Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

Critics of drug patents often claim that when initial drug patents expire, drug companies stuff their patent portfolios with “trivial” patents that unjustifiably extend their patent monopoly to keep the prices up.  This argument perpetuates common myths and misunderstandings that fail on several levels… In the last decade, large molecule biological drugs have come to the fore. They provide dramatic new treatments for some conditions but can be very expensive. It is difficult to develop inexpensive generic-type versions for biological drugs.

In this article, I compute a “three-year grant rate” that shows the probability of obtaining a granted patent within three years of the first office action. This three-year grant rate tells you how difficult an examiner is and when you can expect to be granted a patent. The greatest benefit of the three-year grant rate is that it incorporates information about both the difficulty of the examiner and the length of time to obtain a patent into a single, easy to understand number. If your examiner has a three-year grant rate of 18%, it is easy to explain to your client that they have an 18% chance of getting a patent issued in three years.

BRICS is an acronym for an association of five countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Over the last 25 years, the BRICS economies have been at the forefront of a paradigm shift in the sands of the global economy towards developing economies. This is exemplified by their share in the global economy… Developing a patent filing strategy that includes BRICS economies could be challenging due to the presence of varying national legislation, each mandating its own set of procedures. A precise idea of the costs that could be incurred will go a long way in facilitating strategic decision-making and budget forecasting.

The opinion acknowledges, in a footnote on page 3, that videos of the type that the Klein’s created, is not unique. Instead, it is part of a growing genre of “reaction videos” in which portions of an original video are interspersed with commentary to create a new creative work… Luckily for the Kleins, their fans were ready and willing to create a legal fund for their use. YouTube has also taken action to protect some content creators subject to false DMCA notices. However, with over 800 unique users, and over 100 hours of new videos being uploaded every minute, clearly YouTube cannot be required to protect all of its content creators from false copyright infringement allegations. In light of this decision, perhaps we are approaching a time where reconsideration, and revision, of the DMCA, is warranted.

In this regard, a PTAB proceeding is not a suit in court, but instead an administrative proceeding in which the Patent Office (through the PTAB) takes “a second look at an earlier administrative grant of a patent.” Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144 (2016); see also Oil States, slip op. at 7 (“[T]he decision to grant a patent is a matter involving public rights—specifically, the grant of a public franchise. Inter partes review is simply a reconsideration of that grant, and Congress has permissibly reserved the PTO’s authority to conduct that reconsideration.”). Like other administrative actions in which States and Federal Agencies (e.g., the Federal Power Commission) may regulate rights or responsibilities of Tribes with respect to off-reservation activities, a PTAB proceeding is one of the “other mechanisms” available to the USPTO to resolve questions of patent validity as the administrative authority granting the patent in the first instance. Cf. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2028 (2014).Even if the Tribe cannot be compelled to participate in this proceeding, the PTAB retains authority to adjudicate the validity of patents under review. Indeed, there is no requirement under the AIA that a patent owner participate in a proceeding in order for it to proceed.

Lebron James and Nick Saban are well-known for dominance in their respective sports of basketball and college football. Recently they found themselves opposing each other in an intellectual property controversy. James’ Uninterrupted media company sent the University of Alabama a letter claiming Bama’s new barbershop themed show, “Shop Talk,” is infringing James’ similarly themed show, “The Shop.” The choice to send the demand letter has led to unintended, but foreseeable consequences for Uninterrupted.

Souvenir manufacturers need to ensure that consumers are not misled into believing that the Royal Family has commissioned or otherwise endorsed their souvenirs. A breach of the rules, contained within section 99 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, can result in a fine of up to £500, as well as the products being removed from sale. Section 12 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 goes further, prohibiting sellers from giving any false indication that they have Royal approval, with a fine of up to £400 and a potential prison sentence. Although these UK rules do not apply in the United States (or elsewhere), there are international laws that might affect the use of some of these Royal emblems outside the UK.

The Amgen v. Sanofi decision put most functional antibody claims into question, including epitope and competitive binding claims, as well as antibody claims based on a newly characterized antigen. After Amgen v. Sanofi, non-sequence based antibody claims may become more difficult to obtain before the USPTO from a written description standpoint.  Yet, to fully protect the essence of the invention and avoid design-arounds, such claims are extremely valuable to patent owners. To obtain antibody genus claims beyond those defined by sequences, the patent applicant will need to make and test a sufficient number of representative antibodies across the claimed genus, or establish a clear structure/function relationship among the members of the genus.  Patent applicants should carefully assess the amount of data they have acquired, in comparison to the scope of claims that they wish to obtain, before rushing to the Patent Office.

While the goal of developing a US innovation policy bolstered by strong IP protections was the focus of the event it was clear that competition with China, who clearly has set their own innovation agenda on a country-wide level, created a clear sense of urgency in the discussions… Generally speaking, the panelists felt that the actions of the last few years had inflicted serious damage on the reliability of patent rights in the US and created substantial doubt about what those rights were worth economically with the changes. The panel was overwhelmingly in favor of making significant changes to the current environment especially with regard to the proceeding at the PTAB.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, No. 2016-2707, addresses the complicated topic of patent eligibility in the pharmaceutical space. Much of the decision compares Vanda’s claims to those found ineligible for patent protection in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). While the ultimate patentability conclusions are opposite, the claims in Vanda and Mayo are very similar, highlighting the thin—and often unpredictable—line that divides eligible and ineligible subject matter. Generic drug manufacturers must account for this unpredictability in gauging their litigation risks.

Suppose you are valuing a large patent portfolio with issued patents and pending applications in more than 20 countries throughout the world. One of your tasks would be to project how much royalties each patent could collect in each of the subject countries over time. After plotting out your expected revenue streams, you would have to apply a discount rate to these projected royalty revenue streams to reflect the risks associated with entering into governing licensing agreements. Which risks are embodied in discount rates (also known as costs of capital)?

A massive amount of intellectual capital gets created every day from $150 billion in annual research funding allocated to federal laboratories and universities in the United States. Unfortunately, most of that intellectual capital never makes it to the market and does not generate any ROI. Essentially more than 99% of the intellectual capital created at universities and federal labs are never protected and never gets translated to intellectual property, and hence those are almost never transferred through a license to a startup or an existing company. So, what happens to the majority of the intellectual capital that is not disclosed as inventions? That typically remains locked up at the university without access from the outside world.

On May 14th the next chapter in the Samsung v. Apple smartphone design patent dispute will commence in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California with a retrial to determine a new award in the case. The most notable moment in this long winding history was the unanimous Supreme Court decision where the Supreme Court sided with Samsung in its appeal in late 2016. But while the Supreme Court’s ruling should have modernized our antiquated law governing design patents to fit into the modern 21st century world, that important outcome is still in doubt pending the retrial. A key question remains – namely, how to determine the “article of manufacture” and appropriate remedy for infringement of multifaceted products. And could this open up potential grounds of consideration for utility patent interpretation?

In accordance with the above discussion, particularly point (a), the client should be apprised of the necessity of fully fleshing out the inventive aspects of the technical implementation (i.e. the fuzzy logic). The client, however, may not know what the technical implementation is or what technical problems may need to be overcome. At this point, there may be no harm in filing a provisional patent application to capture the earliest priority date for the client. The next step under point (b) is to work with the client to develop a plan for implementation. Actual technical implementation can be expensive, but it is a very effective way to reveal technical problems that have to be solved. Technical implementation always (in our humble experience) reveals unforeseen technical problems. At some point, what is readily available may need to be modified or customized to serve the specific needs of the new business application, particularly as that application is scaled up. This is where patentable innovation occurs.

This article examines Federal Circuit case law analyzing validity challenges to method of treatment patent claims where the claims at issue are alleged to recite an inherent property of a method or molecule taught in the prior art. While Federal Circuit case law challenging method of treatment claims on inherent anticipation grounds is generally globally consistent and reasonably straightforward, the court’s inherent obviousness case law is less so.