Posts Tagged: "Authors"

Consider the title of this article a very mild way of stating my frustration with the Patent Office. Yesterday, as I was trying to file a simple document using the Patent Office’s Electronic System, I kept getting an authentication error when I was trying to log on. I could not figure it out. I know that my digital certificate is up to date and I know that I had the right password. What in the world could possibly be wrong?

As the Super Committee struggles to find nearly $1.2 trillion in revenue or savings, they should take a serious look at the proposal to give the US Patent and Trademark Office greater control over its budget and fees by creating a revolving fund. At the request of many in the patent community, Senator Jon Kyl – a member of the Super Committee – is proposing that the Super Committee include the revolving fund The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has informally indicated that it will score the Kyl provision as saving $700 million over 10 years. By taking the USPTO out of the regular appropriations process, the creation of a revolving fund will take approximately $700 million off budget and help the Super Committee reach their goal. And –besides being a budget saver – the revolving fund is good policy.

If you think the title only raises a wild possibility, consider what happened in a recent case decided by the Federal Circuit. After being sued for infringement, the defendant had the ex-wife of the inventor of the patent-in-suit sell to it any interest she had in that patent. The defendant argued that as a result there could be no infringement, both because plaintiff lacked standing and because the defendant had acquired an undivided interest in the patent. It almost worked.

As the second largest economy in the world, China is emerging to the center of the world’s economic stage. This emergence has been accompanied by constant changes in its legal and economic sectors. The intellectual property sector also has witnessed numerous recent changes. There have been significant new advances in China’s national innovation policies. New trends in Chinese patent filings have emerged. A growing number of Chinese companies are creating their own IP and increasingly filing infringement suits against foreign companies and their local competitors in China. China’s third patent law amendment has materially changed patent practice and procedures in that country.

In my experience, the passion to invent is stirred by two things: dissatisfaction with an existing product or service (i.e., too large, too slow, too expensive, too difficult to use), or a dream and desire to create something entirely new, a product or service that will augment humanity’s capability to reach farther, move faster, aggregate and analyze all sorts of data, or bring together pieces and form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Over my career I have been a named inventor on 147 U.S. patents. Over my career I have developed a process for identifying consumer needs and creating unique, patentable solutions that are relevant in the marketplace. I call this the Eureka Method. The Eureka Method is a mental discipline that can be learned and practiced to help you produce a Eureka! moment.

We are still in limbo. I got a post card from the IRS telling us that they have received of our materials and that they will be working on it but with 270,000 extra cases to process I am not expecting anything real soon. If you knew of the change and have been filing annual 990s, my hat is off to you. However, no news in this case is really bad news because if you haven’t been filing an annual 990 and you haven’t received the notice, the IRS probably doesn’t know where you are. So rather than assuming everything is OK it might be a good idea to make inquiries.

Therefore, no one should read this decision as stating a general rule that patent infringement is covered under “advertising injury” provisions in a typical insurance contract. Rather, the decision should be read as saying that it is possible, based on these peculiar facts, that coverage could exists for this particular patent infringement claim under the advertising injury provisions. Essentially, reaching this determination on summary judgment without full consideration was deemed inappropriate.

Since 1993, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has pursued an “aggressive campaign” to free itself from oversight by and accountability to the courts. [1] At the same time, the USPTO has been just as aggressive in ignoring the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and related administrative laws that place responsibilities on the USPTO vis-à-vis the public. Fortunately, most administrative laws provide the public a remedy exercisable against agency overreaching: when an agency skirts its obligations, the agency loses its powers of enforcement vis-à-vis the public. Unfortunately, in July 2011 the Federal Circuit in In re Lovin [2] (opinion authored by Judge Dyk) allowed the USPTO to avoid obligations that the USPTO owes the public under the APA, while giving the USPTO judicial deference on issues where the APA grants none. A petition for rehearing of the Lovin case would give the en banc Federal Circuit the opportunity to ”right this wrong,” and to give the public the remedy that Congress intended, and to reinforce that the Administrative Procedure Act gives agencies both rights and obligations.

Contrary to the tone of the Jobs Council report, U.S. academic technology commercialization made possible by Bayh-Dole is a world- wide recognized success. The law allowed universities and small companies to own and manage inventions arising from federally supported R&D. It decentralized technology management from Washington, allowing a market driven system to flourish. It did not create any new bureaucracy to select winners and losers. And it works in the hard, cold light of day.

Lemley’s response introduces the new term “sequential improvement.” This suggests to us that he has now abandoned many of his claims of “simultaneous invention.” The word ‘sequential’ does not occur a single time in his article. We agree with Lemley’s new description that invention and innovation are often sequential, building in a series of related but different inventions: it is a normal feature of development and does not require a 108 page and 260 footnote article to establish it. Nor does it have radical policy consequences for the patent system which is well-adapted to this feature of real invention. But Lemley’s recommended policy would deny patents to second comers who contribute the key missing ingredient that unlocks an entire field. To Lemley’s credit, he recognizes the benefits of patent races and that the patent system leads to more innovation. But if that is true, Lemley does not explain why the patent system that we actually have is broken. His proposal to deny patents on “the most important inventions” and not grant more patents seems to flow from unreliable scholarship rather than a precise, reliable diagnosis of a problem.

22% of social network patent applications are filed within one year of the youngest prior art cited against them. So speed of filing counts. If these applications had been filed a year earlier, then 22% of them would have avoided the youngest prior art cited against their independent claims. The applicants would have had correspondingly broader claims allowed. They would not have had to argue or amend around this prior art or abandon their applications altogether.

The question may arise – what if the result of crowdsourcing is less than the proverbial “smoking gun,” can it place the App Developers at a disadvantage in court? Case law indicates that the answer is no. Last year, in a patent litigation brought by Personal Audio LLC, the plaintiff attempted to argue that their patent was valid based on crowdsourced research and to seek discovery on this basis. Personal Audio lost on both counts, with federal Judge Miriam Cedarbaum concluding, “eliminating a negative doesn’t show validity” and commenting on the patent owner’s approach with the statement “that’s what I call desperation.” Transcript of Oral Argument and Decision at 12-13 and 14, Personal Audio LLC v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al, No. M8-85 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010).

Companies accused of patent infringement are increasingly looking at patent reexamination at the Patent Office as an attractive avenue for challenging the patent’s validity. Reexamination offers a number of well-known advantages as a forum for such validity challenges over District Court, among them the absence of a presumption of validity and a lower burden of proof. Less well-known, however, is the potential for reexamination to eliminate an accused infringer’s liability for past damages – even if the PTO confirms the validity of a patent in reexamination, the accused infringer might be entitled to “intervening rights,” effectively eliminating past damages, if the patent owner amends its claims to distinguish its invention over the prior art. This possibility of “intervening rights” received a big boost last week with the CAFC’s decision in Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon, finding that such rights may be created even without an amendment of the claims if the patent owner presents arguments in reexamination that “effectively amend” the claims.

So what does this AIA “mumbo jumbo” mean in plain English? Well, to me and especially to others who have previously opined on this provision of the AIA, it means you not only don’t blow “novelty” in the U.S. by “publishing” the subject matter of your claimed invention (although you’ll blow “absolute novelty” elsewhere, including Europe, unless you do what I suggest below), but you can essentially “foul the nest” of others that follow after your “published” date. Even better, when you “publish” the subject matter of your claimed invention, you also put a non-patent application “date stake” in the ground as to what you have “published” that is resistant to subsequent intervening “prior art” of third parties when you do file your U.S. application (within a year of that “published” date).

I like writing about esoteric patent law topics and the question of “intervening rights” in reexaminations/reissues is one of the more esoteric. See my 1998 JPTOS article entitledIntervening Rights: A Potential Hidden Trap for Reexamined Patent. The case of Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. is one of those rare instances in this esoteric area of patent law where the Federal Circuit announced a new “wrinkle” on when “intervening rights” apply in reexamination. Unfortunately, the rule announced by the majority in Marine Polymer Technologies (“intervening rights” apply to unamended claims based on statements made during reexamination) is squarely in conflict with the express language of 35 U.S.C. § 307(b), as Judge Lourie’s dissent vigorously (and more importantly, correctly) points out.