Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

The Federal Circuit recently found that a method for preparing an extracellular DNA fraction from a pregnant human female and using it for analyzing a genetic locus involved in a fetal chromosomal aberration was not directed to a natural phenomenon, and thus eligible for patenting. Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 2019-1419 (Fed. Cir. March 17, 2020) (“Illumina v. Ariosa”). The decision includes a dissent. Appreciation of the reasoning of both the Majority and the Dissent is essential to understanding the current state of the debate on subject matter eligibility of processes involving natural phenomenon. The all-important question in such cases centers on how to determine whether such an invention is directed to a judicial exception. Stated differently, when does an invention that uses a natural phenomenon turn into a patent-eligible process rather than being directed merely to the natural phenomenon?

In a world of unlimited resources and intellectual property (IP) legal department budgets, all invention disclosures would lead to patent application filings. But this was not the world we lived in prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic, and the pandemic has only further constrained resources for many companies. Separating the wheat from the chaff has always been a prudent part of invention harvesting. Certain disclosures simply do not merit the filing of a new patent application. Other disclosures do merit a filing, and the question then becomes how robust of a filing to draft and how widely and aggressively to prosecute it over time. When a decision is made not to file an application, does the inquiry end there? For most companies it does. But others will consider preparing what is known as a “defensive publication” covering the disclosure.

As businesses and offices prepare to reopen, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) shows its ongoing support for innovation and entrepreneurship during the novel coronavirus outbreak. Silver linings for trademark owners and patent applicants are highlighted below. It is an excellent time for trademark owners to file new applications. As noted, the downturn in the number of new applications filed has increased the processing times for marks to reach examination and proceed toward registration.

A single alphabet letter mark may face a bigger challenge in some jurisdictions than others. Take the example of Prince Sports International Company Ltd.’s stylized letter “P”. The Korean Trademark Act prevents registration of “a trademark that consists solely of a simple and common mark” under Article 33(1)(6). Prince Sports International Company Ltd., a Hong Kong-based company that manufactures sports goods, sought to register “P” as its trademark for jewelry, computers, online shopping mall businesses, etc. in Korea. It had already registered the same mark in the United States, Australia, and China, among other countries. In the United States, it is registered as Prince Sports, Inc.’s stylized word mark for tennis rackets. However, the Korean IP Office (KIPO) examiner rejected the application under the Korean Trademark Act, Article 33(1)(6)(a trademark that consists solely of a simple and common mark may not be registered) and Article 33(1) (7)(nondistinctive trademarks that do not serve as a source identifier for other reasons are also unregistrable).

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC. v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC. In particular, Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC (ECT) sued ShoppersChoice for infringement of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261 (“the ’261 patent”) in the district court. The district court granted ShoppersChoice’s motion for summary judgment that claim 11 of the ’261 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ECT appealed and the CAFC affirmed. Judge Prost delivered the opinion for the Court.

On July 29, 2019, U.S. patent application serial number 16/524,350 was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with the sole inventor identified as artificial intelligence named “DABUS.” The assignee, Stephen Thaler, acknowledged that the invention was made by the creativity machine, without any human input. The USPTO issued a notice of missing parts, requiring identification of each inventor by name. Thaler then petitioned that the missing parts notice be vacated, which was denied, and Thaler petitioned for reconsideration. The USPTO issued its decision on the reconsideration petition on April 29, 2020, again denying the petition and concluding that the patent laws required a natural person as an inventor. The decision asserts that conception is the touchstone of invention, as the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is to be applied in practice. However, this decision is too narrowly focused, and should be reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit if Thaler appeals the USPTO ruling.

Yesterday, U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Ben Sasse (R-NE) sent a letter to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Christopher Krebs regarding a notice issued last week by their agencies alerting American companies and research institutions about attempted attacks by hackers affiliated with the Chinese government.  According to the notice, these hackers “have been observed attempting to identify and illicitly obtain valuable …. (IP) and public health data related to vaccines, treatments, and testing from networks and personnel affiliated with COVID-19-related research.”

Despite rumors that changes have been made at the USPTO to bring balance to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a hard look at the data shows that it is business as usual. Astounding numbers of patents continue to be invalidated, despite many superficial changes over the past few years. Several hundred institution decisions have been issued under these changes, establishing a statistically significant sample size for evaluation. Detailed analysis of the data proves that nothing has changed at the PTAB which continues to permit abuse and invalidate an astoundingly high percentage of patents. The “death squad for patents” is as lethal as ever.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision authored by Judge Taranto, today affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. et. al. The case derives from the 2016 Federal Circuit decision determining that McRO’s challenged patent claims were directed to the display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters, which the court said were not directed to an abstract idea and were therefore patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. In today’s ruling, the Court considered whether the district court’s decision on remand, which held that the Developer defendants and defendant-appellees “were entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement because the accused products do not practice the claimed methods and to summary judgment of invalidity because the specification fails to enable the full scope of the claims,” was correct.

There were only 16 new PTAB filings—all inter partes reviews (IPRs)—this week, with a whopping 70 new district court complaints filed.  Those numbers were driven primarily by: 1) frequent filer WSOU’s adding the first of what will likely be a tranche of new complaints (as is their wont) against U.S. manufacturer Dell to their ongoing campaigns against Huawei, ZTE, and Microsoft; and 2) by a sprawling suit on putative 2G and 3G patents by European patent aggregator SISVEL against at least 10 new targets, as well as various small-company disputes and the usual NPE activity.

Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB (“Cochlear”) owns U.S. Patent No. 7,043,040 (“the ‘040 patent”), directed to a hearing aid for use in those with unilateral hearing loss. Oticon Medical AB, etc. (“Oticon”) successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of all claims of the ‘040 patent, and in those reviews the USPTO Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) held claims 4-6 and 11-12 unpatentable, but maintained the validity of claims 7-10. Cochlear appealed the PTAB’s decision with respect to claims 4-6 and 11-12, while Oticon cross-appealed the PTAB’s determination in connection with claims 7-10. The Federal Circuit (Newman, O’Malley and Taranto) affirmed, but for claim 10, on which they vacated and remanded to the PTAB for further action.

As governments around the globe fight the COVID-19 outbreak, pharmaceutical companies race to develop a vaccine and potentially secure a patent for it. To speed the process, much of that effort builds on known drugs for other diseases. The World Economic Forum reports that 70 potential vaccines are currently in development around the world. According to a BBC report, research is in progress on more than 150 additional drugs globally, with many pre-existing drugs being trialed for potential usefulness in combatting COVID-19. Those which can are giving it their best shot—for people as well as profit. In the wake of this COVID-19 vaccine and patent sprint, questions arise concerning affordable and universal access: will governments, especially poorer ones, be able to secure affordable access to a vaccine if and when one becomes available? Can a patent owner actually be forced to license a COVID-19 vaccine for the benefit of the greater good? The answers are likely yes to both, depending where you are.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Lanard Toys Limited v. Dolgencorp LLC, Ja-Ru, Inc., Toys “R” Us-Delaware, Inc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dolgencorp LLC, Ja-Ru, Inc., Toys “R” Us-Delaware, Inc. (the Appellees) on Lanard’s claims of design patent infringement, copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and statutory and common law unfair competition. The CAFC, in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie, affirmed on all four claims.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office published opinion G 3/19 “Pepper” on Thursday, May 14, holding that plants and animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process are excluded from patentability. The opinion, which arose via a referral from the EPO President, also set out principles regarding the interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC) that could apply in other technical fields. 

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed into the law the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) which extended the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA), which provides a broad basis for civil federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade secret thefts. Thus, trade secret owners can sue in federal court so long as there is a connection between the trade secret and interstate or foreign commerce. However, the DTSA does not preempt states laws and parties can still bring an action under a state’s version of the Uniform Trade Secret Law. Two recent reports highlight a number of significant findings that are relevant to companies looking to protect and defend their trade secrets: In April 2020, finance consulting firm Stout Risius Ross, LLC published its 2020 “Trends in Trade Secret Litigation Report (the SR) and Lex Machina released its 2020 Trade Secret Litigation Report (LMR), in which it summarized data from the past decade and compared it against data from the previous year’s report.