Posts in IP News

Whether the term “body” encompassed “multi-piece” structures became the crux of the claim construction issues in Retractable Technologies. The District Court for Eastern Texas, apparently applying the doctrine of claim differentiation, construed independent Claims 1 and 43 to cover a “body” which might be a “multi-piece” structure. Accordingly, the District Court denied post-trial motions by the alleged infringer (Becton Dickinson or “BD”) to overturn the jury verdict that BD infringed these Claims of the ‘224 patent. Judge Lourie (writing for the panel majority) reversed the District Court, ruling that the term “body” was limited to a “one-piece” structure in light of the ‘224 patent specification.

That being the case it seems likely to me that patent reform won’t be picked up in the Senate until after Labor Day in September. What does this mean for patent reform? Who knows! I personally cannot see the Senate capitulating to the demands of the House of Representatives, and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has already fired a shot across the bow prior to the House voting on H.R. 1249 suggesting he plans to make a big deal about USPTO funding, which was stripped from H.R. 1249. If the Senate does not accept H.R. 1249 and instead modifies the bill that would mean it would have to go back to the House. We might get into a game of ping-pong because I am told there will be no Conference on this legislation.

Small businesses are the backbone of the nation’s economy and those that are most likely to engage in job creation. Unfortunately, the small businesses surveyed tell a tale of little or no job creation over the next 1 to 3 years, and in fact suggest there will be more layoffs coming. The respondents see too much uncertainty in Washington, DC, too many regulations and a number of other matters (i.e., the deficit, debt, health care and taxes) as significant impediments to job creation. This on the heels of a disappointing jobs report for June 2010, downward revisions of the number of jobs created in April and May, and unemployment rising to 9.2%, this Chamber survey only piles on the continuing terrible news for the economy. With Congress bickering over the obvious — namely that we simply cannot spend money we don’t have and need to start spending less than we bring in to cut the deficit — it doesn’t seem there is likely to be any good news on the horizon.

Last week, the 8th Circuit handed down a ruling saying that knickknack companies can’t use Warner Brothers’ copyrighted images on their merchandise even if they use public domain elements. Shocking. But for reasons unknown, some Hollywood types took this to mean that “every Wizard of Oz movie is in jeopardy”. Ummmm… no. Granted, the issues deal with one of the quirkier concepts in copyright law but just… no. At the end of the day, my pretties, it all boils down to what is protected by copyright, what is not, and what you can do with that stuff.

The vast number of America’s companies that need patents to prosper and grow should fear the post-grant provisions for challenging patents in H.R. 1249, the patent reform bill passed last month by the House of Representatives. In a system already plagued by delays in granting patents, they threaten to delay courts from enforcing patents once finally granted. This threat has received little attention, perhaps because advocates of the bill promise promptness that they cannot deliver.

It is critical for inventors to document and expand upon any idea. If you continually add more details you will cross over the idea/invention boundary and be squarely on the invention side of the line. What you want to do is explain your idea, as well as any and all aspects and alternatives associated with your idea. This will then get you toward approaching the point where it becomes specific enough for it to be considered an invention. When you reach this point you have something that can be protected and patented.

Article One Partners is at it again, this time with four patents in the cross-hairs owned by the company suing Apple App Developers for patent infringement — Lodsys. Article One Partners has made a name for itself as the premiere crowd sourcing, prior art locating company in the world. Now they have three different studies aimed squarely at the four Lodsys patents, which were just used earlier this week to sue the New York Times and others, and earlier still against Best Buy, Adidas, CVS and others. Indeed, it seems that Lodsys is becoming quite a nuisance for defendants, which places them at or near the top of the patent troll most wanted.

Under the “first to file” AIA regime, the effective prior art date is what prior art exists before the U.S. patent filing date. In other words, the U.S. patent applicant no longer has the luxury of that potential up to one year “window” after the invention date. Instead, the danger of intervening prior art by others steadily (and potentially exponentially) increases as time passes between the invention date and the U.S. patent filing date. Put differently, U.S. patent applicants are now really in a “race to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)” to minimize the ever increasing danger of intervening (and accumulating) prior art coming into play. For the Goliaths, they’ve been existing in this situation for many years because the rest of the world (ROW) is “first to file.” But for the American Davids, “first to file” under the AIA is going to be culture shock of the worst, and most expensive kind, with time pressure that these Davids aren’t prepared or trained to handle.

In almost all cases, inter partes reexamination is better than ex parte reexamination, except of course where the requester wants to stay anonymous or the application from which the patent issued was filed before November 1999. The opportunity to reply to the patentee’s arguments and to address the specific concerns of the examiner is quite valuable. This is especially true where the examiner cites his or her own prior art. Issues commonly evolve over the course of reexamination, so that arguments in an ex parte request often are no longer persuasive by the end of the proceeding. I would add that some of the frequent users of reexamination, such as Apple and Google, almost always select inter partes reexamination when it is an option.

The question remains in the mind of many, however, whether Zynga is a company worth investing in given its near complete dependence on Facebook for revenue. If you actually read the Zynga S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission you will likely be scared out of your wits by the risk the company lays out in exceptional detail. Facebook is the primary distribution, marketing, promotion and payment platform for Zynga games, and the company generates substantially all of its revenue and players through the Facebook platform. Not exactly the kind of diversification that one would wish for, making Zynga completely dependent upon existing Facebook agreements and the extension thereof. You will likely also be underwhelmed by their IP portfolio, particularly their patent portfolio.

In going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime mandated by the America Invents Act (AIA), much attention has been focused on the amorphous “grace period” provision provided to patent applicants for certain activities undertaken by them prior to filing for a U.S. patent. Much less attention was paid to the amendments made to sections 203(c)(2) and 203(c)(3) of the Bayh-Dole compliance obligations which were directly impacted by this change in definition from the old “statutory bar” provision (based on publication, on sale, or public use of the invention caused by the patent applicant), to this new “grace period” provision. But even more astounding (and unsettling) are the unrecognized consequences caused by the AIA in “realistically” meeting certain Bayh-Dole compliance obligations by going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime.

According to INSEAD, Switzerland is the most innovative country in the world, gaining three spots from its position in last year’s GII. Sweden and Singapore follow in the 2nd and 3rd positions, respectively. This year’s rankings include six European economies (including Finland 5th, Denmark 6th, the Netherlands 9th and the United Kingdom 10th), two Asian (including Hong Kong, SAR, China 4th) and two North American economies (the United States 7th and Canada 8th) in the top 10.

By accepting cert. in Kappos v. Hyatt the United States Supreme Court has clearly and undeniably jumped the shark in terms of patents. This case, which raises issues of such little importance to the greater scheme of patent law, is hardly appropriate for Supreme Court consideration. All those attorneys and parties who will have your petition for cert. denied you are left with the sad reality that your case is not as important as a matter that statistically comes up in .00% of all patent applications filed at the USPTO.

This week marks the first anniversary of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in Bilski v. Kappos. The decision held that the machine-or-transformation test is not the exclusive test for patent eligibility, and that the three traditional exclusions of natural phenomena, abstract ideas, and laws of nature still apply. The summary of cases prepared by Attorneys Holoubek and Sterne is excellent! It is absolutely must reading for attorneys prosecuting and litigating in this space.

The EPO was ranked first for patent quality among the world’s five largest patent offices for the second consecutive year in a survey of corporate and private practice IP professionals conducted jointly by Thomson Reuters and Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine. The annual benchmarking survey, published in the June issue of the magazine, finds that the EPO leads by a wide margin in terms of perceived patent quality, and has even improved its position over last year.