Posts in Guest Contributors

The Norwegian fairy tale “Three Billy Goats Gruff” was far ahead of its time and the moral of that story has a very relevant, modern application. In short, the story introduces three goats that want to cross a river to eat some luscious grass. To do so, however, the goats must first cross a bridge; under which lives a fearsome troll, who is so territorial that he eats anyone who dares to cross it. By working together, the goats are able to plot against the troll, and ultimately knock him off of the bridge. After knocking the troll off the bridge, the three goats lived happily ever after. So, if these goats can figure out how to get rid of trolls, why can’t sophisticated companies do the same?

A recent Canadian survey (CRA Survey) has conclusively attributed lowered levels of R&D investment in Canada’s innovation ecosystem to the country’s unique judicial “Promise Doctrine.” The Promise Doctrine is a controversial patent elimination dynamic, judicially imposed during patent enforcement proceedings, often after a patented product has achieved its developmental endpoint, having successfully completed its long and costly commercialization. By its unpredictable applicability, like an unseen open manhole, Canada’s promise doctrine can cancel the benefits of a long journey at its market-ready endpoint… As the Survey suggests, long-lasting damage to Canada’s innovation ecosystem may already have occurred, which is why the Survey bears so heavily on the U.S. patent system’s own endpoint “open manhole”, Inter partes review (IPR). However Canada deals with its promise doctrine woes, we too have much to learn from this Canadian Survey.

The Track One program was instituted on September 23, 2011, as part of the America Invents Act. Known officially as the “Prioritized Patent Examination Program,” the USPTO promises a final disposition within 12 months for applicants who participate in the program and who pay the $4,000 fee for the privilege. To be eligible for participation in the program, an application can have no more than four independent claims and 30 dependent claims and no multiple dependent claims. Per USPTO regulations, applicants can request examination under the Track One program either from the date of original filing or with an RCE. We wanted to find out how beneficial the Track One program was for applicants who entered it at the beginning of prosecution versus at the RCE. The Track One program was ripe for study, which we originally started in 2015. This article is an update on our original findings, with a few new surprises thrown in.

What is the best way to assess the potential value or use of a patent portfolio? Before we examine this, it’s important to clarify that a patent only has value in the context of its place in a portfolio and in how the portfolio is used to support the organization’s business strategy. Let’s look at two examples. A Patent Assertion Entity will evaluate patent value based solely on the potential revenue that will come from a licensing program. On the other hand, an operating company typically places a higher value on patents that provide protection. This can be the ability to defend leadership in a profitable market category or the ability to offer protection as a sole-sourced product’s revenue stream.

Over the last two years, the Australian patent and trade mark attorney profession has seen a number of significant changes. The 2013 amendments to the Patents Act 1990, meant that Australian patent and trade mark attorney firms could incorporate. This led to the consolidation of some of Australia’s biggest patent and trade mark attorney firms. These consolidated firms have subsequently listed on the Australian Stock Exchange to raise capital and have since been on an aggressive acquisition spree to achieve market dominance… In short, there are inherent conflicts of interest when an individual or entity is obliged to act for both clients and shareholders.

When responding to an eDiscovery request, you have likely experienced clients that have on premises email archives. The standard discovery process that the email archive vendors suggested you follow was no doubt to pull up the archive-wide search capability and perform a global search against the archive based on keywords. Once that results-set was available, you could perform some first pass culling and export the results set to external counsel or to a standalone eDiscovery platform for further processing. This procedure makes a great deal of sense… except for the overlooked fact that this process does not take into account the email stubs in the live email system.

In 2013, Cardiocom, LLC (“Cardiocom”), a subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”), sought inter partes review of two patents owned by Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. (“Bosch”). The Cardiocom petitions were denied in January 2014. Medtronic later sought another inter partes review of the same two patents, without naming Cardicom as an interested party… Section 314(d) bars review of questions regarding the application and interpretation of statutes “closely related” to the decision whether to institute an IPR, including reconsideration of the Board’s decision to institute.

A divided panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s rejection of all pending claims as obvious in an appeal arising from a method for treating or preventing influenza by oral inhalation of zanamivir. The teaching here seems to be that references can be combined to show that it would have been obvious to zero in on one of a few options disclosed in the prior art. Judge Newman filed a dissenting opinion.

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recently released report on patent assertion entities (PAEs) includes a number of key findings made by the agency on the business model of such companies. The FTC identified two different business models employed by PAEs which differ in terms of litigation and licensing activity. Most of the FTC’s recommendations are legislative in scope but the report does include some advice for the country’s judicial system. For example, the report also includes a number of recommendations to deter what the FTC calls “nuisance litigation.”

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or the Board) Rules of Practice will change on January 14, 2017. The new rules will be applicable to all inter partes (oppositions, cancellations, concurrent use) and ex parte appeal proceedings, including those pending on January 14, 2017. The main changes to be aware of are outlined below:

The stage is now set for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the future of laches in patent litigation. If the Court closely follows its analysis in the Petrella decision, it is fairly likely that the Court will reverse the Federal Circuit and hold that laches cannot bar claims for damages within the six-year period set forth in § 286. Indeed, given the en banc ruling, it is unlikely that the Court would grant certiorari simply to confirm that Aukerman remains good law. There is also the conspicuous absence of the term “laches” (or any other reference to “equitable” defenses) in the Patent Act. While the Federal Circuit found that the doctrine of laches was implied by the language of § 282, the Supreme Court may not be so willing to entertain the same statutory interpretation.

The fundamental patent bargain has been perilously breached by forcing publication on every application. Sound policy would have avoided upsetting the core patent bargain – disclosure upon grant of exclusive rights – and would have provided an equitable incremental quid-pro-quo: applicants can reap the additional optional benefit of deferral of examination for several years in exchange for early disclosure of their application. That way, applicants who do not wish to defer examination would then be unaffected and their core patent bargain would have been undisturbed – disclosure only upon grant of exclusive rights… Those who push for 18-month publication of all applications have it all backwards. Non-publication is not the problem – it is the solution.

While TecSec had urged the panel to reassign the case to a different judge on remand in part because the district court judge repeatedly held against TecSec, raised dispositive issues sua sponte, had been reversed on appeal for many of those issues, and had pre-judged a § 101 issue that has not yet been raised, reassignment is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. “Here, reassignment is governed by Fourth Circuit law, which applies a three factor test for reassignment: 1) whether the judge would be reasonable expected to have substantial difficulty putting her views that were held to be incorrect out of her mind; 2) whether reassignment is necessary to preserve the appearance of justice; and 3) the degree of waste of judicial resources and duplication if the case were reassigned. See United States v. Guglielmi, 929 F.2d 1001, 1007 (4th Cir. 1991). Nothing in this case merits reassignment on remand.”

Patent offices are failing to keep up with the growth of the innovation economy and the resulting increase in patent applications. Unfortunately, the problem could easily get worse in coming years. Many patent offices apparently have yet to process applications from recent years, when huge increases in applications have occurred. It’s a problem that threatens to undermine the global patent system, but what’s both encouraging and discouraging by turns is that it’s largely a basic problem of good governance. Many of the solutions to the problem are relatively straightforward. They require the application of sufficient resources and a willingness to hire an appropriate number of examiners and share work between patent offices. These solutions are a matter of political will and effective management, rather than complex policy. Some countries have shown the will to turn things around, and we hope others will follow.

We create two new companies around academic inventions every day of the year. The critical role such companies play in drug development is clear. The successful integration of public research institutions into the economy is based on the Bayh-Dole Act, which inserted the incentives of patent ownership into the government R&D system. Not a single new drug had been developed from NIH funded research under the patent destroying policies preceding Bayh-Dole. No one is going to spend billions of dollars and more than a decade of effort turning early stage inventions into new drugs or fund a life science startup company without strong patent protection. Yet the patent system and Bayh-Dole are precisely what the critics seek to undermine.