Posts Tagged: "patent law"

In the high-stakes world of global competition, China is emerging as a key battleground, making the protection of intellectual property rights more crucial than ever. With its recent revisions to its patent enforcement and damages laws, China took a decisive step towards a more rigorous patent system that favors patentees, both domestic and foreign. This new landscape challenges businesses to adapt and reassess their strategies in the face of these transformative changes…. The latest modifications enable businesses not only to receive increased damages for infringement but also recover legal costs and punitive damages. Thus, in a post-COVID business environment, organizations should reevaluate their patent enforcement strategies within China.

What makes SCOTUS’s assertions in patent law jurisprudence that there are these “exceptions” or additional “requirements” particularly annoying to many of us in the patent bar is that patent law is essentially statutory.  In other words, there should be no “federal common law of patents” that allows SCOTUS (or any other court for that matter) to make “exceptions” to or make additional “requirements” for what is already expressly written in the patent statutes.  Indeed, in other areas of federal law, SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear that “federal common law” doesn’t exist.  The most famous example is Erie v. Tompkins where SCOTUS overturned its prior view of a “federal common law” applicable in cases involving diversity jurisdiction.  So we in the patent bar may rightly ask:  why does SCOTUS believe it can create what is, in essence, a “federal common law of patents” to supplant or modify the existing patent statutes?

Every year different groups provide rankings of patent prosecution law firms and a company’s patent count for the year.  Patent law firms will tout their rankings based upon the number of filings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the number of allowances they obtained for clients over the previous year.  And companies will boast about their patent prowess based upon the size of their portfolios. But things are changing. Innovative algorithms and even diagnostic methods may be easier and more effectively protected by trade secret.  Trade secret protection avoids the uncertainty of compliance with the vague patentability standard set forth by the Supreme Court.

In 1790, the U.S. patent laws were first enacted and individuals could obtain a patent under the new federal government. For about a century beforehand, British citizens in the various parts of the American colonies could obtain patents for that region, and Britain and other European countries had patent laws as well. But the new American patent system was different: it was democratized in that anyone could participate, without the need for consent from the Crown. The origins of patent laws date back to the Fifteenth Century when Florentine regents sought to attract and keep innovators and their inventions. Elizabeth I was a keen ruler in passing various patent laws to encourage foreigners with ideas and inventions to relocate to Britain, as well as encourage domestic innovation.

Lawyers often wonder how to enhance their marketability and in the process, generate more revenue or improve their image.   After all, success at a firm is about “revenue generation.”  Success in a corporation or in the government also depends on your credibility and your ability to be a “go-to” person within the company or government agency.   To be a successful lawyer, you need to have a brand.  I explain below 6 easy ways to make your mark… Law firms are fighting for a smaller pool of work and as a result, are required to compete for that work at more competitive rates. If you want to get the work and charge higher rates, there must be a reason for the client to hire you. In other words, it’s your brand that counts.

Today, Judge Newman is the Federal Circuit’s most prolific dissenter, and her dissents are important. Former Chief Judge Paul Michel noted that “Judge Newman may hold the record for the most dissents. But her dissents have great force and often persuade other colleagues over time.” Judge Kimberly Moore concurred, saying “[w]hat people may not realize is that many of her dissents have later gone on to become the law—either the en banc law from our court or spoken on high from the Supremes.” She noted that “Merck v. Integra comes to mind. It’s a case where she wrote a very strong dissent. The Supreme Court took it and not only changed the state of the law to reflect what she had written, but they cited her outright in the opinion.”

If Bill Hewlett and David Packard were just starting in their garage, they might be wise not to waste money acquiring them… An individual inventor, or SME, may defend patented inventions against unauthorized use – by everyone and anyone. However, it is disingenuous to say it is reasonable for them to do so, no matter what Congressional soundbites trumpet. The system is severely biased against these entities to the point of no longer serving them.

IP portfolios are business assets. The payment of patent annuities is an important part of ensuring a valuable IP portfolio is primed for monetisation. Efficient IP management demands lots of time, attention and cost – particularly if portfolios are directly managed by patent offices around the world. Many patent holders elect external IP renewals teams to carry the administration, manage patent renewals and offer insight into which patents should be abandoned.

The U.S. government weighs in on Life Technologies’ side because “the application of U.S. patent law to participation by U.S. exporters in foreign markets also raise issues concerning the competiveness of American companies abroad and the respective roles of the United States and other nations’ patent laws.” The government argues that the Federal Circuit has not given a workable definition to determine when a component is sufficiently important or essential as to be “a substantial portion of the components.” The government also argues that, in legislating § 271(f), Congress’s purpose was to outlaw evasion of a U.S. patent by conduct that tantamount to manufacturing the patented invention in the U.S. for export. The government argues that there is no clear expressed Congressional intent for § 271(f) to reach supplying a single staple article: when the product is made abroad except for such a staple article, Congress left that predominantly foreign conduct to be regulated by foreign law. Finally, the government argues that the presumption against extraterritoriality requires the courts to assume both that “legislators take account of the legitimate interests of other nations” and “foreign conduct is generally the domain of foreign law.”

the Courts have found it difficult to use the Mayo two-part test in the examination of a patent’s validity thus creating great uncertainty… One should not confuse the uncertainty of the complex U.S. patent system with the clarity of the Alice decision. There is no reason to believe any new legislation will provide any improvement in deciding what should, and what should not, be patentable.

A patent is a proprietary right granted by the Federal government pursuant to laws passed by Congress. The Congressional power to authorize patents is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution. exclusive rights are provided for a limited time as an incentive to inventors, entrepreneurs and corporations to engage in research and development, to spend the time, energy and capital resources necessary to create useful inventions; which will hopefully have a positive effect on society through the introduction of new products and processes of manufacture into the economy, including life saving treatments and cures. See Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 480 (1974).