Posts in Patents

Outlined below is the story of how the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 made a novel 2002 invention obvious in 2018. I’m the first named inventor of the 7058524 patent, which was filed on October 25, 2002. The title of the patent is “Electrical Power Metering System”. Unfortunately, I was never able to produce, let alone market the meter. There were many barriers to entry for my essentially hardware-based invention. I was working full time and had a growing family to be concerned with. Following retirement in 2013, I decided to attempt to license the ‘524’ technology. In early fall 2014, I partnered with a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). I received an up-front sum and had an agreement with the NPE to share (fairly in my view) in any ‘back-end’ licensing revenue. After extensive investigation and attempts at licensing, in 2016 the NPE asserted against Duke Energy in Delaware. We believed Duke’s new smart meters, particularly those using Itron’s OpenWay Riva technology, were infringing the ‘524 patent. Ultimately, we were Rule 36ed by the Federal Circuit. In my opinion, the key broken piece in the system is the way the AIA removed the probability of a jury trial from the patent holder by creating a post-grant system that allows for abuse and delay of other proceedings.

Generally speaking, the first section of a patent specification will be the Background. The Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure (MPEP) recommends that the Background be broken up into two sections: (1) Field of Use Statement; and (2) Background of the Prior Art. These sections are recommended, not mandatory. Indeed, the Background itself is recommended and not mandatory. If you are going to have a Background it needs to be short, sweet, completely self-serving, must never actually describe the invention and it cannot ever use the term “prior art.” One big mistake inexperienced patent practitioners and researchers tasked with creating a first draft will make is they will go on page after page in patent applications about the history of the invention and the prior art. Indeed, there are some popular books on the market that recommend that this material be filed in patent applications. Including that type of information in an application that is filed is simply inappropriate. You do not see the best lawyers at the best law firms who represent the largest patent acquiring companies write patents like that, so why should you?

VirnetX on Wednesday filed its brief in opposition to Apple’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which asks the High Court to review the Federal Circuit’s January 2019 decision sustaining a $440 million award for VirnetX. In October 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a formal mandate in VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems and Apple, Inc., making its January 15, 2019 Rule 36 judgment against Apple final. The mandate came after the Court’s denial on October 1 of Apple’s motions to stay and vacate the August 1 decisions affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and separately denying Apple’s August 1 request for rehearing and rehearing en banc in its appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruling awarding VirnetX nearly $440 million.

Information technology giant IBM recently announced that it had agreed to join the LOT Network, a nonprofit patent risk management consortium designed to immunize its members from lawsuits filed by patent assertion entities (PAEs). The move brings an additional 80,000 patents and patent application under the aegis of the LOT Network, which currently offers its members immunity to 2.3 million global patent assets should those patents ever be sold to companies that make more than half of their gross revenue from patent assertions. Since the IBM announcement last week, LOT Network has added a few new members, including Japanese carmaker Toyota, which just announced today that it has agreed to join the consortium. Since we last covered LOT Network in August 2018, the organization has more than doubled in size from about 275 companies up to 623 companies. Since it was founded in 2014, LOT Network’s membership has increased by a compound annual growth rate of 115%.

The U.S. District court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, overturned a $10.1 million jury verdict on January 17 against Japanese gaming giant Nintendo under the Supreme Court’s Alice test, which the High Court recently declined to clarify amidst confusion. In August of 2017, a Texas jury entered a verdict against Nintendo, finding that the company had infringed upon a patent asserted by Texas-based medical tech firm iLife Technologies Inc. The jury agreed that iLife proved that it was owed $10.1 million in a lump sum royalty for the sales of a series of games for Nintendo’s Wii U console. The jury also found that Nintendo didn’t prove invalidity of the asserted patent. In its analysis overturning the jury verdict, the district court reasoned that “[a]t its core, Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of ‘gathering, processing and transmitting…information.’”

Patent prosecution can sometimes seem to be a rather byzantine process. As with anything, the more you understand, the better prepared you will be for the strategic decisions that lie ahead, some of which will result in a streamlined patent approval, but which will also raise the overall cost of obtaining the protection desired. In this regard the patent process is full of trade-offs. For many, getting a patent quickly is very important, as is the case with high-tech start-ups and SMEs seeking reputational advantages, additional funding, licensing opportunities and partnerships. With this in mind, here are eight helpful tips co-authored with the Morningside IP team and specifically aimed at those applicants filing at the European Patent Office (EPO) who are hoping to obtain a strategically reasonable set of patent claims with a streamlined patent application approval process. Of course, following these eight tips can and should also pay dividends with respect to getting your patent approved in other patent offices around the world.

On January 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision affirming the District Court’s judgment of invalidity as to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (the ‘320 patent) and the award of attorney’s fees. The CAFC also affirmed the ruling of infringement as to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855 (the ‘855 patent). Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (ARM), owner of the ‘320 patent, initiated the lawsuit against Eko Brands LLC (Eko), owner of the ‘855 patent. ARM claimed Eko infringed claims 5-8 and 18-20 of the ‘320 patent.

I was at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference when I learned a week ago that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had denied Athena Diagnostic’s Petition for Certiorari. I was shocked. We feel the same when as a child we discover there is no Santa Claus—a trusted institution is not as represented. SCOTUS ignored a recommendation from the U.S. Solicitor General in the strongly worded Vanda opinion that the Court’s opinions had veered away from Congress’ law; a desperate plea from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it needed better guidance and thinks the law is on the wrong path; 11 thoughtful amicus briefs; and Athena’s petition. The Court was also referred to my law review article with Anthony Prosser “Unconstitutional Application of 35 U.S.C. 101 by the U.S. Supreme Court” based on almost a year of legal research. During the month after final briefing in Athena and after the U.S. Solicitor’s opinion, we saw a significant uptick in downloads of our article (cited in the amicus brief to the Court I co-authored with Meredith Addy of AddyHart on behalf of Freenome and New Cures for Cancers)—over 30 downloads during the holiday season and prior to the Court’s conference on January 10, when most IP practitioners are otherwise distracted, providing an unconfirmable assumption that the Court was reading it. All to no avail.

A recent article by Dr. Kristina M. L. Acri née Lybecker highlighted her research about the fiscal workability of state pharmaceutical importation programs from two important aspects. Dr. Acri’s whole paper is very good. I recommend you read it if you’re into policy and not sound bites. I noticed, however, that the comments on the article elicited some common myths about Canadian drug importation that are important to address if we’re going to really understand this issue.

When discussing patentable inventions with data scientists, I often hear them dismiss their inventions under arguments such as these: “We’re using the same tools as everyone else,” “Augmenting data for the training set is well known,” “A similar thing has been done for car-bumper design” (said by the designer of a churro-making machine), “Configuring the neural-network hyperparameters is trivial,” and worst of all, “It’s obvious.” Data scientists often believe that their accomplishments are not patentable, but in-depth exploration of their work often uncovers patentable ideas. I am referring to data scientists that use machine-learning (ML) tools to uncover intrinsic relationships within a large corpus of data. Other data scientists design and improve these ML tools, and their work may also result in patentable ideas, which is a topic for discussing another day.

The House Small Business Committee met earlier today for a hearing titled “Enhancing Patent Diversity for America’s Innovators,” in which members of Congress heard from witnesses on ways to improve the sizeable patenting gap that exists for women, minorities and low-income individuals. As of 2016, less than 20% of U.S. patents listed one or more women as inventors, while under 8% listed a woman as the primary inventor; only six patents per million people were attributed to African American inventors; and children born to high income families are ten times more likely to obtain a patent than children from below median income families, said Committee Chairwoman, Representative Nydia Velázquez (D-NY).

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision that found for the CBS Corporation in its defense against infringement and invalidity as to three claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,112,504 owned by Personal Audio, LLC. While the jury initially found for Personal Audio, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) later invalidated the ‘504 patent and the district court ultimately entered final judgment for CBS. The ‘504 patent describes a system for organizing audio files, “by subject matter, into ‘program segments.’ The patent utilizes a “session schedule,” which allows a user to navigate through the schedule by skipping the remainder of a segment, restarting a segment, listening to bookmarked “highlight passages,” or switching over to a “cross-referenced position” in another segment.

Yesterday was a dark day for patent eligibility in America. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in five more petitions relating to patent eligibility challenges. Based on our count, this brings the total number of patent eligibility petitions denied by the Supreme Court to at least 48, since the Court issued its controversial, if not catastrophic, decision in Alice Corporation vs. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). Obviously, the Supreme Court is perfectly comfortable with the status quo as it pertains to the law of patent eligibility. This reality evokes myriad emotions, ranging from despair to outrage to resentment to cynicism to exasperation and finally to a begrudging acceptance. Even with Justice Gorsuch hiring clerks with an intellectual property background – an extreme rarity at the Supreme Court – there seems to be no willingness or desire to clean up the mess this Court created when it ignored the doctrine of stare decisis, several generations of well-established law, and the 1952 Patent Act itself, which had been interpreted by the Supreme Court based on the explicit language of 35 U.S.C. 101 and the legislative history to make “anything under the sun that is made by man” patent eligible. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) (citing S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H. R. Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952)).

U.S. patent grants grew by 15% from 2018 to 2019, with IBM heading the pack for the 27th consecutive year, according to IFI CLAIMS Patent Services’ 2019 report. There were 333,530 U.S. patents granted last year, compared with 288,832 in 2018, which represented a 3.5% decline from 20I7. IFI said the growth could possibly be attributed to examiner clarity on patent eligibility following the USPTO’s guidance on Alice, as illustrated in IPWatchdog’s article by Kate Gaudry last year.

A patent maintenance fee is an official fee that is payable at prescribed intervals to a national patent office over the lifecycle of a patent application or a granted patent, in order to keep the patent application or the granted patent in force in that particular jurisdiction. It is payable by an applicant or a patent owner (an assignee or a patentee, as the case may be). Patent maintenance fees are an integral part of the patenting process and may also be referred to as patent annuities, patent annuity fees, patent renewal fees, or patent annual fees. The failure to pay a patent maintenance fee could have serious and far-reaching consequences, including the patent application or the granted patent being treated as lapsed, withdrawn, or abandoned in that particular jurisdiction. In this article, we will delve into the patent maintenance fees in the jurisdictions in which the payment of said fees begins at the patent grant stage or patent issue stage, or are calculated from the date on which a patent is issued or granted.