Posts Tagged: "patent quality"

House IP subcommittee chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) led off the hearing by discussing the large number of interests who are often on Capitol Hill to discuss their issues with “patent trolls,” including the “genius ones” which have only been developed in recent years. Despite the intent of the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 to weed bad patents out of the system, “patent trolls” remain active. Issa felt there were a few reasons for this, including the fact that such entities make money and that good patents could still be used to assert unreasonable claims. “Why innovate when it’s far easier and more profitable to simply purchase a patent, acquire one, acquire the rights to a patent, perhaps one that has never been licensed, bully businesses into writing a check, go away without ever seriously litigating,” Issa said. He said that 80 percent of “patent troll” litigation focuses on small business. “Simply put, we should not confuse ‘Making America Great Again’ with ‘Making American Patent Trolls Richer Again,’” Issa said. Although Issa was pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on patent venue in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, he recoiled at what he felt was an “overreach” by Judge Rodney Gilstrap from the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.); Issa felt that Gilstrap misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland by denying a motion to transfer venue from E.D. Tex. in Raytheon v. Cray. “It is, in fact, an act that I find reprehensible by that judge,” Issa said.

When it comes to making strategic patent portfolio decisions, it is more important than ever to be informed, thorough and discriminating with your decision-making. In short, the number of strategic decisions available to those obtaining and maintaining a portfolio are greater than ever and, in fact, have only continued to explode in number. So many strategic decisions to consider throughout the innovation lifecycle, where should you start? Join me, Carlo Cotrone (GE Oil & Gas) and Edmund White (CPA Global) for a free webinar on Thursday, June 1 at 2PM ET.

IP departments are often forced to spend their limited budget defending patent troll lawsuits targeted at the base computing and service layers instead of where it should be spent – protecting application layer innovation. There has been no shortage of such litigation due to the glut of vague and ambiguous software patents directed to basic computing technologies. These broad, vague patents have become glaring targets for trolls, who are eagerly buying them up and asserting them wherever they can. As a result, companies are being sued for patent infringement for things that aren’t directly related to their end products and services.

In the piece, Lee tries her best to assure readers that positive developments have been made at the USPTO in recent years, but at multiple points she seems blind to major issues that have plagued U.S. patent system stakeholders during her tenure… Perhaps the most abrasive thing Lee stated in her editorial was this: “Our stakeholders share my belief, and that of my USPTO colleagues, that there is a cost to society when this agency issues a patent that should not issue…” No, Ms. Lee, a great many stakeholders do NOT share your belief. They don’t share your belief primarily because by making this statement you shine light on a largely fictitious problem while simultaneously ignoring the real problem facing the Office, which is that patent examiners refuse to issue any patents at all on good, high quality innovations that deserve patent protection.

In Europe and the US, patentability depends on a showing of inventiveness that is based on similar legal requirements but practice differs substantially and the resulting patent quality varies… At the USPTO, patent applications are rejected for obviousness (35 USC §103) already in a first Office Action by an examiner and his/her supervisor… Over in Europe the examination of inventive step begins with an opinion following which the applicant is invited to comment/amend.

“My team and I do not tolerate time and attendance abuse,” Lee told the subcommittee. While she did note that the USPTO had taken disciplinary actions against examiners that have abused time and attendance reports, such actions ranging from counseling to expulsion and repayment for hours not worked, she added that there was evidence that instances of time and attendance abuse were not widespread. She cited a report on the USPTO’s telework program issued by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in July 2015. The report found that “It would appear to be unlikely that [time and attendance] abuse is widespread or unique to teleworkers, and it does not appear to reflect the actions of the workforce as a whole.” Additionally, the report indicated that the agency’s telework program saved the agency $7 million each year on average by allowing examiners to continue working in spite of government shutdowns caused by weather or other reasons.

More importantly, the OIG’s report misses the point. Nearly everyone agrees that the quality of patents being issued is a problem, but the OIG didn’t consider patent quality at all. The OIG’s proposed solution of forcing examiners to produce more quickly is hardly a recipe for quality, particularly when examiners report that they don’t currently have enough time to do a thorough job. In contrast, the Government Accountability Office recently issued two reports on improving patent quality. The GAO looked at internal procedures and surveyed examiners in order to identify some of the real causes of poor patent quality. The GAO had a number of important recommendations for improving patent quality; the distraction of this “fraud” may mean that we waste a real opportunity to make some positive changes.

While any system should always aspire to provide better quality, the patent system included, patent quality is a two way street that requires the Office to look in the mirror and take care of its own internal business. If the Patent Office is truly interested in quality they should take steps to address low quality patent examination, which is unfortunately too common… Having a complete record means that the Office needs to record what is being done and by who, period. No secrets. No more decisions made behind closed doors by unknown actors.

The availability of PTAB patent review proceedings to address low quality patents is especially important in the financial services sector where, prior to Federal Circuit’s decision in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, there was a lack of emphasis on patenting financial services innovation. As a result, patent examiners, who regularly search issued patents and published patent applications for prior art, often may not have access to prior art they need to avoid issuing patents on previously known technologies.

Would you climb Everest without an expert guide? You shouldn’t navigate the global IP landscape without one either. The global intellectual property terrain is becoming increasingly complex. Across the world, the quantity of patent applications has almost doubled since 2000 (source: WIPO), and the largest single contributor, China, reported over 300,000 patents granted in the chemistry sector in 2015 alone, a 30% increase from the year before (source: STN®, database: CAplus?, accessed 2/15/2016). Consequently, having a patent search professional who can work with your team is more important than ever. Being able to efficiently and expertly research the IP considerations that impact key business decisions can you save time and money, while also providing you with invaluable topical and global insight.

There are many examples of patents that had virtually no value because the claims were undetectable, unenforceable, or ridiculously narrow. In the process of getting a worthless patent — a bad patent, the company gave up their complete roadmap for how to manufacture and use their product. These bad patents are not just a waste of money, but their competitive advantage is eviscerated by disclosing everything they know. The bottom line: Some patent applications can be very damaging to a startup company.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a Patent Quality Community Symposium on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at USPTO’s headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia and across the agency’s regional offices in Dallas, Denver, Detroit and Silicon Valley. The event will feature interactive segments and implementation updates on the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EPQI).

Patents, for a long while, have been an integral part of business development strategy. Companies like ARM and Qualcomm, for example, have built their business around patents which constitute a major part of their revenue. And the quality of their patents, for sure, is playing a key role in it.

There were no topics ruled out of bounds for this 30 minute interview, not even the Supreme Court’s recent decision to accept cert. in Cuozzo, although as an attorney myself I know better than to ask questions that would have certainly provoked a polite “no comment” response in the face of ongoing litigation. Nevertheless, our conversation was wide ranging. We discussed the release of the Copyright White paper, which among other things recommends expanding eligibility for statutory damages in copyright infringement actions. We also discussed Lee’s recent visit to the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), the power outage that brought down USPTO electronic filing systems, the Office’s patent quality initiative, the new patent classification system, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and more.

The term patent quality gets used frequently within the industry, but what does it actually mean? At least for the patent practitioner, the question of patent quality must start at the very beginning of the process. As the old saying goes, garbage in garbage out. Therefore, to have any hope of obtaining a patent worth owning— a quality patent for the patent owner— quality patent applications must be prepare and a quality prosecution of the filed patent application must take place.