Posts in Guest Contributors

Biopharmaceutical innovation is difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and risky. More so now than ever. A 2014 study by Tufts University’s Center for the Study of Drug Development calculated that a mere one in eight (11.8%) of all drugs that enter clinical trials are ultimately approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The drug development gamble appears to be getting riskier. A report released on May 25th by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), the biotechnology industry’s national trade group, finds that fewer than one in ten (9.6%) of drugs that enter clinical trials will gain approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Design patents cover visual, nonfunctional characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. They may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to a combination of the two. Ultimately, a design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structure or functionality. Trade dress is a type of trademark that refers to the image and overall appearance of a product. Trademarks protect brands and the goodwill associated with the brand. A trademark is used to identify the source of goods or services and is used to distinguish the goods and services of one seller or provider from another. Trade dress can include product packaging, product shape and color, and the look and feel of a restaurant or retail store.

The Federal Circuit found that the specification explicitly supported the district court’s claim construction, which precluded a finding of infringement. Two passages specified the meaning of, and provided context for, a claim term that referred to the relative location among certain claim elements. A “relative location” claim term is often read in light of, and by relying on, the written description. Because the district court’s claim construction was proper, the Court found the grant of summary judgment of non infringement was proper.

A few years ago, a clearly irritated client asked me why European maintenance fees were so expensive. Apparently, he had consulted the EPO schedule of fees and found my recent quote to be much higher than the government fee. The final quote in this case was more than double the government fee, which itself is not a small amount as any practitioner who prosecutes European patent applications knows. I had not realized that the annuity payment firm I was using had slowly increased its rates over the years to an unreasonable level. This started a reflection on how to minimize costs to my clients while still ensuring that the maintenance fees were paid.

Amici agree with Petitioner that this procedure was beyond Congress’s power to impose, and its underpinning rationale—that patents are a matter of administrative largesse, rather than the constitutionally protected property right—is constitutionally infirm. Amici write separately because this case presents an issue of enormous significance with far-reaching consequences for inventors, investors, and small-business owners. The institution of IPR review has made patents more expensive to obtain and defend, and has introduced uncertainty in patent rights that makes patents less valuable to their holders, less attractive to inventors, and less safe for investors. This devaluation of patent rights has measurably diminished the value of all patents.

Would you climb Everest without an expert guide? You shouldn’t navigate the global IP landscape without one either. The global intellectual property terrain is becoming increasingly complex. Across the world, the quantity of patent applications has almost doubled since 2000 (source: WIPO), and the largest single contributor, China, reported over 300,000 patents granted in the chemistry sector in 2015 alone, a 30% increase from the year before (source: STN®, database: CAplus?, accessed 2/15/2016). Consequently, having a patent search professional who can work with your team is more important than ever. Being able to efficiently and expertly research the IP considerations that impact key business decisions can you save time and money, while also providing you with invaluable topical and global insight.

In a May 13, 2016 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision upholding an Examiner’s denial of registration based on a finding that the term CHURRASCOS was generic as used for a restaurant, because the word “refer[s] to beef or grilled meat more generally” and that the term “identifies a key characteristic or feature of the restaurant services, namely, the type of restaurant.”

This case presents an important constitutional question which the court below decided based on an incomplete analysis of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. In the case below, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that a patent is a “public right,” and that these Article I trial proceedings are not unconstitutional. Significantly, the Federal Circuit reached its conclusion without considering more than a century of precedent by this Court recognizing that an issued patent is a property right, at least for purposes of determining if a “taking” has happened. James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356, 358 (1882); see also Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 2419, 2427 (2015) (quoting with approval James).

On its face, the new guidance seems to urge examiners to develop well-reasoned, substantive rejections rather than conclusory rejections which provide little basis for applicants to advance applications toward allowance, particularly in the complex areas of vaccines, diagnostics, methods of treatment, and screening for genetic alterations, where the new examples are focused. Furthermore, compared with prior guidance, the new examples include more claims that are considered patent eligible subject matter. Some observers believe this may be an effort by the patent office to dispel hesitation that examiners have apparently had in drawing conclusions of patent eligibility when examining claims.

After several years of negotiations between the Kosovo government and the European Commission, the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) entered into force on April 1, 2016. The entry into force of the SAA is an important development for Kosovo since this constitutes the first contractual relationship between Kosovo and the European Union. The SAA includes several chapters on various political and economic issues as well as provisions aiming to promote EU standards in many areas, including intellectual property. I will first highlight the main provisions of the SAA concerning IP rights and compare them with the respective provisions in a few other SAAs that the EU signed with other countries in the region. I will then analyze what the entry into force of the SAA means for the Kosovo government in terms of IP protection and how this development will positively affect trademark holders and IP practitioners.

The disparity between the art units is confused even more so when we consider the total number of Alice rejections in each art unit, rather than just counting the total number of applications receiving an Alice rejection. Doing that, we can see that, while 3622 and 3623 have almost equal numbers of applications with Alice rejections, 3623 actually has more in total. This means that applications in that art unit are more likely to receive multiple Alice rejections and take longer to prosecute.

There are many examples of patents that had virtually no value because the claims were undetectable, unenforceable, or ridiculously narrow. In the process of getting a worthless patent — a bad patent, the company gave up their complete roadmap for how to manufacture and use their product. These bad patents are not just a waste of money, but their competitive advantage is eviscerated by disclosing everything they know. The bottom line: Some patent applications can be very damaging to a startup company.

Of the virtual reality options currently on the market, the Oculus Rift is arguably built upon one of the most technologically robust VR platforms. Capturing the movements of a person wearing the Oculus Rift headset is a sensor which tracks infrared LED constellations projected onto a user. Each Oculus Rift unit comes with the IR LED sensor, a mounting stand, and a cable to connect the sensor to a personal computer for processing resources. Users can also use an Oculus Rift remote or a compatible remote controller, such as an Xbox game controller, to input commands and interact with the virtual world.

Recently I took and passed, on my second attempt, the United States Patent & Trademark Office Registration (bar) Exam. It is a daunting experience but manageable with some occasional misery in the mix. The exam is offered once a year in Virginia on paper otherwise you schedule your own computer exam at a Prometric testing site. The total time needed to prepare for the exam is about 150 hours of solid study/course time. It is a hundred questions divided into two three-hour sessions with an hour break.

This post provides a practical approach for companies to handle the licensing of Intellectual Venture’s (IV’s) smaller in-house funds (ISF & IDF) during a negotiation with IV. These two smaller, in-house funds together represent approximately 20% of IV’s total portfolio. In a typical negotiation with IV, all of the patents in the IIFs (described below) are available for license without exclusions. But, the ISF and IDF patents are more restrictively licensed. Additionally, IV may have presented evidence of use (EOU) materials for assets in these funds, or otherwise highlighted, some of these assets during negotiations, further heightening the risks. For the two smaller funds, IV will provide a list of excluded assets. How can you cost-effectively assess these funds and the associated risks from these smaller funds?