Posts Tagged: "patent"

MPHJ employed a strategy of targeting small and medium-sized businesses, which in and of itself is not legally problematic. The fact that MPHJ acquired patents of dubious validity is interesting, but again, patents are presumed valid, so that is not terribly probative either. The problem with the MPHJ strategy is that it was deceptive. They sent out letters to a large number of small businesses in an effort to extract small, nuisance-value license payments from them. Indeed, some patent trolls seek far less than even a fair nuisance-value, asking for $500 or $1,000. It is this type of behavior that is the hallmark of a patent troll. The mere fact that one has acquired patents and seeks to license them is in and of itself irrelevant because that activity is completely legal. In the letters sent by MPHJ hundreds of New York businesses were told that it was “likely” that they were infringing MPHJ patents and, therefore, needed to take a patent license. By saying that they were “likely” infringing an impression was created that MPHJ had conducted at least some kind of individualized analysis of the targeted company’s business. But MPHJ did no investigation, choosing merely sent out form letters in bulk to companies of a certain size and industry classification.

Patents and patent reform has been in the news, even the popular press, on an increasing basis. The issue of patents generally and patent litigation specifically has been the subject of intense debate over the last 8 years. Congress passed the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, with the bill being signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2011. The overhaul of U.S. patent law was extraordinary, but not all of the parties involved were happy. Some thought the law went too far in some ways, others thought the law did not go far enough. Despite the AIA being the most significant change to patent laws since at least 1952, Congress is considering further reforms again, with the House of Representatives already passing the Innovation Act (HR 3309). Companion legislation in the Senate is likely to move forward during Q1 2014.

Although the first Patent Act was enacted in 1790, it was not until some 52 years later that the US patent laws were modified to allow for the patenting of ornamental designs. In 1842 a statute was passed to provide for, among other things, the grant of patents for any new and original: (1) design for a manufacture; (2) design for printing on fabrics; (3) bust or statue; (4) impression to be place on an article of manufacture; or (5) shape or configuration of any article of manufacture. Subsequently, in 1902, the design patent statute was amended to define the allowable subject matter simply as “any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.’’ This language mimicked the 1887 modifications to the Patent Act relative to infringement, and still closely represents the current law regarding patentability of designs.

What is clear every time we look at Qualcomm is that the company’s innovation profile defies easy characterization because Qualcomm simply innovates, and innovates and innovates. For example, today we begin looking at a patent application that could very well bring the value of having a massive scope of retail products available for purchase online directly into brick-and-mortar stores. This computing system would allow a store to detect that a shopper is comparing prices online through a device and then provide a discount offer that could entice the customer into buying the item in the store. Then we briefly discuss other interesting patent applications that relate to a mobile video terminal that could assist in patient physical therapy, as well as a system of reducing a device’s processor power to control internal temperature.

This is likely a signal of more patent infringement lawsuits yet to come in the growing patent battle by proxy between Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), Samsung, HTC (TPE: 2498) and the companies behind Rockstar, which is a group created by Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL), Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT), BlackBerry Ltd.(NASDAQ: BBRY), Ericsson AB and Sony Corp. (NYSE: SNE) to acquire patents from Nortel Networks Corp. in 2011.

‘With the U.S. patent expiration of Cymbalta last December and that of Evista coming in March, we expect 2014 to be the most financially challenging year of Lilly’s current period of patent expirations,’ said Derica Rice, Lilly executive vice president, global services and chief financial officer. ‘We are prepared for this challenge and are positioned to return to growth and expand margins in 2015 and beyond.’

Even as more of us are becoming acquainted with the idea of the cloud, many of us are still woefully ignorant of what the term actually means. For example, a survey by cloud software developer Citrix Systems showed that 54 percent of respondents did not believe that they used cloud-based computing, even though 95 percent of them actually did. Almost as many respondents confused the cloud metaphor, believing that stormy weather could actually interfere with cloud systems. Cloud computing is set to take a much more prominent role in our technologically savvy society. Providing advanced computing applications through networking channels severely reduces the IT needs of homes and businesses who want to use more powerful software programs without installing them on a client computer. With more than $131 billion in economic activity for the cloud computing sector in 2013, more business infrastructure and software services should be taking to the cloud than ever before.

Manny Schecter (IBM Chief Patent Counsel) writes: “Last year I wished for greater understanding of the patent system outside of the patent community. Awareness of the patent system has certainly grown, but understanding? I’m not so sure. I still see a rush by many to hasty “solutions” that would actually result in more harm than good. My latest concern is proposals for technology-specific reforms. These proposals comprise calls for restricting the scope of, enhancing challenges for, or eliminating altogether, patents relating to certain technologies such as computer and genetic implemented inventions.”

I prophesy that the best we can hope for is a Bilski-esque vague instruction (wherein our top court opined that some business methods are patentable, citing the machine or transformation test as one viable test, without pointing to other valid tests and without enlightening the confused public.) The Court is once again likely to limit software patentability in some arcane way that harms job creation and stifles economic growth. The bright side is that the Court’s failure to protect our largest growth industries may help spur the legislative branch into further action. A decade of intermittent patent reforms has created a permanent cadre of patent lobbyists very willing to focus their considerable efforts and talents on a new patent issue. It would be advantageous to the patent system if that attention were productively channeled to specifically include our emerging technologies in our patent statutes, and to legislate patent eligibility in a manner that treats 101 as the broad filter it was intended to be, while employing the other patent statutes, such as 112 and 103, to correctly provide the narrower filters.

“Patent trolls have a surprising ally: universities” ran in the Washington Post on November 30, 2013. Two days later “Techdirt” threw the follow up: “Patenting University Research Has Been A Dismal Failure, Enabling Patent Trolling. It’s Time to Stop.” Their titles and parallel arguments suggest that both articles arise from shared talking points. Both immediately set up their victims by linking them with patent trolls. Casting anyone as an “ally of patent trolls” after huge amounts of money have been invested vilifying the term in the public mind is meant to quickly knock opponents to their knees and drive them from the field. Ostensibly the focus of their wrath is university patent licensing, but the real target is the patent system itself.

In this edition of Biggest Moments in IP we have a variety of reflections on a wide array of IP issues. Todd Dickinson goes international by pointing to the EU Unitary Patent as a very important long-term milestone, and congratulates the USPTO on being ranked the top place to work in the federal government. Scott McKeown focuses on a decision from the Federal Circuit that will allow collateral challenges to damage awards. Bob Stoll points to the Innovation act, Federal Circuit disarray over software, the “revolutionary” Supreme Court decision in Myriad and the Microsoft/Motorola FRAND decision.

Open Market grew rapidly, went public, made acquisitions, and outlived about 15 of its competitors, but was hit hard by the bursting of Internet Bubble 1.0 in 2000. The eCommerce software part of Open Market’s business, called “Transact”, and the related patents were acquired in 2003 by Soverain Software, which still develops and supports Transact and its customers today. Soverain also filed a number of patent lawsuits, and settled or won all of them, up until this year. On September 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which is the appeals court responsible for patent cases, confirmed its January opinion that certain claims of the ‘314 patent (and some others) were invalid as obvious. Soverain has filed a petition for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court, and I hope it is accepted, because I think the CAFC got it really wrong.

2013 turned out to be a very big year for IP, and especially patents, and the year took a course that few would have predicted this time last year. At that time, the senior team at the PTO was primarily focused on the imminent departure of our then-boss, David Kappos, and the end of what had clearly been an extraordinarily active and successful tenure. The AIA had been almost entirely implemented, the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board was up and running, and most of us expected 2013 to be focused on implementation and execution of the AIA and the other initiatives that had been set in motion under Director Kappos.