Posts Tagged: "prior art"

The best thing to do is explain why your invention solves problems and/or is important for the relevant consumer audience. In order to accomplish this you do not explain what else available to consumers and why it is inferior, missing functionality or missing parts. Remember, the focus of the application MUST be on your invention. It can be extremely helpful to create a comparison chart or write text comparing the prior art you know about with your invention, but this should be used by you or provided to your patent attorney or agent. It will be exceptionally helpful to have this information, and I ask my clients to provide it to me whenever they are willing to be so involved. This information informs how you describe the invention, and will be helpful later during prosecution, but it is not appropriate in a patent application.

22% of social network patent applications are filed within one year of the youngest prior art cited against them. So speed of filing counts. If these applications had been filed a year earlier, then 22% of them would have avoided the youngest prior art cited against their independent claims. The applicants would have had correspondingly broader claims allowed. They would not have had to argue or amend around this prior art or abandon their applications altogether.

The question may arise – what if the result of crowdsourcing is less than the proverbial “smoking gun,” can it place the App Developers at a disadvantage in court? Case law indicates that the answer is no. Last year, in a patent litigation brought by Personal Audio LLC, the plaintiff attempted to argue that their patent was valid based on crowdsourced research and to seek discovery on this basis. Personal Audio lost on both counts, with federal Judge Miriam Cedarbaum concluding, “eliminating a negative doesn’t show validity” and commenting on the patent owner’s approach with the statement “that’s what I call desperation.” Transcript of Oral Argument and Decision at 12-13 and 14, Personal Audio LLC v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al, No. M8-85 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010).

So what does this AIA “mumbo jumbo” mean in plain English? Well, to me and especially to others who have previously opined on this provision of the AIA, it means you not only don’t blow “novelty” in the U.S. by “publishing” the subject matter of your claimed invention (although you’ll blow “absolute novelty” elsewhere, including Europe, unless you do what I suggest below), but you can essentially “foul the nest” of others that follow after your “published” date. Even better, when you “publish” the subject matter of your claimed invention, you also put a non-patent application “date stake” in the ground as to what you have “published” that is resistant to subsequent intervening “prior art” of third parties when you do file your U.S. application (within a year of that “published” date).

For example, the new provision retains the existing notion of “public use” and “on sale” under current law; however, a key difference is that the one year grace period of current law will not be available under new 102 (Another key difference is that activities outside the United States may create a so-called public use or on sale bar under new 102). The new grace period under the America Invents Act is personal to the inventor and relates to “disclosure,” which many believe could be interpreted not to cover “public use” or “sale” as those terms are presently understood. Therefore, there is a possibility that your client’s invention may already be unpatentable in the United States by the time he or she contacts you (such as if a “public use” or “offer for sale” even took place the day before he or she consults you).

The real sin is that reexamination could be a much better process. Those in Congress talk about alleviating the burden on the district courts by having a reexamination proceeding available, but they don’t seem to appreciate why it is that reexamination is under utilized. On top of that, patent reform circulating in Congress does absolutely nothing to revamp reexamination in a way that would streamline the process and make it more appealing. What patent reform does do, however, is add yet another procedure to bog down the Patent Office while not allowing the Patent Office to set fees and keep those fees they collect to do the work that is promised when they accept those fees. So if patent reform passes you can anticipate that the reexamination pendency numbers will get even more ugly, making the option even less appealing.

In view of Therasense, the Patent Office is proposing to revise the materiality standard for the duty to disclose information to the Office in patent applications and reexamination proceedings. It is the belief of the Patent Office that the Therasense standard will reduce the frequency with which applicants and practitioners are being charged with inequitable conduct, thereby reducing the incentive for applicants to submit marginally relevant information to the Office. Thus, the Therasense standard should curtail the practice of filing Information Disclosure Statements that refer to boxes full of prior art that is of marginal significance, allowing patent examiners to focus on that prior art that is most relevant. The USPTO adopting the Therasense standard could, as a result, lead to improved patent quality and even a streamlining of prosecution in at least some cases.

It is also very important to explain with as much detail as possible, paying particular attention to unobvious or counter-intuitive steps, connections or limitations, paying particular attention to any preparations that may be necessary prior to beginning the making or using process. Perhaps you should try and describe your invention in words in a way that would convey meaning to someone who is blind. This is a tough task no doubt, but the goal of the written disclosure is to provide verbal description that is much like a step by step how to manual. If you are trying to describe your invention to someone who cannot see then you will invariably find creative and enlightening ways to verbally get your message across. This is the type of detail that should be in an application.

Article One Partners is at it again, this time with four patents in the cross-hairs owned by the company suing Apple App Developers for patent infringement — Lodsys. Article One Partners has made a name for itself as the premiere crowd sourcing, prior art locating company in the world. Now they have three different studies aimed squarely at the four Lodsys patents, which were just used earlier this week to sue the New York Times and others, and earlier still against Best Buy, Adidas, CVS and others. Indeed, it seems that Lodsys is becoming quite a nuisance for defendants, which places them at or near the top of the patent troll most wanted.

On Monday, March 7, 2011, Article One Partners announced that it had surpassed the $1 Million milestone and has now distributed over $1 million in reward money to Advisors. It would seem that Article One Partners is growing and thriving, and that my initial reaction to the Article One Partners business model was incorrect. In fact, Article One Partners is likely just scratching the surface of its potential and demonstrating the power of coordinated crowd sourcing solutions.

Some patent applications are difficult to get agreement on. The examiner won’t allow and the applicant won’t abandon. The net result is that office actions and responses go back and forth with no apparent resolution in sight. We propose that progress with these difficult patent applications can be tracked by looking at two separate but interrelated metrics, “applicant effectiveness” and “examiner effectiveness”. These two metrics can then be used to diagnose and correct problems in patent prosecution and examination.

I frequently am told by inventors that they have searched the marketplace and cannot find anything like their invention. I am also frequently told that they have done a patent search and cannot find anything that remotely resembles what they have come up with. While there are many reasons for not finding prior art, just because you do not find prior art does not mean that there is no prior art that needs to be considered. In fact, it would be extremely rare (if not completely impossible) for there to be an invention that does not have any relevant prior art. Said another way, unless you have invented something on the level of an Einstein-type invention there is prior art. Even the greatest American inventor, Thomas Edison, faced prior art for the vast majority of his inventions.

The initial Peer To Patent pilot program, which began in 2007, opened the patent examination process to public participation in the belief that such participation would accelerate the examination process and improve the quality of patents. Yesterday the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced a sequel to the initial pilot program and will begin a second Peer To Patent pilot program, again in coordination with New York Law School’s Center for Patent Innovations (CPI). This new Peer To Patent program will run for a one year term and will commence on October 25, 2010. This second Peer To Patent pilot program will expand on scope of the previous pilot program. You may recall that the first Peer To Patent pilot was limited to software and business methods applications, but this new pilot program will also include applications in the fields of biotechnology, bioinformatics, telecommunications and speech recognition.

The trouble with explaining what prior art is stems from the fact that everyone already thinks they know what it is. Conceptually we do not want to issue patents for inventions that are not considered new, which seems fair enough. The trouble is defining what is “new.” For now, let’s just say that prior art must be a reference of some type (i.e., a patent or a printed publication) or some type of knowledge or event (i.e., public knowledge, public use or a sale of a product) that demonstrates that the invention in question is not new.

Now comes the curve ball you have probably been expecting. Not all references, knowledge or events that can demonstrate that an invention is “old” or already known can be used by examiners or during litigation against an invention.

Everyone views the world through a prism, and the prism I look through is different than the prism others look through.  That should hardly come as a surprise given that we each find ourselves at any point in time being where we are as a result of the journey we have taken.  It is, therefore, not surprising that those who…