Is There a Trend Towards IP Litigation Boutiques?
- On February 29th of this year Renee Quinn of IPWatchdog wrote a post titled, Boutique Rising: A Conversation with Winthrop & Weinstine, in which she discusses the increase in IP litigation boutiques. [Link] I recently spoke with attorney Jason Mudd of the newly formed IP law firm Erise IP (www.eriseip.com) about the trend towards IP litigation boutiques. Jason recently left a large Kansas City law firm, along with partners Eric Buresh and Adam Seitz, to start Erise IP with a team of attorneys from their prior firm. Erise IP brought along several large clients, including Garmin, Sony, Ubisoft, Ford, and Mazda, to name a few. Jason believes their new firm is consistent with a trend of IP litigation groups departing large law firms to form boutique firms that are able to provide clients with greater flexibility demanded by the rapidly changing IP litigation landscape. While the numbers are not out yet, there could possibly be a recent trend towards IP litigation boutiques.
Copyright Infringement
- Last week while I was in copyright class, Professor Crouch brought up the Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw class action copyright infringement case. The plaintiffs in the case claim that the defendants (Lexis and Westlaw) copied thousands of copyright-protected works created by, and owned by, the attorneys and law firms who authored them. So, this case got me thinking, do companies like Google Patents infringe patent lawyers and patent firms copyrights? Similar to Westlaw and Lexis, Google downloads thousands of patent applications to store in their database. While there is not a clear answer on whether patent applications are copyrightable or not, it seems that patent applications can have parts covered by copyright –drawings for example, even if the entire patent application is not copyrightable. In Rozenblat v. Sandia Corp. 69 USPQ2d 1474 (7th Cir 2003), the 7th Circuit recognized the copyrightability of an inventor's patent drawings. Does, this case alone indicate that Google and others may be guilty of copyright infringement for downloading patent applications? [Link]
- It should be noted that Google is distinguishable from Lexis and Westlaw because Google does not charge users directly, and this fact adds weight to their fair use argument.
Patent Searching Tool
- ArchPatent, a free-to-use patent search resource which provides novel ways to search, sort, and view patent information, has launched a revamped website this week. The revamp drew its inspiration from beta feedback over the last five months from individuals within the IP industry. ArchPatent Founder Brad Chassee indicates that the objective with the revamp is to focus the site on providing the simplest, most intuitive USPTO search tool – one which experts enjoy using and one which those new to patent searching would actually be able to navigate. ArchPatent wants everyone to be able to "slice and dice" patent search results quickly and efficiently, which should drastically reduce search times and simplify complex search tasks. The site is now ad free with some additional functionality being developed as part of a soon-to-be-released premium offering. The site has a useful filtering tool and filter types include: classification, assignee, examiner, agent, applicant and most referenced. The site now provides access to searchable USPTO data back to 1920 and pdfs back to 1790. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney is seeking an Electrical patent agent with a minimum of 3 years of experience and a degree in EE, CS or Computer engineering to work in their Alexandria, VA office. [Link]
- Stoel Rives is searching for a patent attorney with 3-5 years of experience drafting electrical-related patent applications to work in their Portland or Seattle office. [Link]
- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney is seeking an Electrical patent associate with a minimum of 3 years of experience and a degree in EE, CS or Computer engineering to work in their Alexandria, VA office. [Link]
- SAS is looking for a patent counsel with 3 years of patent prep and prosecution experience in the software field and a degree in EE or CS to work at their Cary, NC location. [Link]
- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is seeking chemist patent attorneys with at least a master's degree in organic or medicinal chemistry to work in their DC office. [Link]
- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is searching for a chemical or biochemical IP attorney with a degree in CE, BM, or ME and 1-3 years of experience to work in their DC office. [Link]
- Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is looking for corporate counsel with a degree in chemistry or chemical engineering and 7+ years of experience to work at their Glen Burnie, MD location. [Link]
- Rutan & Tucker is seeking a trademark clerk with a minimum of 1 year of IP docket & filing experience to work at their Costa Mesa, CA office. [Link]
- Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian is searching for a chemical IP attorney/agent with a 3 years or less of experience to work at their DC office. [Link]
- Cantor Colburn is looking for an associate patent attorney with a chemical engineering degree and 2-5 years of experience to work in one of their offices. [Link]
-
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is seeking a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in EE to work in their McLean, VA office. [Link]
Upcoming Events:
- LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Patently-O readers save $100 with code PO1. [Link]
- The New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association will hold a half-day Patent Litigation Seminar on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:45 am to 5:45 pm. Guest speakers include: Paul Berghoff, Kara Stoll, William McElwain, Richard Bress, Barbara Fiacco, and Lewis Ho. [Link]
- C5's 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conference brings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
- The 14th Annual Richard C. Sughrue Symposium on IP Law and Policy will be held March 19th at The University of Akron Law School. The program will include a review of recent developments in patent, trademark, and copyright law, as well as a panel discussion on international IP. David Kappos will be the featured speaker and he will discuss the USPTO's implementation of the American Invents Act. Other guest speakers include: Timothy Holbrook, Mark Janis, former chief judge Paul Michel, Samuel Oddi, Ryan Vacca, Susan Pan, Harold Wegner, and many others.
- American Conference Institute's FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI's FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of core FDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
- Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free one-hour CLE webinar, "Provisional Patent Applications: Making Substance in a Land Without Form," on March 21, 2012 at 12 noon EST. The first-to-invent impact of the America Invents Act requires a serious reevaluation of the use and content of provisional patent applications. Stephen G. Parmelee will address approaches to leveraging the provisional patent application opportunity by encouraging the inclusion of substantive content while taking economic advantage of the stylistic freedom that provisional filings permit. [Link]
- The University of Pittsburgh School of Law will have their annual Innovation Law Lecture on March 22, 2012, 4-5PM. This year's guest speaker will be Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss from NYU School of Law and her talk is entitled "Are Patents Good for Science?" The event is open to the general public and one (1) CLE credit has been requested for the lecture. [Link] [Link]
- American Conference Institute's PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
- Managing Intellectual Property is holdings its US Patent Reform Forum conference March 27, 2012 in Washington D.C. The forum will bring together top officials, leading counsel at US corporations and their private practice advisers for a number of lively and informative sessions looking at the strategic implications of US Patent Reform. Speakers include: David Kappos, Judge Paul Michel, Gene Quinn, Robert Armitage, Phil Johnson, and many others. (Patently-O readers will receive a discount and in-house IP counsel from large corporations and research institutes attend free of charge.) [Link]
- The ABA Section of IP Law will hold its 27th Annual IP Law Conference March 28-30 in Arlington, VA. The conference is recognized for its national and international scope and preeminent programming. It attracts IP practitioners from across the nation and around the world. Speakers and moderators include: Sharon Marsh, Keisha Hylton-Rodic, Alexander Wilson, Steven Emmert, Teresa Rea, James Bikoff, David Kappos, and many others. The discounted early registration deadline is March 14. [Link] [Link]
- AIPLA and The University of San Diego School of Law will host the 2012 Electronic & Computer Patent Law Summit on April 2nd. The summit will include in-house counsel from Qualcomm, Apple, SAP, Covidien, ViaSat, Google, and Cisco, among others, as well as a distinguished panel of US District Court judges. Topics will include the new First to File system, an update on divided infringement, how the patent portfolio use and acquisition landscape is changing, and a discussion of the patent pilot program. [Link]
- On April 10th join the United States Patent and Trademark Office Managers, Design Examiners, Design Patent Practitioners and Industrial Designers from across the country in a lively and thought-provoking discussion at the USPTO. They will discuss rules and techniques relating to proper graphic descriptions of design patent claims, confer on best practices aimed at the broadest protection of industrial designs in the United States, and hear from members of the design community on the importance of strong industrial design protection in an increasingly design-conscious world. [Link]
- The IP Section of the Atlanta Bar Association and Georgia State University Law School will hold its 8th annual SpringPosium at the Barnsley Gardens resort on April 13 &14. Some example seminars will include: the new America Invents Act, Federal Court best practices, IP law and life practice management, and recent developments in damages law. Guest speakers include: Clerk of Court and Chief Deputy Clerk of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Jan Horbaly and Pamela Twiford and Clerk of Court of the US District Court for the North District of Georgia, James Hatten.
- The European Generic Medicines Association is hosting the 10th EGA International Symposium regarding Biosimilar Medicines on April 19-20 in London. Greenblum & Bernstein is providing a pre-symposium workshop on April 19, 2012 titled: Biosimilars In America: IP Strategy and Due Diligence. The workshop will explore the mechanics of the Biologics Act with an emphasis on how the Act relates to the involved intellectual property and how the intellectual property may impact the biosimilar applicant's strategy for entering the market. [Link]
- ACI will hold its 6th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes conference on April 24-25 in New York City. The conference will cover topics such as: the impact of the AIA on Hatch-Waxman litigation, claim construction, prior art obviousness and obvious-type double patenting, and many other topics. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
- The World Research Group is holding its 4th Annual Corporate IP Counsel Forum on May 16-17 in NYC. The Corporate IP Counsel Forum will address key issues and uncover latest developments related to IP in the form of case studies and panel discussions. Some of the topics include, but are not limited to: The America Invents Act and its impact on patent litigation and prosecution, IP monetization strategies for small and mid-size companies, Patent valuation, The top 10 most influential court cases in IP this year, Patent eligibility, Invention mining, Divided infringement, Best practices for combating non-practicing entities, Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Copyright infringement. [Link]
- The Annual DRI Business Litigation and Intellectual Property Seminar will be held May 16-18, 2012, in New York City. Attendees will learn trial and appellate advocacy skills in business litigation get up-to-date on the last trends in intellectual property and business litigation, and network with in-house counsel, business and intellectual property trial lawyers and experts from across the country. Speakers include: Former ABA President, Dennis W. Archer, Dennis Archer PLLC, and David Leitch, VP and General Counsel of Ford Motor Company. [Link]
- The San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association is hosting its annual seminar in Healdsburg, the center of one of California's best wine regions, from June 1-3. Speakers include Hon. Margaret A. (Peggy) Focarino, USPTO Commissioner of Patents, Hon. Robert Stoll, former USPTO Commissioner of Patents, Hon. Gerard F. Rogers, Chief Administrative Trademark Judge of the TTAB, Hon. Randy R. Rader, Chief Judge of Federal Circuit, Hon. Susan Illston, Judge of N.D.CA, Hon. Edward J. Davila, Judge of N.D.CA, as well as professors and leading practitioners. [Link]
Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.
anon, I am sorry I did not see this post.
I believe your question was directed to whether the MOT was required for patentability. It is not; but it is sufficient.
That said, it does appear the Supreme Court as a whole did say that the presumption was against any claims that failed the MOT. That is why I think the Supreme Court just might take the case, as Rader seem to believe that the failing the MOT was irrelevant to the patentability of Information Age inventions, which is the reason that he ignored the MOT in deciding Ultramercial.
Again, I wonder why we had to learn of the petition from 6 and not Dennis.
I liked this:
“It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.”
BTW, did you see Margin Call? It was all about a fictional firm that dumped its whole portfolio of toxic real estate investment trusts in one day. They, of course, told their customers that they were getting a good deal when they knew that everything they said was a lie.
There is was pointed out that at the end of day the company would be out of business because nobody would ever do business with them again. No trust, etc. Yet they did it anyway.
So you worked at all, or even some, of these “many patent prosecution practices” and have first hand knowledge?
I’m sure the practice you’re running out of your mom’s basement is the epitome of professionalism and client service.
Ironic that the site’s biggest importer of xx’ing and epitome of how not to act brings you this message.
link to nytimes.com
The description of the change of culture at Goldman Sachs reminds of the change of culture in many patent prosecution practices.
Promote the Progress!
I have not seen anyone disappear so quickly from a thread for at least ’till IANAE did with his Infringer’s Rights view at
link to patentlyo.com
Does Ned and IANAE have advanced version of that sweet ride?
link to autos.yahoo.com
One Word: Zoltec
Really, the women in this country are going to Vote on what was said, not what the subject matter was all about. What has been said and even argued in Congress, has put a Berka (excuse my spelling) upon each womans head and believe me they won’t be wearing Berkas when they go to the Poles. And that ladies and gentlemen will define this Presidential Race. Not who is the best man for the Job, but who can force us back in time. And I’ll predict something I have been saying for a long time. Santorum and Obama will be the ones we Vote for.
Ned,
When you are done with the socio-historical-political discussion of Roman culture, I would love to see you return and discuss patent matters.
Specifically, your indelicate situation as pointed out by looking glass.
Simple,
The converation over how a new court might rule was between Ned and I. I do not understand why he is choosing to not be forward with you. Our discussionon possible leanings of the Justices was quite amicable.
I think this just reaffirms the point: in order to include a copyright notice, the patentee must disclaim exclusive rights to reproduce the patent itself or, the way I read it, the application. Thus, the original question of whether Google or users are infringers should be answered “no”.
Unless the point is that this is what’s required to include a copyright notice, but patentees can have unidentified copyrighted content in their patents/applications. It’s been too long since copyright class for me to remember how notice operates.
“Ned, did you not say at Mar 09, 2012 at 03:34 PM, “the law does not require them to pass the MOT.” referring to “processes” as them? The answer according to the blog record of course is yes.”
Ned is caught (yet again) in one of his lies.
The man who only wants an honest dialogue, as long as that honest dialogue is a crusading monologue, is caught with his pants down.
No wonder he and Malcolm get along so fabuously. I guess walking funny is Ned’s “swagger.”
“AI, do not state that I have argued that the MOT is a requirement of patent eligibility. I have many times stated the opposite.”
cf
“I personally think… that the MOTs is a required test”
cf
“The Court rejected the machine-or-transformation test as an absolute requirement”
W
T
F
Ned, no sooner than AI trumps you and you admit to the fallacy, then you backslide with a statement that clearly contradicts your own words.
On top of that, you “really like” the part of the petition that is the weakest part, in whihc a quote from Bilksi clearly establishes that the there is no requirement for MOT and thus, even if Rader has dispensed with it, since it is not a requirement, there is no legal ground for challenge.
Your posts make it difficult not to side against you in your (un)holy crusade.
That’s funny Troll, because if my post dived into the swamp it was only because it was following yours.
“I do not intend to respond to such pathetic nonsense.”
No, you only intend to create such pathetic nonsense in the first place.
What’s the matter Troll, can’t handle the facts? Only want to preach to those who already bellieve your nonsense? Where’s the challenge in that? Face it, you can’t handle the argument. It’s waaa waaa waaaaaaa time for you.
And I thought you liked swagger.
Hey sockie, you are now smoking something as your post dived off the pier and into the swamp. I do not intend to respond to such pathetic nonsense.
“there isn’t exactly a lot of the public posting here in our comments.”
Nonsense.
Ned has hundreds of posts all on his own. In fact on any given thread there is three or four people like Ned and a whole swarm of “troll-sockies” having all kinds of passings.
Oh wait…
“I want the news ya t ard, I could care less whom delivers it.”
Or how slanted and twisted that “news” gets.
Techdirt. The Fox News of the patent world.
MM,
And you are going the extra mile to prove it.
Atta boy. Nice job.
“who were representatives of each faction”
LOLZ at the new legal theory of how to construe a minority opinion of two. Ned’s course in factional mechanics (or how to cobble up support for any lame a@@ theory you can think of).
Put that right back into the stinky hole that came from.
“Rader was against the MOT in In re Bilski.‘
Funny that the Bilski Nine most closely followed Rader in their total opinion (the main thrusts that ALL NINE JUSTICES agreed to were from Rader). Your insights are incredibly misaligned with reality. As The Supremes notes, it’s a stretch of credibility to make your view fit into what ALL NINE JUSTICES actually agreed to.
“we both agree”
LOLZ again. You are on a hot streak projecting all over the place what others “must” agree to. Those projections, like your understanding of case law are pure fantasy.
Did you not notice techdirt just now scooping your no. 1 patent blog? Have you not noticed that techdirt scoops them quite often on patent matters? I want the news ya t ard, I could care less whom delivers it. Mike or whoever writes their story is easy enough to ignore or pay attention to depending on my mood.
Not to mention their science reporting isn’t half bad either.
And finally, they present a good view of the upcoming generations views on patents etc. which differ from you oldt ard’s views. Sure, most of them are patent illiterates but that they even have a passing interest in the matter is interesting. In case you didn’t notice, IP isn’t exactly the most popular thing on the face of the planet. And also in case you didn’t notice there isn’t exactly a lot of the public posting here in our comments.
In short, different sites for different things.
Methinks you are wrong in this. Breyer and Scalia were clear that all nine justices agreed that the MOT was an important, if not exclusive test. Failing the MOT left open the "remote" possibility that a claim was not abstract. All nine were, according to Breyer an Scalia, who were representatives of each faction, unanimous on this point. Failing the MOT therefore raises a presumption of abstractness and shifts the burden to the applicant/patent owner to show that his invention is not abstract.
Rader was against the MOT in In re Bilski. His defiance continues post Kappos v. Bilski. He needs to be shown his place or his views must be affirmed.
I think the Supreme Court will not support Rader. You do. But I think we both agree that Rader's position must be reviewed once more.
Do you want to have a serious discussion or not?
LOL.
Man, this blog has the dxmbest trolls.
He is still a wanna-be friend of the techdirt crowd.
It’s also telling that it takes a concerted effort of posters to drag Ned to a point of actually discussing the holding of Ultramercial over the course of several months, but the very same day that 6 posts an opposing viewpoint of that decision, Ned it jumping at the chance to read and comment.
The Holy Crusade is back on.
“One can read Bilski as elevating the MOT to an all but exclusive test”
Not really. In fact, one of the solid things that could be taken from Bilski was that all nine justices thought that MOT as an “all but” exclusive test was clear legal error.
It’s a stretch beyond credibility to take a minority concurrence of two votes and apply that to such extremes as to counter what all nine justices actually agreed to.
Stop reading techdirt if you want to be taken an anything other than a misinformed fool.
The reason I predicted that the court will be unanimous in overruling Rader is his complete abandonment of the MOT. One can read Bilski as elevating the MOT to an all but exclusive test whereby if any claim fails the MOT, the presumption is against it.
“brought” = “bright”
I would imagine that each Justice is brought in their own way.
Your answer is a non-answer.
Do you want to have a serious discussion or not?
I am not, nor ever have been “AI.”
Banning of abstract ideas has nothing to do with the current discussion.
To reach 7-2 against Kennedy’s position, who do you see defecting and why?
Play fair sir, as I have already indicated how a switch to 7-2 in Kennedy’s favor could happen.
“the saide of the Kennedy 4.”
You seem to forget that the “Kennedy 4” were all for banning abstract ideas. Since that is so, I doubt that any “defections” will matter AI.
She is rather bright, as is Scalia.
simple, I personally think 7-2 is about right, perhaps even 9-0, that the MOTs is a required test and that the presumption shifts against patent eligibility if the claims fail the MOT.
I really liked this part of the WT petition:
“Bilski repeatedly explained that abstract ideas are an “exception[] to § 101’s broad patent-eligibility principles” that has “defined the reach of the statute as a matter of statutory stare decisis going back 150 years.” 130 S. Ct. at 3225. The Court rejected the machine-or-transformation test as an absolute requirement because the “well-established exceptions” to § 101 do not give courts “carte blanche to impose other limitations that are inconsistent with the text and the statute’s purpose and design.” Id. at 3226 (emphasis added). But the Court in no way narrowed the longstanding exception for abstract ideas, or opened the door for the Federal Circuit to heighten the bar in establishing abstractness under § 101.
Indeed, Bilski teaches that when a patent flunks
the machine-or-transformation test (as the ’545 patent does), there is a high bar for showing that the patent is not abstract. In their pivotal concurring opinion, Justices Breyer and Scalia explained that there are not “many” processes that will fail the machine-or transformation test and nevertheless qualify for protection under § 101. 130 S. Ct. at 3259. And after Bilski, the Patent and Trademark Office observed that “no court, presented with a subject matter eligibility issue, has ever ruled that a method claim that lacked a machine or a transformation was patent-eligible.” Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,922, 43,924 (July 27, 2010). The Federal Circuit’s decision here upends the settled
practice by adopting what amounts to a strong presumption that a patent is not abstract, regardless of whether it fails the machine-or-transformation test.
The district court’s decision in this case shows the outcome-determinative significance of the Federal Circuit’s departure from Bilski. As discussed, the district court stayed its decision pending Bilski, carefully studied this Court’s decision in Bilski, and then decided this case based on Bilski and, thus, utilized the machine-or-transformation test as a screening tool. See supra at 5-7. Indeed, the district court correctly found that the patent in this case was “very similar” to the patent in Bilski, in that “[a]t the core of the ’545 patent is the basic idea that one can use advertisement as an exchange or currency,” just like the abstract economic concept (hedging) that lay at the core of the patent in Bilski. App. 27a. The Federal Circuit reached the opposite conclusion only by deviating sharply from the analysis outlined by Bilski. And the upshot is that, under the decision below, the patentee in Bilski could have survived § 101 if it had only added a step saying “over an Internet” or “at an
Internet website.” It is inconceivable that the Court
could have intended its decision to be evaded so easily.” (emphasis regarding “not” in the original.)
Also, do you not think that Breyer has exhibited a change of heart?
I think the loss of Stevens may affect Sotomayor as well (there was some mentorship there, but it was brief and another year has passed for Sotomayor to gain her own perspective).
If Breyer and Sotomayor defect, then Kagan’s vote will not matter; that is, if Kagan is not already on the saide of the Kennedy 4.
Could we be looking at a 7-2?
“but I suspect Kagan will align with Scalia, et al.”
Really? Why?
6, thanks.
Why are we learning of this from you and not Dennis. Is he not keeping himself informed?
I think the Supremes will do something. Ultramercial does raise important questions about the role of the MOT with respect to “information age” technologies. Only the Kennedy 4 were in substantial alignment with Rader on that score. Stevens, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Scalia did not agree. Stevens is gone, but I suspect Kagan will align with Scalia, et al.
§ 1.71 Detailed description and specification of the invention.
.
.
(d) A copyright or mask work notice may be placed in a design or utility patent application adjacent to copyright and mask work material contained therein. The notice may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent application disclosure. For notices in drawings, see § 1.84(s). The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements provided for by law. For example, “©1983 John Doe”(17 U.S.C. 401) and “*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited and, under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work, respectively. Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the authorization language set forth in paragraph (e) of this section is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification.
(e) The authorization shall read as follows:
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.
I guess you don’t read very many patents.
608.01(v)
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will permit the inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice in a design or utility patent application, and thereby any patent issuing therefrom, which discloses material on which copyright or mask work protection has previously been established, under the following conditions:
(A) The copyright or mask work notice must be placed adjacent to the copyright or mask work material. Therefore, the notice may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent application disclosure, including the drawing. However, if appearing in the drawing, the notice must comply with 37 CFR 1.84(s). If placed on a drawing in conformance with these provisions, the notice will not be objected to as extraneous matter under 37 CFR 1.84.
(B) The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements required by law. For example, “©1983 John Doe”(17 U.S.C. 401) and “*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited, and under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work respectively.
(C) Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the following authorization in 37 CFR 1.71(e) is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification to be printed for the patent:
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.
(D) Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice after a Notice of Allowance has been mailed will be permitted only if the criteria of 37 CFR 1.312 have been satisfied.
The inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice in a design or utility patent application, and thereby any patent issuing therefrom, under the conditions set forth above will serve to protect the rights of the author/inventor, as well as the public, and will serve to promote the mission and goals of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, the inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice which complies with these conditions will be permitted. However, any departure from these conditions may result in a refusal to permit the desired inclusion. If the authorization required under condition (C) above does not include the specific language “(t)he (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records,…” the notice will be objected to as improper by the examiner of the application. If the examiner maintains the objection upon reconsideration, a petition may be filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.181.
Wildtangent is appealing the Ultramercial to the USSC:
link to techdirt.com
Looks like someone noticed that Rader made up his interface.
Take note Randy, when you start making sht up they probably going to call you on it.
Funny that Wildtangent, whom I despise, would be the one to bring this.
1512 Relationship Between Design Patent, Copyright, and Trademark [R-2] – 1500 Design Patents
II. INCLUSION OF COPYRIGHT NOTICE
It is the policy of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to permit the inclusion of a copyright notice in a design patent application, and thereby any patent issuing therefrom, under the following conditions.
(A) A copyright notice must be placed adjacent to the copyright material and, therefore, may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent application disclosure including the drawing. However, if appearing on the drawing, the notice must be limited in print size from 1/8 inch to 1/4 inch and must be placed within the “sight” of the drawing immediately below the figure representing the copyright material. If placed on a drawing in conformance with these provisions, the notice will not be objected to as extraneous matter under 37 CFR 1.84.
(B) The content of the copyright notice must be limited to only those elements required by law. For example, “© 1983 John Doe” would be legally sufficient under 17 U.S.C. 401 and properly limited.
(C) Inclusion of a copyright notice will be permitted only if the following waiver is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification to be printed for the patent:
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material to which a claim for copyright is made. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but reserves all other copyright rights whatsoever.
(D) Inclusion of a copyright notice after a Notice of Allowance has been mailed will be permitted only if the criteria of 37 CFR 1.312 have been satisfied.
Any departure from these conditions may result in a refusal to permit the desired inclusion. If the waiver required under condition (C) above does not include the specific language “(t)he copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records….”, the copyright notice will be objected to as improper.
What if the above conditions are not followed?
Of course there is a public policy argument… when has this stopped individuals from filing suit before?
I was thinking much the same thing.
Re: copyright in patents, applications, and papers filed at the PTO: you’re joking, right? (Alternative question: what have you been smoking? Can I get some?)
Granting copyright in a patent application, or any papers filed in connection therewith (except, perhaps, for third-party prior non-patent prior art), flies in the face the public policy considerations behind the publication of patents and patent applications.
The fact that there’s no copyright in patents, apps or the file history is reflected inter alia in the fact that the statute authorized the PTO to provide people with copies.
Robert,
All “great” patent blogs have a hired gun to drum up traffic. You need to get yourself a shill.
It’s not even “content” that counts. In fact, the more audacious and controversial your shill is, the more likely you will have traffic. Think of it as anti-content. You need something like a vacuum that nature abhors, that will generate that “rush” that will urge normally quiet practitioners to want to come in and set straight.
Of course, your duty as moderator is to set the table and provide nibbles (or otherwise called bait) to start generating the traffic.
IntelPropLaw is shut down (again) for an indefinite amount of time, but there’s plenty of conversation at iptalk.pro, so check it out!
In regards to Google, ArchPatent, IP.com and others, I was pondering the same copyright question over the weekend. I’d suspect that fair use would come into play when attempting to determine the scope and content of the prior art.
Comments are closed.