Posts in Guest Contributors

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.

It is well known that hindsight reconstruction is an insidious error that infects patent prosecution. The Federal Circuit has noted that it is a difficult task to avoid “subconscious reliance on hindsight” and tools are available to “inoculate the obviousness analysis against hindsight”. However, it is well known that practitioners could benefit in countering the pernicious problem of subconscious hindsight directed analysis with additional tools. This article is intended to provide an additional tool outlining a new analytical approach to detecting hindsight: 1) identification of a proxy problem upon which an “obvious” advantage is predicated, and 2) showing that either a) the proxy problem is secondary to the problem solved by the inventor and would have been insufficient to drive advancement of the art, and that the examiner has failed to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have regarded the proxy problem as sufficiently significant so as to require solution, or b) a showing that the proxy problem posed to POSITA presupposes the problem and its solution as solved by the inventor and is derivative. Once it is shown that the proxy problem is subsidiary or presupposes the problem solved by the inventor it becomes a less difficult task to show that the invention was not considered as a whole or that the problem was improperly phrased.

IP portfolios are business assets. The payment of patent annuities is an important part of ensuring a valuable IP portfolio is primed for monetisation. Efficient IP management demands lots of time, attention and cost – particularly if portfolios are directly managed by patent offices around the world. Many patent holders elect external IP renewals teams to carry the administration, manage patent renewals and offer insight into which patents should be abandoned.

Not only do virtual reality devices sometime present too much information to users, they do a poor job of prioritizing the space available in augmented reality (AR) environments to portray advertisements on empty real-world surfaces, for example. Qualcomm seeks to avoid this by using the technology protected by U.S. Patent No. 9317972, entitled User Interface for Augmented Reality Enabled Device. The patent discloses a method of displaying augmented reality contents which involves receiving a camera scan of an environment in view of a user, assigning surface priority and surface trackability levels for each surface in the environment, assigning content priority levels for augmented reality contents and displaying augmented reality contents on real-world surfaces based on the assigned surface priority, surface trackability and content priority levels. The system could determine whether a user was at work, home, a business meeting or a social event in order to determine the priority of augmented reality content to be displayed.

Claim differentiation does not broaden claims beyond their meaning in light of the patent as a whole, and cannot override clear statements of claim scope found the specification and prosecution history… Disavowal can occur when the specification plainly describes “the present invention” as having that feature. Here, the specification states that an important characteristic of the present invention is a “reduction in upper width … resulting from the extended short seals.” Disavowal can also occur when the specification distinguishes or disparages prior art based on a specified feature. The specification did that here, by stating that prior art bags are difficult to secure over trash receptacle lips and explaining how the described short seals solve this problem.

The Court reasoned that the claims were limited to straightforward steps that a skilled artisan could perform mentally and that the inventors admitted to doing so. The claims, on their face, do not call for computer implementation, and Synopsys did not advance a claim construction requiring a computer. Additionally, complex details in the specification are insufficient to transform broad claims from an abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Given the breadth of the claims, the Court declined to decide if a computer-implemented version of the invention would be patentable under § 101.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that this evidence did not demonstrate a “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer in claim scope. The Court emphasized that disavowals must be evaluated in the context of the entire prosecution history. Thus, the term “cells derived from a vascularized tissue” included both parenchymal (organ) and non-parenchymal cells. The file history statements did not amount to an unmistakable disclaimer of non-parenchymal cells, in light of the full prosecution history and the claim language pending at the time of the alleged disavowal.

Basing policy recommendations on no evidence, or at best anecdotal evidence, has great potential to do more harm than good…especially when some of the missing evidence is the other side of the equation – the benefits afforded by patent licensing activity… Instead of seizing the opportunity to survey the patent licensing landscape and shed light on behavior that otherwise is invisible to the public, the FTC squandered the chance and instead developed two arbitrary categories of PAEs, determined that one of these categories was not good, and developed a set of policy recommendations because of “nuisance” litigation. By making recommendations without gathering or using the very facts that were supposed to be the public benefit of this PAE study, the FTC’s report is undoubtedly going to do more harm than good.

Despite the headlines, most infringement is small infringement. The FTC report ignores three important sea changes in the patent ecosystem that should, if anything, obliterate the use of settlement demand amounts or final license fees as any touchstone of bad faith. These are (1) the ten-year long movement to “rationalize” (actually, reduce) patent damages, (2) the “thumb on the scales” given to accused infringers in recent court holdings and legislation (primarily Alice invalidation, revitalized obviousness doctrine, and no-upside-but-everything-to-lose PTAB proceedings), and (3) increased infringer opportunities to extract monetary awards from plaintiff-patentees (Octane/Highmark).

Legislating for tobacco-style plain packages for confectionery is a disproportionate response to the obesity crisis and strips companies of valuable trademarks, writes the Institute of Economic Affairs’ head of lifestyle economics.

‘Plain packaging’ is a policy which eliminates all branding and visual design elements on products and forces manufacturers to use state-mandated colors and typefaces to create homogenized packaging with no differentiating features. Plain packaging is currently only applied to tobacco products in a handful of countries worldwide, but if health activists have their way that will change.

Softbank’s acquisition of ARM Holdings is widely known and several blogs and articles have tried to explain the business background of the huge deal. Just following the BREXIT vote, one of the best-known (worldwide) United Kingdom-based high tech companies is leaving the for seemingly greener pastures. Despite the new owners’ assurances to leave the headquarters in the United Kingdom and promises to double the number of employees in five years, speculation persists. And, though much has been reported about the business deal, little has been said about how the acquisition changed Softbank’s IP portfolio.

The Supreme Court need not wait for Congress to act. This is a case of first impression in interpreting the provision. Guided by its own law on design patent infringement and legislative history, the Court can reach the common sense result provided by the provision’s wording. Design owners should be made whole, but not unjustly enriched. Awarding the infringer’s total profits regardless of the contribution of the design to the end product’s value subverts patent law’s mandate to promote technological progress.