Yesterday Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced the Saving High-tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act, or SHIELD Act for short. If ever passed into law the SHIELD Act would ostensibly adopt a variation on the English Rule, where the losing patent owner pays the legal fees of the victorious patent defendant when there was no “reasonable likelihood” that the patentee would prevail in the litigation. If theAct required a claim chart upon filing, applied across the board to all those who would seek to manipulate the patent system and not just computer/software patents and defined “reasonable likelihood of success” I would be on board with both feet.  As it is, I am on board with one foot and hopefully that improvements can be made to this important piece of legislation.

By SENATOR BIRCH BAYH — What should we say about a steward that manages billions of dollars in public research funds not aimed at finding commercial products and turns them in to hundreds of billions of dollars in economic impact while supporting millions of jobs? You would think that a sincere “thank you” was in order. But many are saying that the system producing such riches is broken. Remarkable. The Bayh-Dole Act created no new bureaucracy, costs taxpayers nothing, and decentralized technology management out of Washington. It’s widely touted as a key in turning the U.S. economy around.

If you mix water fun with amusement park your mind wanders towards a water park no doubt. But did you know that there is patented technology in some of those water parks across the United States? The ‘537 patent relates to an annular-shaped waterslide bowl for use as an element of a waterslide. The bowl serves to slow a rider down and bring him or her to a stop at the end of the waterslide ride. The bowl has a wall with a rider entry port through which a rider slides from a flume into the bowl. The bottom wall of the bowl has an opening at its center and a low circumferential wall around the opening extends upwardly from the bottom wall. The rider comes to a stop in the bowl and can step over the circumferential wall into the opening. A staircase located within the opening provides means for the rider to exit the bowl. The waterslide bowl provides a compact structure for slowing and stopping the rider and is particularly suitable for waterslide installations having limited space.

Because 35 U.S.C. 122 prohibits the USPTO from providing information about an as-yet unpublished application to a third party without the applicant’s consent, timely delivery of pre-publication search results requires applicant cooperation in providing the USPTO with the proper consent to release the search result information to the EPO. Failure of applicants to provide the USPTO with the required consent will prevent the USPTO from delivering the search results in a timely fashion and could result in EPO rescinding the exemption, which would require all U.S. applicants to provide the search result information to the EPO at their own time and expense.

Counterfeiting is now one of the fastest growing and profitable industries in the world. With an average of 5 – 7% of the world trade market, it is a $600 billion per year industry. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reports the total number of counterfeit goods increased dramatically in FY 2011 by 24% compared to the prior year, and has increased 325% over the past decade. The impact and cost across industries is quite staggering. The Federal Trade Commission reported that counterfeit automotive parts total approximately $12 billion and also result in 200,000 fewer manufacturing jobs. Additionally, electronics industry experts stated a loss of between $100 billion and $200 billion annually. Of particular concern is the pharmaceutical industry, which counterfeit drugs account for $75 billion dollars globally.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced the selection of nine additional law schools to join the Trademark Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program this fall. The program allows law students to practice trademark law before the USPTO under the guidance of a faculty clinic supervisor.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it will publish final rules in the Federal Register on Tuesday, July 31, 2012, that relate to the statute of limitations provisions for disciplinary actions brought by the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) at the USPTO. Subsection (e) is added to clarify that the one year period for filing a complaint may be tolled by a written agreement between the involved practitioner and the OED Director. The Office agrees that tolling agreements may provide both the Office and the practitioner with additional time to resolve matters without a complaint.

On Thursday, July 25, 2012, the International Trade Commission (ITC) terminated an investigation into whether certain Rambus patents were being infringed by Garmin International, Cisco Systems, Seagate Technologies and others. It seems that Rambus cannot shake the mistakes of the past. The Barth patents being unenforceable due to the destruction of documents relates to the Rambus’ choice to destroy documents rather than have them discoverable during litigation proceedings.

Even when we switch to first to file inventors will still in some cases need to be able to detail when they conceived of various aspects of their invention if they are going to attempt to rely upon the grace period. Affidavit practice to establish what was invented, when it was invented and that someone else derived their invention or disclosure from you will still be a part of patent practice even after March 16, 2013. Therefore, it is critical now to have an invention record and will similarly be extremely important even after the switch to first to file takes place.

The EPO applies what might be referred to as a “subtraction” test for claims containing a mixture of patent-eligible and patent-ineligible features, those features that are patent-ineligible being disregarded and novelty and obviousness under aa. 54 and 56 EPC being evaluated on the basis of the remaining features. Judge Lourie suggested a somewhat similar “subtraction” test here.

In holding the method, system, and media claims of the ‘792 and ‘037 patents to “cover no more than abstract ideas and therefore do no recite patent-eligible subject matter,” Judge Lourie’s opinion trivializes the relevance of computer implementation in these claims. That’s brought out when he later says that the “interchangeability of certain mental processes and basic digital computation” makes the “use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic function” (i.e., making calculations or computations) inadequate “to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes.” In fact, Judge Lourie went even further by saying that “a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not” to “salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process,” citing the 2010 case of SiRF Technology, Inc. v. ITC (method for calculating the position of a GPS receiver satisfied the MOT test). In other words, computer implementation of the claimed business method (or system) must be absolutely necessary to its usefulness to satisfy Judge Lourie’s criteria for reaching the patent-eligibility zone.

Just over one week ago Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court was interviewed by Piers Morgan of CNN. See Scalia transcript.  During the interview Justice Scalia said that the hardest decision he has had to make in his time on the Supreme Court was in a patent case. I received a few responses from those who did not opine as to what case Justice Scalia might be referring to, but rather commented generally about the interview and what Justice Scalia said relative to patent cases being difficult, dull and insignificant.  What follows below are those musings from industry insiders.

Article One Partners, the world’s largest patent research community, has several interesting patent search projects ongoing at the moment. But there is no doubt that looking for prior art can be a little like looking for a needle in a haystack. The Article One approach, therefore, is to tap into a global community of researchers.

For well over a year I have been explaining that under the US first to file system the inventor will still have a personal grace-period, but that the grace-period is personal and relates only to the inventor’s own disclosures, or the disclosures of others who have derived from the inventor. Disclosures of third-parties who independently arrived at the invention will be used against the inventor. Now that the USPTO has come out with examination guidelines we find out the truth. I was right all along.

One week ago, on July 18, 2012, Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court sat down for an interview with Piers Morgan of CNN. See Scalia interview transcript. During the interview Morgan asked Scalia what his hardest decision has been while on the Supreme Court. I thought it might be fun to ask some industry insiders what their guess was as to the unnamed case Justice Scalia was thinking of as the “hardest decision.” Some of those I asked didn’t offer a guess, but rather took the opportunity to discuss the aforementioned Scalia statements more generally. Those “musings” will be published tomorrow.