective consciousness thanks in large part to both the incredible array of applications for this technology as well as the concerns over public safety and privacy. Drones can take much of the danger out of work such as utility line inspection or search and rescue missions but their ability to capture images with high-definition cameras has led many to worry about a growth in unwanted snooping by drones.

In 2014 there were 1,070 fewer patent lawsuits filed than during 2013. Furthermore, the number of patent cases filed in 2014 was lower than the number of cases filed in 2012 by some 433 cases. Therefore, the stories of continued run away litigation seem to be greatly exaggerated. Given the dramatic decrease in patent litigation it seems entirely premature for Congress to be considering additional patent reform at this early stage.

There was a split in the circuit courts as to what effect a TTAB decision will have, and this depends heavily upon where the litigation is happening. The weight of a TTAB decision will vary depending on the jurisdiction, ranging from none at all to complete preclusion. Here, the issue was whether one mark was confusingly similar to another, which the Supreme Court determined was exactly the same as what was being litigated.

Mobile devices were the subject of a pair of recently issued Bank of America patents recently. It was at least a little intriguing, however, that the invention relates more to personal security than the protection of financial accounts. U.S. Patent No. 8922657, entitled Real-Time Video Image Analysis for Providing Security, claims a method for providing security to a user by receiving an image of an area frequented by a user, building a directory of non-human object and individual data within that area, recognizing variations between the data directory and a real-time video stream of the area and presenting selectable indicators of recommended security actions associated with the variations to a user via a mobile device. The innovation is intended to provide smartphone owners and other mobile device users with an augmented reality service for identifying unwanted home intrusions and offer them options for contacting authorities.

The fact is, patent examiners are struggling with the application of 35 USC 101 in light of the Alice decision just as much as everyone else. Greater uncertainty among both patent applicants and patent examiners surely increases the likelihood of disagreement between them. Thus, the Alice decision will not just increase the number of rejections under 35 USC 101, but is also likely to result in more rebuttals by applicants and more appeals of examiner decisions. A loss in patent examination efficiency, even if small, will act as a headwind against further reductions in patent pendency.

This patenting step is absolutely crucial for the commercialization of inventions. In the absence of a strong intellectual property system – specifically patents – most of those inventions will never see the light of day. Why is that? The answer is quite simple – the cost to develop those inventions to a marketable product are significant and in the absence of intellectual property protections that the patent system provides, no one will ever invest in the promise of an invention. Said another way, how many of you would invest in a company that will spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on a product knowing that a competitor will be free to offer the same product at a fraction of the cost since they invested substantially less in R&D?