Posts Tagged: "patent"

And the game goes on, with sophisticated tactics and subterfuges. Some patent holders obfuscate their patent ownerships behind shell companies, including some large technology companies who find it useful to play the part of the NPE to harass competitors. Others use negotiations as fishing expeditions with the intent to prepare stronger cases in the court room – making escalations go even faster. Complaints are prepared before a first contact is made. Even those who would prefer to negotiate rather than sue are forced to sue to capture the attention of the accused infringer, many of whom simply refuse to discuss licensing or settlement unless they are sued. The IP game becomes a race to the courtroom. There are no obvious winners (except for the attorneys representing the parties) as legal fees keep escalating. Litigation could be avoided in many circumstances, but the IP game fosters a power struggle in which each party assumes the worst from the other and defends itself, at high legal expenses, against imaginary threats. Both sides, the users and owners of patented technologies, are antagonized.

Gardner proposes to make it patent misuse to charge much more in the United States for the same drug than in the rest of the G7. According to Gardner, “it would be presumptive patent misuse to charge more than 125% of the average price in the other 6 countries in the G7 and it would be conclusive patent misuse to charge more than 150%.” This innovative change would be a simple change in the U.S. patent laws and would be very impactful. Said Gardner, “If the patent is being ‘misused’ in this way, the patent would be invalidated and/or unenforceable, opening up competition for generics. So the owner of a drug patent would have a strong interest in avoiding losing the protection of the patent and would hold down U.S. prices and/or drive up prices around the world. Either way, we (the U.S. consumers) would over time end up paying the real price of patented medicines, not the exaggerated price which includes a subsidy for foreigner consumers.”

Mylan Inc. (NASDAQ: MYL) recently prevailed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in a patent dispute involving Perforomist® (formoterol fumarate) Inhalation Solution, which has as the active ingredient a bronchodialating compound. The district court confirmed the validity of all patents asserted by Mylan. At issue were U.S. Patent Nos. 6,667,344; 6,814,953; 7,348,362; and 7,462,645, which cover Perforomist through June 2021.

The Board cancelled 95.2% of all claims for which trial was instituted, and cancelled 82.9% of all claims that were initially challenged by the petitioner… These bleak statistics have lead Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader to at the AIPLA annual meeting in October 2013 call the PTAB “death squads killing property rights.” Then again on Friday, March 21, 2014, at a conference hosted by the George Mason University School of Law, Chief Judge Rader said he was “troubled” by the many differences between proceedings at the PTAB and in the district courts, particularly pointing to the disparities in the treatment of the same evidence concerning the same claims. Rader mentioned that his recent comments about the Board being a “death squad” for patents in contested proceedings may be more accurate than some originally thought, considering the dismal track record for survivability of challenged claims in the first wave of final written decisions.

The featured patent application describes smarter methods of building playlists for digital content, like songs. This system can dynamically update playlists based on a user’s changing taste or if another user with a compatible device walks into the room. We also picked up on a few other patent applications featuring revolutionary technologies, including one microphone headset component that enables voice processing by sending data signals through an owner’s bones and body tissues. Issued patents make up the true strength of any corporation’s intellectual property portfolio, so we wrap up today with a look at Apple’s recently issued patents. We have a trio of patents we’ve noticed that protect some useful software systems for digital media consumption, including one patent that protects a system of renting digital content for a finite amount of time. We also feature a couple of hardware patents, including one protective case with a hinged cover that can selectively cover an iPhone’s touchscreen and a new method of packaging devices so that potential customers can interact with them before buying one.

That only three briefs are filed in support of Alice Corporation is a little misleading in this case, however, since many of the briefs that were filed in support of neither party come out and directly support the patent eligibility of software. For example, the IBM amicus brief, which was filed in support of neither party, concludes that a Section 101 patent eligibility analysis is the wrong analysis to use in this and similar cases since the abstract idea doctrine is unworkable and yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. IBM suggests the Court use Section 103, the obvious analysis and the well developed case law under KSR, to determine patentability in this and similar cases. Thus, while IBM did not take a position on the specific merits of the case, as with many of the briefs filed, if the Supreme Court were to follow the IBM counsel it would lead to an Alice victory. Even Microsoft/Adobe/HP, which does not support Alice on these claims urged the Supreme Court to find software patent eligible. Thus, characterizing the position of the amici based on whether the support Alice, support CLS Bank or support neither party has proved quite difficult in this matter.

Whether your annual patent budget is in the tens of thousands of dollars or the tens of millions of dollars, the pressure to do more with less is becoming increasingly essential, even for critical budget items like the development and protection of patents. In addition to the competitive edge that a strong patent portfolio provides, there are many financial benefits to creating efficiencies in a patent budget. Additionally, being able to apply for patents in multiple jurisdictions will help build your patent portfolio, which is attractive to investors. Finally, well-written and well-translated patent applications can help prevent costs associated with office actions, longer time to grant and litigation.

The featured patent application describes better security systems for smart batteries in use by a wide array of mobile electronic devices. The advanced circuitry of these batteries would allow for the same amount of compatibility among generic chargers while dissuading would-be copiers from cloning batteries. We also discuss some interesting innovations related to computerized key fobs for secure vehicle access and a couple of improvements to integrated circuit and semiconductor manufacturing. Our check-in with Texas Instruments’ recently issued patents continues where we left off with electronics manufacturing technologies. TI was recently awarded the right to protect a couple of new manufacturing system and hardware improvements, including a device that can provide better cleaning of semiconductor wafers without damaging electronic circuitry. We were also piqued by a newly patented system that allows classroom instructors to check the work of their students through their calculators.

When you review file histories as a patent office practice expert it’s an eye-opening experience because sometimes it’s almost inexplicable as to what happened and how it could possibly have happened. And that’s what leads to some of the litigation because of the kinds of things that happen in these cases. It demonstrates why there’s still a place for a patent office practice expert in patent litigations due to the eccentricities of the practice and procedure that lead to peculiar results. An expert is needed to explain how and why these situations happen in the PTO… Sometimes you shake your head in terms of how one thing happened after another that led to a particular result that is defies how proper PTO practice and procedure is defined in the rules of practice and the MPEP.

KUNIN: ”But what is the one thing that can be a break the bank issue? What if the patent owner asserts eight patents against you in a litigation. Can you pick and choose which are the best patents among the eight to challenge? Or are you going to have to file and pay for eight IPRs? At what particular point does it actually become a financial burden for you to go after every asserted patent against you in that litigation in separate IPRs? Either you can try to strategically determine which are the patents which are most harmful to you and most vulnerable and go after them in IPRs, or try to go after all of them in IPRs. But if you go after all of them, you already explained how expensive it is, all right? So let’s assume for argument sake it’s a fairly complex proceeding and it’s costing $300,000 per IPR. So $300,000 times eight is the total cost. What’s the cost of the litigation in defending against all the asserted patents?”

Oracle’s first version of Java 8 will be released on Tuesday, March 18, 2014. If install Java 8 and encounter authentication issues when trying to use EFS Web or Private PAIR the USPTO says that you will need to revert to Java 7 Update 51.

IBM has been the top patenting company for more than 20 years. Therefore, any review of IBM patents can barely touch the surface of the innovative endeavors at this innovative giant. Nevertheless, we did find some interesting patents and applications to discuss, such as our featured patent application, which discloses a system for digitizing human physiological inputs in order to determine emotion. This computer analysis program could detect negative and positive behavioral evidence through facial expressions and voice inputs to determine a more exact emotional state for a user. We also profile some patent applications discussing better means of providing online content and communication services to users. Not every patent application filed by IBM reaches patented status, but the company files so many applications that it’s bound to enjoy a multitude of issued patents every week. Since March started, IBM has been awarded a number of interesting patents that caught our eyes here at IPWatchdog. Patents we discuss include a system for canceling sent e-mails, even after they’ve been opened, as well as methods for creating software programs through the World Wide Telecom Web. We also noticed a patent protecting a system that may be integral to a growing field: the interconnected web of home devices, also known as the “Internet of Things.”

KUNIN: ”Remember though an Act of Congress in 1982 the Federal Circuit was established as the single reviewing court for district court patent appeals to provide uniformity and consistency in the development of the patent laws. And for a couple of decades it was pretty much left unsupervised by the Supreme Court to let the patent law develop more consistency. But now if you look back from 2014 you see that there’s been a sea change in how the Supreme Court has exercised its supervisory role. This may be in part due to the intra-court disagreements in the Federal Circuit decision-making inviting the Supreme Court to take a case. We see that systematically there seems to be a desire of the Supreme Court to get the Federal Circuit, in the area of patent law, to apply general law principles. No special rules for patent cases need exist for legal aspects that are not unique to the patent statutes.”

All of this has to make you wonder whether any new patent legislation is necessary at this time. The House of Representatives has already passed new patent legislation that focuses on patent litigation and the perceived abuses. Reasonable minds can perhaps differ about whether the measures being discussed are good, bad or would do anything to address the manipulation of the judicial process by nefarious actors. The facts suggest, however, that patent litigation is declining and the administrative trials are increasing beyond expectations. This is significant because the administrative trials were created in order to offer defendants a better, cheaper avenue to challenge patents outside of litigation. So why not allow the reforms of the AIA time to work before once again tinkering with the patent laws and potentially upsetting the incentive to innovate?