Posts Tagged: "patent"

Certain things are obvious. It was obvious in the oral arguments that it was a challenge for both the Supreme Court judges and the lawyers to distinguish between abstract ideas, ideas, computer programs, technological innovations, patentable subject matter, and inventions. This confusion also showed up in the seven different written opinions of the judges in the Appeals Court review of this same case… Mr. Perry was wrong about word processing and e-mail. Providing a “technical solution to a then unmet problem” and providing a “technological advance” often does not constitute making an invention. That’s because with computers you can often make a technical advance that is obvious.

I think that the Supreme Court decision will be enough to prevent the so-called “patent reform” from gaining any traction in the Senate. The cynical view is that there is so much lobbying money flowing why would Congress want to turn that spigot off when it could easily flow into the next Congressional term? Further, there has been a growing and steady effort by those opposed to the pending patent legislation. Opponents were already making their case heard as the Senate continued to time after time postpone dissemination of the Manager’s Amendment, signaling the consensus that some Senators desperately wanted to reach was illusive, if not impossible. Now with the Supreme Court decisions in these two cases those on the Hill who were already skeptical have more than enough ammunition to slam on the brakes, at least for now, to see what the ultimate ramifications of the decisions will be on the reality of patent litigation.

This patent application was filed by Fujitsu with the USPTO in July 2013, and claims the benefit of priority of a prior Japanese Patent Application filed on Oct. 26, 2012. The application seeks to protect new methods of detecting illegal connections with a network monitoring apparatus, which is capable of determining that a reverse connection is unauthorized. Although this system seems as though it can only protect a computer network once the malware has been noticed, after it has been executed, the system would be able to effectively limit the transmission of private material and identify untrustworthy data communications. To detect a reverse connection, this system analyzes the behavior of information packets sent between information collection apparati which are communicating with each other.

Canon has been involved with developing X-ray technologies in the recent past, as we’ve profiled in our past coverage of this company’s intellectual property portfolio. Previous improvements to X-ray imaging devices that we profiled included improvements to durability, like better resilience to shocks from physical impacts as well as devices with a better capacity for withstanding heat from electrical energy generation. This patent application was filed by Canon with the USPTO in October 2013 to protect a mobile apparatus capable of performing X-ray imaging techniques on a patient. The apparatus is comprised of an X-ray tube contained within an arm that is supported over a cart through the use of a vertical pillar. The bottom portion of the mobile cart includes a wheel and caster system for moving the imaging device from room to room. To provide power for the X-ray device, the cart also includes a battery device on the cart that energizes the X-ray tube through the use of an alternating high-voltage cable.

Perhaps Edison’s most famous invention was the light-bulb. Truth be told, however, Edison didn’t really “invent” the light-bulb. Edison significantly improved upon the technology by developing a light-bulb that used a lower current electricity, a small carbonized filament, and an improved vacuum inside the globe. Edison’s invention lead to a reliable, long-lasting source of light. Prior to Edison’s invention light-bulbs lasted only a few hours, but after Edison’s improvement light-bulbs could last 50 to 60 days, making them practical for the firs time. So it is entirely fair to say that Thomas Edison invented the first commercially useful light-bulb, which was an improvement on previously existing light-bulbs.

The FTC brief explains that the no-authorized-generic (no-AG) commitment at issue raises the same antitrust concern that the Supreme Court identified in Actavis. A no-authorized-generic commitment means that the brand-name drug firm, as part of a patent settlement, agrees that it will not launch its own authorized-generic alternative when the first generic company begins to compete. An FTC empirical study of the competitive effects of authorized generics found that when a brand company does not launch an authorized generic during the exclusivity period reserved for the first-filing generic under the Hatch-Waxman Act, it substantially increases the first generic company’s revenues, and consumers pay higher prices for the generic product.

While all nations have a great deal to gain from attracting foreign direct investment and research spending from multinational firms, developing nations in particular stand to gain tremendously. These investments create jobs, enhance productivity, and foster economic growth and development. However, robust intellectual property rights are a necessary prerequisite. The activists and government policymakers who claim that IP rights are a barrier to economic development have it backwards. Strong intellectual property rights incentivize innovation which facilitates economic growth and development.

Although carbon capture technologies exist, the scale of carbon dioxide that needs to be drawn from the atmosphere to combat the effects of climate change is very discouraging. We seem to be many years, if not decades, away from any realistically deployable solution. Nevertheless, we wanted to wrap up our coverage of Earth Day 2014 at IPWatchdog, albeit a little bit late, with a look at developments in this very important technological field. To do this we profile recently published patent applications found in our search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database, focusing on carbon capture and mitigation technologies.

The purpose of the U.S. patent system has been to promote innovation. The various ”Patent Reform” bills will in fact retard innovation and cost America jobs. They are contrary to the Founding Fathers’ intent in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, contrary to the policies of over 220 years of patent law, contrary to the advice of the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and contrary to prior statements of President Obama.

Under the AIA and through its own initiatives, the USPTO has developed many programs that facilitate the prosecution of applications through the Office. Applicants should consider the usefulness of these programs in any on-going and newly filed U.S. patent applications.

35 U.S.C. § 285, which is an extremely short statute, authorizes a district court to award attorney’s fees in patent litigation to the prevailing party. In its totality, § 285 states: “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” With such a simple statute you might wonder how or why it was necessary for the Supreme Court to step in and provide clarity. Because in 2005 the Federal Circuit departed from three decades of case law and made it difficult, if not impossible, for prevailing parties to demonstrate entitlement to attorneys fees.

In this Part IV, we will discuss the proposal that all interested parties by plaintiffs, the enhanced pleading requirements, limitations on discover and customer stays. While some of these provisions may seem to make sense on their surface, and tailored to provide greater transparency, the reality is that the provisions are extraordinarily burdensome. For example, as written one proposal would require a corporation bringing a patent infringement lawsuit to disclose every stockholder no matter how few shares are owned. Furthermore, by micromanaging patent litigation discretion will be taken away from district court judges while at the same time onerous obligations are placed on small businesses before they can even begin to assert patent infringement, which is problematic because so many entities already knowingly choose to infringe rather than negotiate licenses or engineer around patent rights.

As is evident from Figure 2, a significant problem affecting USPTO performance has been identified as the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Backlog, which grow dramatically from 2009 into 2013. The intricacies of RCE practice go beyond the scope of this article, but it is RCE practice that is a primary problem facing the USPTO. At the end of the USPTO’s 2013 End of Fiscal Year, approximately 78,272 RCE applications were awaiting examination at the USPTO. These RCEs divert resources away from the examination of new applications.

In this Part III, we will discuss the Covered Business Methods (CBM) expansion and the proposed elimination of post grant review estoppel. If these provisions are enacted it will provide greater incentive to challenge granted patents, making serial challenges the new norm. This will substantially and negatively impact small business innovators who will be forced to continually fight to keep the patents they have obtained after having already spent many years during patent prosecution to obtain the rights. This means patent rights will never be more than an expectation and not a true property right. Therefore, if these provisions are enacted it will mean no patent is every truly safe, no title is every quieted, and this will substantially, and negatively, impact investment opportunity and ultimately the commercialization of innovations.

The patent system is, has been, and will remain a vital engine of economic motivation and growth if preserved intact. At the moment, that preservation is at risk…. In pursuing the invention they did not need to conduct thousands of experiments on data and how to create genetic and behavioral databases; instead they concentrated on figuring out the best way to make use of the data provided/collected by others. And, ta da, after 7 years of research and over 100+ discrete patent filings, the 27 patent portfolio covers: 1) genetic and lifestyle correlated prevention and/or treatment for a disease; 2) drug and behavioral changes to enhance health and longevity; and 3) use of genetic information to create social networks or make product recommendations. Essentially, specific recommendations on how to make the best of the genetic hand you’ve been dealt.