Posts in Patents

On July 24, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas that a State asserting sovereign immunity could not be joined as an involuntary plaintiff, but dissented from the district court’s holding that the case could not proceed in the State’s absence. Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine. Judges Newman and Taranto each wrote separately in partially dissenting from different aspects of the majority’s opinion.

There was a spike in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings this week—almost double the average, at 56—driven in part by eight new petitions (adding to those previously filed) against patents owned by the Moskowitz family by Globus Medical. That was good enough to rival newly filed complaints for the first time this year (57). It also appears Uniloc (Fortress) and Samsung have come to some sort of agreement, as a handful of pending inter partes reviews (IPRs) settled; Samsung was denied institution in all of the IPRs it has filed against Cellect to date (eight petitions, with 12 still pending—at least some patents have no remaining challenges, meaning the litigation is sure to continue in due course).

Former Senator Robert Dole turned 97 last week, but he’s still very much engaged in what’s going on right now. He just wrote a powerful op-ed, Innovation is key to defeating COVID-19. Subtitled “Enacted 40 years ago, the Bayh-Dole Act is helping facilitate the development of coronavirus therapies today,” Senator Dole reviews how the law he crafted with former Senator Birch Bayh revolutionized the commercialization of federally-funded inventions. Bayh-Dole paved the way for companies like Moderna to create critically needed therapies to combat our raging pandemic. But there’s another message Senator Dole delivered that’s just as topical.

As a jury consultant with a wide breadth of experience across the country, I am often asked about the favorability of certain venues, but I was surprised two years ago at the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) Bench Bar conference when an attorney friend of mine quietly asked what I thought about Waco as a venue for patent cases. I nearly spit my coffee out: “Waco?  That’s a terrible idea!”  “Why?” he questioned, “Isn’t it a small town just like Marshall or Tyler?” I proceeded at length to explain why the Waco division and Western District of Texas (WDTX) is dramatically different than the Marshall division and EDTX. I simply chalked the question up to a one-off inquiry, until I was asked the same question again multiple times from other attorneys at the last EDTX Bench Bar. It was at the last EDTX conference that all the questions fell into place, when I heard about Judge Albright’s intent to prepare a new patent docket in Waco.

This month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released a report titled “Progress and Potential: 2020 update on U.S. women inventor- patentees” (the Report). The Report updated a study published last year that outlined trends in women inventors named on U.S. patents from 1976 to 2016. These reports are a result of the Study of Underrepresented Classes Chasing Engineering and Science Success (SUCCESS) Act of 2018, which directed the USPTO to study and report to Congress on the number of patents applied for and obtained: (1) by women, minorities, and veterans; and (2) by small businesses owned by women, minorities, and veterans. As evidenced by the USPTO reports, women are under-represented as inventors of record on USPTO patents, which is least partially due to a general lack of funding available to women inventors. 

In late June, Unified Patents published the findings of an economic report conducted by consulting firm The Perryman Group on the supposed impacts of validity trials conducted under the America Invents Act (AIA) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on the U.S. economy. Unsurprisingly, the report is very bullish on the effects of the AIA, and Perryman pegs the positive impact of the AIA and the PTAB at $2.95 billion in terms of increased gross domestic product, $1.41 billion in increased personal income and 13,500 of additional job-years of employment. Careful observers of the U.S. patent system, however, will note that the data only does a good job of examining one side of the PTAB’s impact.

As far back as the Roman Empire, standardization has improved the efficiency of human endeavors. In the present day, as high-bandwidth communication and Internet of Things (IoT) applications expand, standardization continues to be key in advancing new technologies. From the standpoint of protecting intellectual property, however, the collaboration required to standardize a technology presents unique challenges, as industry competitors disclose and assess various options for the standard. Standard Development Organizations (SDOs), each directed to a particular technical area, adopt standards that allow devices to communicate with each other and process information consistently. Technical experts representing companies or trade associations in an SDO may submit proposals for consideration and adoption. However, such proposals may include patentable solutions invented within the submitting organizations. By virtue of submitting such proposals for consideration, the solutions could be considered publicly disclosed – or, at the very least, disclosed to industry competitors.

Back in ancient times, in this case 1990, John Gray, an obscure “relationship counselor” with a correspondence degree in psychology, was perplexed. The communication problems of the heterosexual couples he worked with were so serious that he couldn’t explain them by individual circumstances. His clients seemed to be talking past each other, almost as if they were coming from different planets. With that tired metaphor in mind, he penned the book Men Are from Mars, Women are from Venus, generalizing what he thought were the universal, contrasting communication styles of the sexes…. In effect, [Gray] has become rich by talking about how incompatible men and women are, despite eons of evidence to the contrary. In our world of intellectual property, it once was like this between patents and trade secrets.

The precedent with respect to the patentability of Computer Related Inventions in India ranges from little to non-existent; but not for lack of trying. In December 2019, the High Court of Delhi in Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2009 SCC Online Del 11867) examined the rejection of a patent by the Indian Patent and Appeal Board (IPAB) to a Computer Related Invention (CRI).

On July 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in Uniloc 2017, LLC v. HULU, LLC. In particular, the CAFC found that the case was not moot despite a prior CAFC judgment of invalidity and that the Board did not err in rejecting Uniloc’s Request for Rehearing on the basis of Section 101 invalidity of the proposed substitute claims. Judge O’Malley issued a strong dissent, accusing the majority of “breath[ing] life into a dead patent and us[ing] the zombie it has created as a means to dramatically expand the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings.”

It was a relatively light week in the district court compared with recent memory, with 56 new complaints filed; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is holding steady with 27 filings (all inter partes reviews [IPRs] this week), a number nearly identical to the totals for the past few months. The District Court activity was driven by new complaints in existing campaigns, some new ANDA/aBLA litigations related to pharmaceutical generic entry, a smattering of company disputes, and a new campaign by Raymond Anthony Joao. At the Board, a trickle of petitions filed as part of ongoing licensing disputes between Dolby and Intertrust, some further challenges in the funded Neodron suits, some further filings by Verzion against Huawei, and a number of petitions in response to non-practicing entity (NPE) suits made up the balance.

A patent portfolio can be one of the greatest assets that a company owns. A patent portfolio may boost a company’s valuation for a stock offering or a sale, may be licensed for recurring revenue, may be sold to raise cash, or may be enforced to seek monetary damages or to exclude competitors from the market. However, growing a patent portfolio can be expensive. For this reason, many companies hire a portfolio manager to balance the value and expense of growing and maintaining the patent portfolio. A portfolio manager may be responsible for making decisions including a total target number of patent filings, target numbers of patent filings for different technology areas of the company, patent firms to use for filing and prosecuting patent applications, or how to manage costs per issued patent. The portfolio manager can improve the decision-making process by using data-driven decision making. This article shows some examples of data-driven decision making.

On July 16, 2020, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and national business associations of the UK, France, Germany, Korea, and Canada, published an Open Letter to Heads of States and Government leaders titled “Working Together to Discover and Deliver Innovative and Creative Solutions to the Pandemic’s Challenges”.  The letter highlighted the contributions made by businesses in response to COVID-19, noting that businesses have expended a considerable amount of time and resources to “accelerate the research, development and manufacture of protective equipment, advanced diagnostics, disinfection products, medical devices and potential treatments and vaccines.”

Some people believe that breakthrough products like the light bulb, steam engine and mobile phone were not so much invented as stumbled upon. Fostering innovation and the circumstances in which it thrives today has never been more relevant or mysterious. COVID-19 has provided a compelling reason to revisit how innovation occurs and who are the responsible parties. Understanding the inventive process is not much clearer today than it was when the framers drafted the United States Constitution more than two centuries ago. A new and provocative book by a National Academy of Sciences award-winning writer, entrepreneur and member of the House of Lords, Matt Ridley, suggests that innovation is an iterative process of trial-and-error that should be attributed to groups of inventors, not individuals, and that patents impede. Ridley believes that policy and investment can do little to influence innovation and that “Innovators need to be freed from the shackles that hold them back.”  

In the United States patent system, patent applications are handled by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the patent practitioners, who prepare and prosecute applications on behalf of inventors or their assignees; and the patent examiners, who examine the applications for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for patentability under U.S. patent law. Ryan Potts worked at the USPTO for over seven years, including several as a primary examiner, before joining Lando & Anastasi. Rob Lichter worked at the USPTO as a junior patent examiner before becoming a law firm associate. The following is a list of tips and insights to understanding and interacting with U.S. patent examiners.