Posts in IP News

Today I attended the an event on Intellectual Property and the US Economy which was held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House grounds. The purpose of the event was to unveil a study — Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus — prepared by the Economics and Statistics Administration and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The study found that intellectual property intensive industries support at least 40 million jobs in the United States and contribute more than $5 trillion dollars to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). That is to say that 27.7% of all jobs in the U.S. were either directly or indirectly attributable to IP-intensive industries, and the amount contributed to the U.S. economy represents a staggering 34.8% of GDP.

The overarching theme of this book is to approach inventing in a business responsible way, so Janessa had me on page 1. Many who are unfamiliar with the trials and tribulations of inventors frequently fail to realize that inventors are highly intelligent and very creative. But like all intelligent and creative individuals engaged in a project, they need direction. She guides inventors in gentle, but firm ways, explaining what might otherwise seem obvious, but when you work with inventors daily you realize business savvy and prowess is not always where inventors excel. So when Janessa starts by explaining the importance of time management, scheduling and meeting promised deadlines she demonstrates an uncommon level of understanding with respect to both the questions inventors have and the knowledge they absolutely need to know to succeed.

So, what is this International Be Kind To Lawyers Day? I am so glad you asked! Steve Hughes, a non-lawyer from St. Louis, has been working with attorneys for many years now through his consulting firm Hit Your Stride, LLC. Whenever Steve merely mentions that he works with lawyers, he is more often than not met with snide comments, jokes and scowls. He hears things like, “Lawyers? I bet that’s a treat.” Or, “Lawyers? You poor thing.” So he asked himself, “Is it too much to ask to be nice to lawyers for just one day?” And in answer to his question, not to mention as a result of his playing defense counsel for an entire profession, the idea for National Be Kind To Lawyers Day was born.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Invent Now® and the National Academy of Inventors™ invite you to the Florida Regional Inventors Conference, a great chance to get practical advice from expert USPTO staff and to network with fellow creative entrepreneurs. The conference will be held April 27-28, 2012 at the Embassy Suites Hotel located on the campus of the University of South Florida.

Earlier today the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc. According to the Federal Circuit the specification of the ’435 patent must contain an algorithm that performs the function associated with the “access means” limitation, otherwise the limitation is indefinite and the claim invalid. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit would determine that the algorithm disclosed was incomplete. This lead the Court to explain that when the specification discloses an algorithm that only accomplishes one of multiple identifiable functions performed by a means-plus-function limitation, the specification is treated as if it disclosed no algorithm. An incomplete algorithm means no algorithm as all, which means that what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the disclosure is no longer relevant. This is where I would depart from the Federal Circuit and think that the law as it relates to means-plus-function claiming of computer software is all wrong. Means-plus-function claims has always been about what someone of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate (see, for example, USPTO 112 guidelines, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162 (9 February, 2011) so why is that not the case with respect to computer software?

How this will philosophically change things remains unclear because the America Invents Act requires that the petition filed to institute a derivation proceeding demonstrate that the claimed invention in the subject application or patent was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application without authorization. The Patent Office has also recognized the similarity between derivation proceedings and interference practice, saying: “Petitions to institute derivation proceedings, while distinct from interference practice, raise similar issues to those that may be raised in interferences in a motion for judgment on priority of invention. Currently, motions for judgment on priority of invention, including issues such as conception, corroboration…” See 77 Fed. Reg. 7035 (10 February 2012).

It is also critical for inventors and entrepreneurs to have a strategy to succeed, which seems simple enough, but is typically anything but simple for the creative types that are so good at inventing. The goal is not to create an invention that is cool, the goal is not to get a patent, the goal is almost universally to make money. The cool invention and patent are a means to the end, not the end in and of themselves. If you approach your patent activities appropriately you can lay the foundation of a business plan, at least insofar as the technology and technological advancement of your innovation is concerned. But like almost everything in life, there is a cost associated with succeeding. The cost is hard work to be sure, but there will also be significant financial requirements as well. While you may need to bootstrap your invention and business, as you move forward you will invariably need funding. From Angel investors to start, and maybe from Venture Capitalists eventually.

Protecting trade secrets is critically important if for no other reason than making sure that the time, money and energy you spend building your business is not wasted. If your employees could simply leave without having any contractual obligations that would prevent them from taking information, stealing employees away and/or soliciting your existing customers then they would be able to set up a business and compete with you for a fraction of what it cost you to do the same. After all, you were the one who spent the time and money for marketing to attract customers in the first place, and you were the one who spent the time and money necessary to train your employees. Without the cost of acquiring new customers and the costs associated with training employees that new business set up by your former employee would compete with you and have only a fraction of the start-up and overhead costs you faced. That can make it difficult for any business to keep the doors open.

All of this might be confusing to a Judge who is unfamiliar with computers, but that is not the test, is it? The question is supposed to be whether it would be confusing to a person of relevant skill in the relevant technology area. Indeed, disclosure sufficient for means-plus-function claiming may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what corresponds to the means-plus-function claim limitation. See MPEP 2181 and Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1999). Indeed, the Federal Circuit in Atmel concluded that the title of the article incorporated by reference in the specification may, by itself, be sufficient to indicate to one skilled in the art the precise structure of the means for performing the recited function. So the focus is supposed to be on one of skill in the art even when interpreting whether the specification provides adequate support for means-plus-function claiming. Nowhere in the majority opinion is it stated that a person of skill in the art would not have known and would have found the claim vague or ambiguous.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) signed a Memorandum of Understanding making permanent the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program between the two offices and setting forth the common desire to implement further developments of the PPH program during a high level event in Budapest honoring Hungarian inventors and innovative companies.

As far as I can tell none of these goals is forwarded by the sale of computers to North Korea. Sure, North Korea is the exact type of country that WIPO has historically sought to help. Not because they are a rogue nation, aspire to have a clandestine nuclear program or because they support terrorism, but rather because the people of North Korea suffer so much and there is so little economic activity that it is misleading to even call what they have an economy. Such horribly mismanaged countries is where WIPO has done its best work, to encourage the adoption and respect of IP rights, which leads to international investment and economic development.

The Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation currently has a Call for Nominations for their 39th Annual Inventor of the Year Award. Nominations are due by April 16, 2012, and the winner (and the nominators) will be honored on Monday, December 10, 2012, in Washington, D.C. at a gala event. I have already nominated one inventor from a University client of ours, and I encourage everyone to nominate those you represent (or those you know) who have made an outstanding contribution to innovation. The purpose of the award is to increase public awareness of inventors and how they benefit the nation’s economy and our quality of life.

Unfortunately this unspecific remand by the Supreme Court in AMP vacates as well the two-to-one ruling by this same Federal Circuit panel (Judges Lourie and Moore in the majority, Judge Bryson in dissent) that the claimed isolated DNA sequences were also patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. What, pray tell, does Mayo Collaborative Services change with regard to that ruling in the original AMP decision? For those, like the plaintiffs in AMP (including the ACLU), who would like to upset this “applecart,” they’re likely to be very disappointed. I can describe what should be the impact of the ruling (and reasoning) in Mayo Collaborative Services on the claimed isolated DNA sequences in three short monosyllabic words: NONE AT ALL. And the Federal Circuit can (and should) say likewise, perhaps in far more words.

On Sunday March 25 and Monday March 26, 2012, I attended the Second Annual Women’s Entrepreneurship Symposium (WES) in Shreveport, LA. The event was hosted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in Honor of Women’s History Month and was put together in collaboration with U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) and the city of Shreveport, Louisiana. WES was held at the Shreveport Convention Center and focused primarily on women entrepreneurs, innovation and the importance of intellectual property to business. I was honored to accept an invitation to present at this year’s event on social media and the importance of developing and leveraging online business relationships.

All and all this seems like a positive development. If you do provide a claim set that defines the invention from broad to narrow it seems extremely likely that at least some claims could be obtained in a case given that amendments can now be filed if they place the application in condition for allowance by adding one or more new limitations that require only a limited amount of further consideration or search. Assuming that the Patent Examiners do search the disclosure, like they are supposed to, and not just the initial claim set, allowable matter should be present and allowed to be added to the case. This should be quite beneficial to independent inventors, small businesses and start-ups who absolutely, positively need to get patents as quick as possible to continue to raise funds from investors.