- Injunctive Relief: I re-read Michelle Lee’s (Google) statement about the need for patent reform. One issue that jumped-out this time: No mention of injunctions. Money is still at stake, but Google appears confident that it won’t face a shut-down even if it loses a patent case. In that sense, Google is lucky that it is being sued by non-practicing entities who as a de facto rule don’t get injunctive relief against infringers who have a major market share.
- Benefit of Trade Secrets: Avoid Charges of Infringement. In some senses, google is very public. Yet, its actual operation is quite secretive. One benefit of that type of operation is that it helps avoid charges of patent infringement. If patentee’s can’t tell how you operate, it makes it much more difficult to assert charges of infringement.
- Warranties and Copyright: My colleague Marc Roark has an interesting new paper: Limitation of Sales Warranties as an Alternative to Intellectual Property Rights: An Empirical Analysis of Iphone Warranties’ Deterrent Impact on Consumers.
- The BPAI Watchdog: http://bpaiwatchdog.blogspot.com/. So far, Leigh Martinson is focusing on the BPAI’s application of Bilski.
- European Bilski: The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO is looking for third-party input on four issues:
-
- Is it only proper to exclude patents covering computer programs as such when explicitly claimed as a “computer program”?
- Does a claim avoid the computer program as such exclusion by mentioning a computer or data storage medium? (If not, what technical effect is needed?)
- Can a technical effect be non-physical? Is it sufficient if the physical entity is an unspecified computer?
- Does the activity of programming a computer necessarily involve technical considerations?
- Input on the European questions are due by the end of April. http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2009/20090219.html.
- Application for the job of PTO Director (by Prof Morris) http://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/pto.htm. I maintain that it is possible to find an excellent nominee who is not a patent attorney. However, any nominee who does not have extensive experience with the patent prosecution process will face an uphill credibility battle from day one.
What is a troll patent and why are they bad?
By TJ Chiang (Professor at George Mason Law School). Professor Chiang wrote the following squib after reading yet another article complaining about patent trolls.
There is much debate and controversy over the term "patent troll." Let me suggest a fairly narrow definition, but one that identifies a category of patents with distinct problems. Moreover, let me suggest that we should talk about individual patents as "troll patents," rather than entire entities as patent trolls. A troll patent is one that:
- Is owned by someone that does not practice the invention.
- Is infringed by, and asserted against, non-copiers exclusively or almost exclusively. By copying I mean any kind of derivation, not just slavish replication.
- Has no licensees practicing the particular patented invention except for defendants in (2) who took licenses as settlement.
- Is asserted against a large industry that is, based on (2), composed of non-copiers.
The problem with a patent troll—or, more accurately, the particular troll patent—that fits all four conditions above is that the troll patent does only two things. First, it gathers dust in the patent office. Second, it inflates prices on products. The patent itself contributes nothing useful to society, in so far as the people who actually make anything useful would have done it equally in the absence of the patent.
These four conditions also rule out a few non-practicing entities; or, rather, many of the patents held by these entities. University-held patents are largely not troll patents, in so far as they are often on substantial advances where the infringers copy. Individual inventors are also not always trolls. An individual inventor that licenses others to commercialize the invention is not a troll; nor where the inventor actually has something significant that gets pirated. But a patent owner who sits in wait to ambush an industry later, with a patent that does nothing otherwise except gather dust, is a troll.
One hypothetical that will surely be thrown at me is the individual inventor who tries to commercialize the invention, but fails, and then sues the industry years later. This inventor is a visionary ahead of his time who was merely unlucky. On the other hand, this inventor still contributed nothing useful to society. It is worth emphasizing the fact that, by my hypothetical, the industry produced the same technology independently, without copying anything from the patent. In the absence of copying by someone else or the commercialization of the product through the patent, I do not see the inventor as having done society much of a favor.
Guest Post: Monsanto Company’s View on Patent Reform – Protect Innovation:
David Snively is Monsanto's General Counsel. He read Google's calls for patent reform and penned the following response. Monsanto's business model relies heavily on its ability to protect its innovations through intellectual property and contract in the US and Globally. Monsanto has also been the defendant in numerous patent battles.
Dr. Alan Greenpan's keynote speech on "Markets and the Judiciary" noted that "critical to economic growth is a rule of law, particularly protection of the rights of individuals and property". His remark that for IP law, the constancy of the protection afforded under the Constitution of the United States and our fully-functioning legal system is the basis for the U.S. economy's sustaining lead – even in difficult economic times with broken markets. Our patent system is the envy of the globe and while capable of thoughtful adjustment should not be hijacked by international pirates or corporations seeking to dilute legitimate protection that breeds investment and jobs. This is why Monsanto Company, as a global leader for innovation and technology in agriculture, is joined by trade unions and countless other groups who strive to assure Greenspan's voice is not lost in the din from hedge funds, offshore interests or others seeking short term gain by weakening our great patent system.
I respectfully disagree with the recent blog post by Google's Head of Patents and General Counsel, commenting on the perceived risks from damage awards in patent cases. Monsanto has faced billion dollar damage claims as a wrongly sued patent defendant and also knows the true benefits from avoiding the encouragement of willful infringement based on a smaller party's calculated gain in the face of limited risk of a meaningful award of damages if infringement is established. With full knowledge of all these issues and our substantial alignment with Google and the information technology industry over the legitimate need to curtail patent trolls and a myriad of other concerns – we encourage thoughtful reform. Last year Congress passed without public objection Public Law 110-403 the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008" which was designed to significantly enhance government law enforcement resources for combating certain kinds of intellectual property (IP) theft, e.g. criminal counterfeiting and infringement of computer software. The law helps protect investments in the research, development and marketing of certain kinds of innovative American products and services. The information technology industry was rightly bothered that its intellectual property rights were being trampled on by "pirates".
But, according to the financial sector and the information technology industry it seems that too many other people have too many patents that get in the way of too much "innovation" that is being marketed by an industry that doesn't own the rights to the "innovation". Some say that innovation can't stand still while somebody does a patent search to make sure that the "innovation" that is being marketed won't infringe any of those too many patents. So the complaint is "we are getting sued too much by these innovators who are stifling our innovation". Unlike the solution for rampant copyright infringement the perverse solution for rampant patent infringement is to propose "reforms" that would both reduce incentive to invest in research, development and marketing of innovative American products and services and provided impediments for improving patent quality. Dr. Greenspan's Georgetown keynote aptly recalled the copyright situation when he quoted Stephen Breyer from the Harvard Law Review decades prior to becoming a Justice "the case for copyright…rests not upon the proven need, but rather upon the uncertainty as to what would happen if protection were removed. One may suspect the risk of harm is small, but the world without copyright is nonetheless [in the words of Hamlet] 'undiscover'd country' which 'puzzles the will,/And makes us rather bear those ills we have/Than fly to others that we know not of.'
The problems posed by the patent reform bill are many:
- It would change the calculation of damages that an infringer (pirate) would pay as compensation for trampling on patent rights, encouraging only more callous disregard of patent rights and piracy.
- It would change the venue provisions in a way that would impose a substantial burden and inconvenience on patent owners by limiting access to the judicial system, encouraging only more callous disregard of patent rights and piracy.
- "Technical" changes would weaken protection and encourage piracy via removing the estoppels provisions and expanding the prior art basis for engaging in inter partes re-examination, in effect providing a system of post grant review that will serve only to harass patent owners by effectively taking patents out or service for the duration of unlimited re-examinations, encouraging only more callous disregard of patent rights and piracy.
Transparency is critical to society today yet the patent reform bill would not require publication of all patent applications at 18 months reducing the public knowledge of prior art making it harder to avoid investment in patent-free technology and reducing the likelihood that quality patents will issue.
Thoughtful patent reform is needed. There are things to support in the House version of the patent reform bill. For example, the House bill while strangely modifying the damages calculation would authorize a study to see if such a modification is needed. Such studies are available and do not support the anecdotes that say damage awards are out of control.
Patent Reform that discourages investment in research and development and the job growth and economic stimulus that is spawned by thousands of small companies as well as large companies that rely on a robust and strong patent system is bad for America. Monsanto invests over $2M every day in research and is committed publicly to helping double food yield in corn, soy and cotton by 2030 while using 1/3 fewer natural resources and improving the lives of farmers globally. Accomplishing this task of sustainable agriculture requires a patent system and rule of law that Dr. Greenspan says has always been found in the Constitution of the United States.
Patent Reform 2009: Damages
The most contentious portion of the Patent Reform Act of 2009 is the damages provision. The current damages statute gives little guidance to a court. Damages must be “adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” 35 U.S.C. §284. The Court may “increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Id. The courts have given some flesh to the rough skeleton created by these statutes. One construct is the hypothetical negotiation – asking the counterfactual question of what licensing scheme would these dueling foes have agreed to if they had actually come to a licensing agreement. The Georgia Pacific factors guide the process of deternining a reasonable royalty. In some cases, courts allow a patentee to recover lost profits.
As it turns out, the damages actually awarded in patent cases are generally thought to be much higher than negotiated license agreements. Part of the difference stems from the reality that patent damages are awarded only on patents that are known to be valid, infringed, and enforceable, and after the risk and expense of litigation have already been taken. In ordinary license negotiations, these risks lower the potential royalty rate and – in contrast – should increased the level of compensation in post-trial damages. There is some evidence that juries simply tend toward large damage awards.
Stacking Problem: In some technology areas – such as electronics – this creates a potential problem known as royalty stacking. Most electronics products are covered by multiple patents – often dozens of patents. CDMA2000 communication standard, for instance, reportedly invringes at least 924 patents. [LINK] When each patentee is awarded a 5% royalty, it does not take long before the entire revenue is taken just to pay for intellectual property rights. If everyone has blocking rights then no business can get done, and we see the tragedy of the anti-commons. Of course, stacking is only a problem in theory. CDMA2000 is a standard actually used around the world. Producers are making (some) money. Multiple patents covering products have causes prices to be raised, but it is not clear than any market has been destroyed or even that the royalty payments outway the benefit of the innovation.
Uncertainty Problem: Jury verdicts are quite unpredictable, and because the royalty rules are so loose, damages appeals are rarely successful.
The new legislation appears to take on these problems in a way to (1) reduce the average damage award; (2) make damage awards more rational and predictable; and (3) make damages judgment more subject to appellate review.
The practical approach of the legislation is to create a “standard for calculating reasonable royalty” which require a determination of the “specific contribution over the prior art” to determine damages. Some courts already follow the rules set out in the proposed legislation. Thus, legislation advocates may refer to the damages reforms as simply a clarification that limits the actions of rogue courts.
The proposed text reads as follows:
35 USC 284(c)(1) IN GENERAL.-The court shall determine, based on the facts of the case and after adducing any further evidence the court deems necessary, which of the following methods shall be used by the court or the jury in calculating a reasonable royalty pursuant to subsection (a). The court shall also identify the factors that are relevant to the determination of a reasonable royalty, and the court or jury, as the case may be, shall consider only those factors in making such determination.
”(A) ENTIRE MARKET VALUE.-Upon a showing to the satisfaction of the court that the claimed invention’s specific contribution over the prior art is the predominant basis for market demand for an infringing product or process, damages may be based upon the entire market value of that infringing product or process.
”(B) ESTABLISHED ROYALTY BASED ON MARKETPLACE LICENSING.-Upon a showing to the satisfaction of the court that the claimed invention has been the subject of a nonexclusive license for the use made of the invention by the infringer, to a number of persons sufficient to indicate a general marketplace recognition of the reasonableness of the licensing terms, if the license was secured prior to the filing of the case before the court, and the court determines that the infringer’s use is of substantially the same scope, volume, and benefit of the rights granted under such license, damages may be determined on the basis of the terms of such license. Upon a showing to the satisfaction of the court that the claimed invention has sufficiently similar noninfringing substitutes in the relevant market, which have themselves been the subject of such nonexclusive licenses, and the court de termines that the infringer’s use is of substan tially the same scope, volume, and benefit of the rights granted under such licenses, damages may be determined on the basis of the terms of such licenses. ”
(C) VALUATION CALCULATION.-Upon a determination by the court that the showings required under subparagraphs (A) and (B) have not been made, the court shall conduct an analysis to ensure that a reasonable royalty is applied only to the portion of the economic value of the infringing product or process properly at tributable to the claimed invention’s specific contribution over the prior art. In the case of a combination invention whose elements are present individually in the prior art, the contribution over the prior art may include the value of the additional function resulting from the combination, as well as the enhanced value, if any, of some or all of the prior art elements as part of the combination, if the patentee demonstrates that value.
”(2) ADDITIONAL FACTORS.-Where the court determines it to be appropriate in determining a reasonable royalty under paragraph (1), the court may also consider, or direct the jury to consider, any other relevant factors under applicable law.
Notes:
- I’ll use this opportunity to plug a new book by Richard Cauley: Winning the Patent Damages Case (Oxford 2009). Great book, the only problem is the $185 price tag.
- The Bills have received numbers: H.R. 1260 is sponsored by Rep. Conyers (MI) and co-sponsored by Reps. Berman (CA), Goodlatte (VA), Jackson-Lee (TX), and Smith (TX). S. 515 is sponsored by Sen. Leahy and co-sponsored by Sens. Crapo (ID), Gillibrand (NY), Hatch (UT), Risch (ID), Schumer (NY), and Whitehouse (RI). Both Bills have been referred to their respective Judiciary Committee which are headed by the Bill sponsors.
Back Reading
- Dennis Crouch, Patent Reform Act of 2009, Patently-O (March 3, 2008).
- William Rooklidge, “Reform” of Patent Damages.
- Dennis Crouch, Patent Reform 2007: Apportionment of Damages, Patently-O (May 25, 2007).
- Amy Landers, 2007 Patent Reform: Proposed Amendments on Damages, Patently-O (April 29, 2007).
Patent Reform Act of 2009
Patent reform legislation has now been introduced in both the House and the Senate. The provisions call for major reforms and mirror much of the proposed legislation from 2008. If anything, this is not a consensus Bill. File Attachment: SenateBill.pdf (116 KB) File Attachment: HouseBill.pdf (180 KB)
Proposed changes in the Senate Bill include:
- First to File: Moving to a first-to-file system that credits invention based on the filing date of the patent application rather than on the date of actual invention. The provision eliminates the one-year grace period for most cases. Thus, any independent third-party publication prior to filing is considered prior art regardless of the date of invention. Likewise, secret prior art (102(e)) cannot be ‘sworn behind’ based on prior invention. This provision obviously hurts folks who delay in filing patent applications.
- Damages: Must look to the invention’s “specific contribution over the prior art” to determine damages. There is an interesting provision that a reasonable royalty may be calculated as the price of licensing a “similar noninfringing substitute in the relative market.” In some cases, this could push damages to zero if the noninfringing substitute is in the public domain. The provision also codifies that treble damages are limited to instances where a judge finds that an adjudged infringer recklessly continued to infringe after receiving particularly specified written notice sufficient to create declaratory judgment jurisdiction and without relying on reasonable advice of counsel.
- Expanded Reexamination Proceedings: Reexaminations may be requested based on published prior art, or evidence of prior public use or sale in the US. Inter partes reexaminations would begin to look more like court cases and would be heard by administrative patent judges. The Bill would clarify that parties would be estopped from filing inter partes reexamination requests after a district court judgment.
- Additional Post Grant Review: Within 12 months of issuance, a third party can file a cancellation petition based on any ground of invalidity (rather than simply prior art). The post grant reviews would also be conducted by the administrative patent judges.
- Pre-Issuance Submissions: Third parties can submit prior art during examination of the patent as well as a statement regarding the relevance of the art. The art should be submitted the latter of (1) six months after publication or (2) before the first office action on the merits.
- Patent Litigation Venue: “A party shall not manufacture venue by assignment, incorporation, or otherwise to invoke the venue of a specific district court.” Venue is only proper were (a) defendant is incorporated; (b) defendant has its principle place of business; (c) where the defendant is permanently located and has committed substantial acts of infringement; or (d) where the plaintiff resides if the plaintiff is a nonprofit or individual inventor. The court should transfer venue to avoid evidentiary burdens when transfer can be accomplished without causing undue hardship to the plaintiff.”
- Interlocutory Appeals: The Federal Circuit will have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals of claim construction when approved by the lower court.
- Administrative Patent Judges: The BPAI would become the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Interferences would be gone, however they would be replaced by derivation proceedings as well as reexamination and post-grant trials.
- PTO Powers: The PTO has power to set its fees, including reducing fees.
- Oath: Easing the rules to more easily allow rights-holders to file patent applications on behalf of the inventor.
- Federal Circuit Judges: Making legal it for a Federal Circuit judge to reside more than 50 miles from DC.
As you can see, this is very much the type of reform that companies like Google would like to see. Google is regularly faced with charges of patent infringement and rarely sues for infringement. Some of these changes will benefit the system as a whole, but it is clear that this is not “balanced” reform. The damages provision will almost certainly reduce patent awards. And, perhaps equally important, the damages provision provides adjudged infringers a real cause to appeal jury awards if they did not directly follow the expert testimony.
I believe that the expanded use of reexaminations and post grant review and prior art submissions will be beneficial, and I have faith that the administrative patent judges will be able to handle their newfound responsibilities. That said, these provisions provide challengers with new ways to attack patent rights.
The plaintiff bar in the Eastern District of Texas is quite good, and defendants are doing what they can to escape from their grasp. The venue provision moves in that direction and would thus weaken the value of patents.
The trick with the first to file system is to realize that it is not about some mythical race to invent between competitors. Rather, it is about keying the priority on the date of filing the application rather than the date of invention or even one year prior to filing. This provision weakens patent rights because more materials will be considered prior art. It is possible to switch to a first-to-file system without eliminating the grace period so dramatically – this legislation does not, however meet that standard.
The Bill is sponsored by both Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Hatch (R-UT). Representative Conyers (D-Mich) introduced parallel legislation in the House, the legislation is largely similar, but does contain some differences. (I have not reviewed the House version in detail). Some opposition has already formed. Reps Manzullo (R-IL) an Michaud (D-ME) issued a joint press release titled “New patent bill encourages IP theft, destroys American jobs.” Their focus was on the damages provision.
There are some changes from the 2008 legislation.
- The Bill does not require that all applications be published at 18 months.
- Applicants would not be required to search prior art.
- The 2009 Bill allows public use or sale in the US to be reasons for challenging patents.
- CHECK 21 provisions are gone.
- Fee Diversion is allowed in the 2009 Bill. (Oddly, Leahy explained that PTO Examiners perfer a system of fee diversion)
- The 2009 Bill does not address inequitable conduct.
Links:
- Stephanie Condon writes “Controversial provisions remain in patent reform bill.“
- Diane Bartz writes “Congress takes up patent redo, damages fight looms.”
- David Ingrim writes “Lawmakers Pledge Bipartisan Effort on Patent Changes.”
- Zusha Elinson writes “Silicon Valley Raises Voice on IP Reform.”
- Brent Kendall writes for Dow Jones “The patent system has not been overhauled in more than 50 years.” [huh?]
Google Patent Chief: Patent reform needed more than ever
A patent reform bill is expected to be introduced today in the Senate and House. Below is a (yet unauthorized reproduction and) editorial by Michelle Lee, Head of Patents and Patent Strategy at Google (Originally posted here)
After the last time I blogged about patent reform in late 2007, the House went on to approve the Patent Reform Act. The bill unfortunately got bogged down in the Senate the following year. Since then the problems of the current system — and the need for reform — have only grown.
Consider this: Of the 20 patent lawsuits filed against Google since late 2007, all but two have been filed by plaintiffs who don’t make or sell any real product or service — in other words, by non-practicing entities or “patent trolls.” Most of these cases seem to feature the same small set of contingent fee plaintiff’s lawyers asserting patent claims against the same small set of companies. We’ve also noticed a more disturbing trend: in many of these cases, the patents being asserted against us are owned by — and in a surprising number of cases, are even “invented” by — patent lawyers themselves.
Unfortunately, the temptations and opportunities for abuse have gotten too high. Lawyers and plaintiffs have seen the potentially huge payoffs available in patent litigation. Before 1990, there had been just one patent damage award of over $100 million. Since 1990, there have been at least 15, with at least five topping $500 million.
That’s why I’m excited that patent reform legislation is slated to be reintroduced today by Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch and Representatives John Conyers and Lamar Smith. Once a driver of creativity, our patent system now poses a hurdle for innovation. All too often, Google and other companies face mounting legal costs to defend against questionable patent claims from speculators gaming the system to reap windfall profits. And those lawsuits make it more difficult and costly to introduce the next revolutionary product.
I wrote a bit last Congress about the reform provisions that Google cares the most about. The most pressing of those is ensuring fair damage awards. The current system too easily allows damages to be assessed based on the value of the whole product often containing many features — not just the value of the innovation of the allegedly infringed patent — which means the threat of potentially massive awards forces defendants to settle. Balance should be restored by requiring damages to be based on the value of the innovation’s contribution to the product.
As members of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, we’re optimistic that patent reform faces better odds in 2009 than it has before — not least because President Obama has pledged his support. Passage of patent reform is long overdue.
Eastern District of Texas as the Best Venue
Mayer Lebowitz was a noted inventor of security technology. He died in 2005, but the trustee of his estate (Gellman) sued to enforce patent rights against various security companies including ADT, Diebold, Digital Security, Europlex, NAPCO, Numerex, Protection One, and Telular. Gelman lives in Texas and brought suit on behalf of the estate in the Eastern District of Texas – alleging infringement of U.S. patent No. 6,075,451. The ‘451 patent covers the method and electronics for sending alerts via a cellular network. That way, the lines can’t be cut, and installation may be much cheaper.
Judge Ward rejected the defendants motion to transfer Venue to the Northern District of Illinois – finding that the Plaintiff’s Texas location weighed heavily in favor of keeping the case in Texas. Gellman v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 2008 WL 4280351 (E.D.Tex. 2008). Following In re TS Tech, Telular has now moved for mandamus – asking the Federal Circuit to order that venue be transferred. In a preliminary ruling on the Motion, Judge Dyk demanded that Gellman brief the matter.
In a parallel case, Judge Ward recently refused to transfer a case that had been filed against a dozen auto manufacturers. MHL TEK, a Texas corporation, sued Audi, VW, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, Porsche, Isuzu, etc. The defendants asked that the case be sent to the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Ward found numerous reasons why Michigan was a poor choice of venue. MHL TEK, LLC, v. NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13676 (E.D. Tex. 2009). In his opinion, Judge Ward made the law on venue look quite silly when applied to major multi-party patent cases. For instance, the convenience factor looks at distance to the forum: “For defendants flying in from Germany, the Detroit airport would possibly be closer than the Shreveport airport. For defendants flying in from Asia over the Pacific, the Shreveport airport would possibly be closer than the Detroit airport.” As in the Gellman case, at least one defendant here (VW) has asked for the Federal Circuit to rule on mandamus. Briefing on that motion continues.
Both cases are easily contrasted with Odom v. Microsoft. (AKA Patent Hawk) In Odom’s case, both the patent holder and defendant were located in the Pacific Northwest, and the defendant asked that the case be transferred to the Plaintiff’s home jurisdiction. In both Gellman & MHL TEK, the plaintiffs are located in Texas and the multiple defendants are located throughout the country and the world without any particular site of nexus.
Bits and Bytes No. 94
Inventors
- I used a software algorithm to count the number of inventors in each utility patent application published June 2007- February 2009. The histogram below shows the result. The median application has two inventors. One German application lists 100 inventors (I’ll post the patent number when I get back to my office).
Revisiting Upcoming Conferences
- Northwestern Law School’s Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property (NJTIP) is putting on a great event in Chicago on March 6, 2009 (Friday).
- Howard University’s Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice IP Symposium – March 5-6. Day two will focus in patent issues and will include a year in review by Irving Kayton, a discussion of design patent issues by Jon Wood (Bridgestone); and panels that include Chief Judge Michel and Judge Linn as speakers.
- Federal Circuit Year in Review (St. Louis) – March 13 – I’ll be presenting this one hour session sponsored by the Bar Assn. of Metropolitan St. Louis.
- The IP Law Summit – March 17-19 – hosted by the marcus evans company will be a nice event in Ponte Vedra, Florida. I will be speaking there along with Marc Began (Novo), Manny Schecter (IBM), Bruce Schelkoph (Cummins), Scott Kief (Wash U), Bruce Pokras (Pfizer), Colin Raufer (Boeing), Mony Ghose (BD), Ken Collier (Medtronic), Scott Reid (Lenovo), Chris Turoski (Cargill), Hope Mehlman (Regions Financial), Tom Boshinski (Mead), Wendall Guffy (Nestle), Tim Wilson (SAS), Robert Renke (Flashpoint), John Parrish (Sanofi), Mike Jaro (Medtornic), and Phyllis Turner-Brim (Intermec).
- The Federal Circuit Symposium – March 18. Sponsored by the FCBA and GWU Law School. Speakers include Chief Judge Michel, and Judges Friedman, Newman, and Rader; Senator Specter (invited); a heavy Supreme Court perspective with the five former solicitors general; academics speaking include John Duffy, Arti Rai, John Golden, and Rochelle Dreyfuss may largely focus on the role of the Federal Circuit.
- Fordham IP Conference (NYC) – April 15-16. This conference has strong cross-Atlantic ties and will include judges and scholars from both continents.
- IAM’s IP Business Congress in Chicago – June 21-23 – As the name suggest, this annual event focuses on how IP can be used in business. Sessions include “brand IP, strategic IP and business alignment, and IP value creation, as well as a range of breakouts examining legal, financial, strategic and business-related topics.”
State Immunity from Patent Infringement: Bargaining for Grant Money
In 2000, Todd Dickinson testified before Congress that the state immunity from patent infringement was unfair – especially because states are such major players in the patent system. Since then the situation has become even more dramatic. States and their entities (largely university systems) have obtained thousands of patents and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties.
In his testimony, the then PTO director suggested what he saw as a “reasonable and equitable approach” to condition the ability of state institutions to obtain federal protection of intellectual property on their waive of sovereign immunity for patent infringement.
“A legislative solution which elicits state waiver of sovereign immunity in exchange for the right to own federally-protected intellectual property must respect, and be in harmony with, the commercialization goals of the Bayh-Dole legislation.”
Clearly, this type of activity is anti-federalist, but it is not far afield from current practices in other areas of government.
Notes:
Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 93
Upcoming Events
- Northwestern Law School’s Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property (NJTIP) is putting on a great event in Chicago on March 6, 2009 (Friday). Bob Irvine will be debating Bilski with Lauren Katznellenbogen. Irvine is a partner at my former firm, MBHB – He is amazingly smart and was my resource whenever I had difficulty understanding some complex technology. The debate is moderated by blogger R. David Donoghue. (The notice includes a disclaimer that the positions “are for advocacy purposes” and might not reflect the positions of the parties or their firms. Other speakers include Judge Holderman, Dr. Chris Singer (of Patent Docs and MBHB), Profs Seymore and Sag, and Mike Baniak (also of MBHB). [Symposium Website]
The IP Law Summit – March 17-19 – hosted by the marcus evans company will be a nice event in Ponte Vedra, Florida. I will be speaking there along with Marc Began (Novo), Manny Schecter (IBM), Bruce Schelkoph (Cummins), Scott Kief (Wash U), Bruce Pokras (Pfizer), Colin Raufer (Boeing), Mony Ghose (BD), Ken Collier (Medtronic), Scott Reid (Lenovo), Chris Turoski (Cargill), Hope Mehlman (Regions Financial), Tom Boshinski (Mead), Wendall Guffy (Nestle), Tim Wilson (SAS), Robert Renke (Flashpoint), John Parrish (Sanofi), Mike Jaro (Medtornic), and Phyllis Turner-Brim (Intermec).
The IP Law Summit – March 17-19 – hosted by the Stays pending reexamination:
- I continue to be surprised that courts grant stays of litigation pending re-examination – especially inter partes reexaminations which tend to be incredibly slow. In Wall Corp. v. BondDesk Group, LLC (D.Del. Feb. 24, 2009), district judge Gregory Sleet granted the defendant’s motion to stay the litigation pending inter partes reexaminations. The fact that the reexamination was inter partes was especially important to the court since the potential “estoppel will resolve many of the invalidity issues and streamline the litigation.” In a decision last week in Affinity Labs v. Dice Electronics, LLC, (E.D.Tex. February 20, 2009), the Texas-based Federal Court denied a stay pending ex parte reexam noting that the ex parte approach allows the “Defendant to lay behind the log, hoping for favorable developments with the passage of time. Instead of streamlining the process, Defendants’ choice guarantees the imposition of additional costs … and indicates a lack of desire to resolve the issues in the case in a timely manner.”
Late Patents:
- I recently discussed maintenance fees here, here, here, and here. An interesting website on the topic is latepatents.net. (Hat tip to John Spevacek)
Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 93
Upcoming Events
- Northwestern Law School’s Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property (NJTIP) is putting on a great event in Chicago on March 6, 2009 (Friday). Bob Irvine will be debating Bilski with Lauren Katznellenbogen. Irvine is a partner at my former firm, MBHB – He is amazingly smart and was my resource whenever I had difficulty understanding some complex technology. The debate is moderated by blogger R. David Donoghue. (The notice includes a disclaimer that the positions “are for advocacy purposes” and might not reflect the positions of the parties or their firms. Other speakers include Judge Holderman, Dr. Chris Singer (of Patent Docs and MBHB), Profs Seymore and Sag, and Mike Baniak (also of MBHB). [Symposium Website]
- The IP Law Summit – March 17-19 – hosted by the marcus evans company will be a nice event in Ponte Vedra, Florida. I will be speaking there along with Marc Began (Novo), Manny Schecter (IBM), Bruce Schelkoph (Cummins), Scott Kief (Wash U), Bruce Pokras (Pfizer), Colin Raufer (Boeing), Mony Ghose (BD), Ken Collier (Medtronic), Scott Reid (Lenovo), Chris Turoski (Cargill), Hope Mehlman (Regions Financial), Tom Boshinski (Mead), Wendall Guffy (Nestle), Tim Wilson (SAS), Robert Renke (Flashpoint), John Parrish (Sanofi), Mike Jaro (Medtornic), and Phyllis Turner-Brim (Intermec).
Stays pending reexamination:
- I continue to be surprised that courts grant stays of litigation pending re-examination – especially inter partes reexaminations which tend to be incredibly slow. In Wall Corp. v. BondDesk Group, LLC (D.Del. Feb. 24, 2009), district judge Gregory Sleet granted the defendant’s motion to stay the litigation pending inter partes reexaminations. The fact that the reexamination was inter partes was especially important to the court since the potential “estoppel will resolve many of the invalidity issues and streamline the litigation.” In a decision last week in Affinity Labs v. Dice Electronics, LLC, (E.D.Tex. February 20, 2009), the Texas-based Federal Court denied a stay pending ex parte reexam noting that the ex parte approach allows the “Defendant to lay behind the log, hoping for favorable developments with the passage of time. Instead of streamlining the process, Defendants’ choice guarantees the imposition of additional costs … and indicates a lack of desire to resolve the issues in the case in a timely manner.”
Late Patents:
- I recently discussed maintenance fees here, here, here, and here. An interesting website on the topic is latepatents.net. (Hat tip to John Spevacek)
Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 93
Upcoming Events
- Northwestern Law School’s Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property (NJTIP) is putting on a great event in Chicago on March 6, 2009 (Friday). Bob Irvine will be debating Bilski with Lauren Katznellenbogen. Irvine is a partner at my former firm, MBHB – He is amazingly smart and was my resource whenever I had difficulty understanding some complex technology. The debate is moderated by blogger R. David Donoghue. (The notice includes a disclaimer that the positions “are for advocacy purposes” and might not reflect the positions of the parties or their firms. Other speakers include Judge Holderman, Dr. Chris Singer (of Patent Docs and MBHB), Profs Seymore and Sag, and Mike Baniak (also of MBHB). [Symposium Website]
- The IP Law Summit – March 17-19 – hosted by the marcus evans company will be a nice event in Ponte Vedra, Florida. I will be speaking there along with Marc Began (Novo), Manny Schecter (IBM), Bruce Schelkoph (Cummins), Scott Kief (Wash U), Bruce Pokras (Pfizer), Colin Raufer (Boeing), Mony Ghose (BD), Ken Collier (Medtronic), Scott Reid (Lenovo), Chris Turoski (Cargill), Hope Mehlman (Regions Financial), Tom Boshinski (Mead), Wendall Guffy (Nestle), Tim Wilson (SAS), Robert Renke (Flashpoint), John Parrish (Sanofi), Mike Jaro (Medtornic), and Phyllis Turner-Brim (Intermec).
The IP Law Summit – March 17-19 – hosted by the Stays pending reexamination:
- I continue to be surprised that courts grant stays of litigation pending re-examination – especially inter partes reexaminations which tend to be incredibly slow. In Wall Corp. v. BondDesk Group, LLC (D.Del. Feb. 24, 2009), district judge Gregory Sleet granted the defendant’s motion to stay the litigation pending inter partes reexaminations. The fact that the reexamination was inter partes was especially important to the court since the potential “estoppel will resolve many of the invalidity issues and streamline the litigation.” In a decision last week in Affinity Labs v. Dice Electronics, LLC, (E.D.Tex. February 20, 2009), the Texas-based Federal Court denied a stay pending ex parte reexam noting that the ex parte approach allows the “Defendant to lay behind the log, hoping for favorable developments with the passage of time. Instead of streamlining the process, Defendants’ choice guarantees the imposition of additional costs … and indicates a lack of desire to resolve the issues in the case in a timely manner.”
Late Patents:
- I recently discussed maintenance fees here, here, here, and here. An interesting website on the topic is latepatents.net. (Hat tip to John Spevacek)
Patentable Subject Matter Redux: Bilski 2009
In February 2009, the Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI) issued nine decisions that touched on Bilski and patentable subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act. In eight of the cases, the BPAI either affirmed an examiner’s Section 101 rejection (five cases) or entered a new ground of rejection under Section 101 (three cases). In the remaining case, the BPAI remanded – asking the examiner to consider wether the claims were patentable under Section 101. All nine cases were related to software or electronics type applications.
In Ex Parte Motoyama, Appeal 2008-2753 (Bd. Pat. App. Int., Feb. 27, 2009), for instance, the BPAI reversed an examiner’s Section 103(a) obviousness rejection, but entered a new ground of rejection as failing the Bilski test of patentable subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The Motoyama claim (owned by Ricoh) reads as follows:
1. A method for a monitoring device to obtain an identifier of a monitored device, comprising: obtaining manufacturer information of the monitored device using a hierarchical approach by comparing a response to a query of the monitored device to an anticipated response; accessing the monitored device using a first method to attempt to obtain the identifier using the manufacturer information; if the identifier is not obtained in the accessing step, obtaining a MAC address of the monitored device as the identifier; if the MAC address is not obtained, generating the identifier using a second method; and storing the identifier of the monitored device for use by the monitoring device.
The panel recognized that the claim language did refer to a “monitoring device.” However, according to the BPAI, the method “is not recited in terms of hardware or tangible structural elements. Rather, the method could be implemented on a software system, where the elements of claim 1 are implemented solely in software or algorithms. Thus, the nominal recitation of “for a monitoring device” in the preamble does not transform claim 1 into patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Likewise, none of the steps call for transformation of an article.
Although the BPAI’s focus on Bilski has been primarily in software applications, there are many that see a potential for Bilski to spill-over into other areas of technology. Right on this frontier are applications focusing on methods of diagnosing. Filing a couple of days early, Medistem has submitted its brief supporting certiorari in the Bilski case. (Briefs in support of certiorari are due Monday, March 2, 2009). Medistem explains to the court Bilski also limits they types of patents that it can obtain over newly invented predictive tests
The Federal Circuit’s limiting the scope of patentable subject matter for “process” inventions in Bilski casts a cloud of uncertainty as to whether Medistem and other biotech companies can continue to protect with patents their inventions relating to methods of diagnosing causes of diseases and methods of selecting beneficial treatment protocols. Medistem fears that should biotech companies lose the ability to obtain enforceable patent protection on diagnostic and treatment methods, the ability to attract investment capital will sharply decline, and as a direct result the incentive to search for better ways to diagnose causes of diseases and find more effective treatments will decline. Medistem is not alone in its view. Addressing this issue in his dissent from the en banc court’s opinion, Circuit Judge Rader cogently noted that excluding patent protection for methods of using discovered biological or physiological correlations will “undermine and discourage future research for diagnostic tools.” Bilski, 545 F.3d at 1014.
Medistem’s primary problem with the Bilski test is that it is the “exclusive test” for determining patent-eligibility of claimed processes. In that sense, the company argues, the rule limits the statute beyond prior Court precedent and beyond Congressional intent.
Notes
Accelerated Examination Case Study
The quickest patent issued in 2008: U.S. Patent No. 7,408,364 is assigned to Advanced Sensor Technologies, Inc. (King of Prussia, PA). When ASTi filed its application on a sensor for measuring moisture and salinity in May 2008, it included an accelerated examination petition, a statement of pre-examination search, and a set of examination support documents. Three weeks later, the PTO granted ASTi’s petition for accelerated examination. On June 19, the Examiner began his examination, and issued a notice of allowance for the single claim on June 20. The patent issued on August 5, 2008 – 76 days after the application was originally filed. ASTi has filed multiple continuations – at least one of which has already issued. The patent was prosecuted by longtime patent attorney Mike Catania. The median pendency for the art unit (2831) during the past year was 2.2 years – more than ten-times longer than it took ASTi to get its patent. The median pendency for the primary examiner handling the case during the same period was 2.7 years.
ASTi’s examination support documents include a discussion of nine prior art references. Catania steps through each of the cited references and explains what claim elements are missing from the references. This discussion very much parallels what an attorney would have written in an office action response. The document also discusses nonobviousness and asserts that a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be made because several claim elements are not found in any of the cited prior art references. The document then goes through each claim element and points to particular disclosure in the specification that describes and/or enables the element.
Inequitable Conduct & Cost: The two knocks against the accelerated examination system are the potential for inequitable conduct and the cost of the procedure. I have heard patent attorneys say they would never use the process because of the inherent risk. Part of the vehement reaction is historic. Before the accelerated examination process was created in August 2006, it was much easier for an applicant to put an application on the accelerated examination track through the process then known only as a petition to make special.
Inequitable conduct fears are related to potential charges of failure to conduct a proper search or misrepresentation of the prior art. Both of those are legitimate. Here, however, Catania explained the exact search terms used and the databases searched. This organized and transparent approach coupled with a competent search is unlikely to create inequitable conduct. Regarding discussion of the prior art, Catania’s write-up looks like a response to an office action. Almost every case includes at least one response to an obviousness rejection. Most cases include multiple such responses. It is difficult to tell how this strategy is more problematic than the standard approach. In fact, by providing the opening volley, Catania seems to have set the stage in a way that reduced further need to respond. The cost is certainly more because it requires a well done prior art search, search report and a discussion of the references in relation to the claims. The search & report should run under $1,000 and the discussion should be about the same cost as responding to a well reasoned office action. Although, the attorney will not need to step through the sometimes painful process of amending claims. Almost certainly, prosecution of this case was cheaper than the typical case that is allowed after an RCE and amendment. Of course, the process has a learning curve [Mike – can you tell us how much did this cost here, and who did the search?].
What’s the Benefit: The greatest benefit of accelerated examination practice is that the patent issues much more quickly. For some clients early issuance is strategically important. From anecdotal evidence – such as this case – it appears that the PTO is more willing to immediately allow cases rather than going through the rejection churn. I believe that the PTO is assigning accelerated examination cases to primary examiners who are already more likely to allow cases quickly, without amendment, and without the notice of allowance being withdrawn because of a second-pair-of-eyes review.
For some firms, there may also be a benefit of getting the work done and paid for up front when the client is excited about the technology and the inventor still works at the company – rather than three years later when the traditional response to an office action would be done.
Documents:
- File Attachment: Petition and Support Documents (1730 KB) (downloaded from PAIR)
Examiner SlimThugS USPTO Rap
Workplace Caution – Link has Audio Profanity
Examiner SlimThugS has an amazingly bad – but funny – USPTO Rap with video posted to YouTube. The song is titled “Dangerous” and includes lots of profanity (repeated use of mf’n). Some classic lines include:
“This attorney, he stepped up to me. He tried to knock down my 103. But you aint gonna amend past me; Cause I shot him back with a 102(b).”
“Using databases west and east everybody knows I’m the database beast. You think you can get a patent with those claims. Girl you better think twice, those claims are so lame.”
“I just found a 102(b) prior art, and now the beat down is gonna start. … I hit them with the 102(b), yeah”
Waiving Arguments at the Board of Patent Appeals
Pivonka v. Axelrod (Fed. Cir. 2009)(non-precedential)
In 2003, Axelrod asked the PTO to declare an interference against Pivonka’s patent which had issued the year prior. (Pat. No. 6,408,797). During the interference, the BPAI found Pivonka’s collapsible pet carrier claims to be unpatentable as obvious. [Link] On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
In reviewing a BPAI obviousness rejection, the Federal Circuit looks for “substantial evidence” to support any factual determinations, but reviews the ultimate question of obviousness de novo.
Here Pivonka pointed to three potential errors: (1) improperly saying that the invention has a “barn-like structure;” (2) failing to consider the patented claims individually; and (3) failing to appreciate the structural differences and functional benefits provided by the claimed invention as compared to the prior art.
The Federal Circuit dismissed these concerns in turn: (1) the reference to the barn was merely shorthand and not reversible error; (2) the applicant waived any right to have claims 2–9 considered separately by failing to make arguments on those claims earlier; and (3) the Board’s conclusion of obviousness was correct.
“Under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” 550 U.S. 398, 1739 (2007). According to Dr. Shina’s unrebutted affidavit [Axelrod’s Expert], both the structural benefits and the way in which to build the container claimed by Pivonka were readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we find no error in the Board’s conclusion that claims 1-9 are obvious.”
The Court also rejected an argument of improper procedure based on Pivonka’s waiver of the issue before the BPAI. One important take-away from this case is that the Federal Circuit generally treats the BPAI as it would a lower court in the sense that an issue must first be raised with the BPAI in order to be ripe for appeal to the Federal Circuit. If the issue is not raised at the lower level, then any appeal will be deemed waived.
Although not directly related, I enjoyed the following recent anonymous comment to another post:
Whoever said "necessity is the mother of invention" was wrong. According to KSR, "necessity is the mother of obviousness."
Underlying the interference is a patent infringement case between Pivonka and TFH Publications (Axelrod’s assignee). That case is also on appeal but will be heard by a different panel. Interestingly, after this favorable decision, TFH requested that the case be reassigned to the Axelrod panel. The Federal Circuit denied that motion. [Link]
Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Extension of 30-Month FDA Stay
Eli Lilly v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Teva is hoping to make a generic version of Lilly’s Evista brand raloxifene tablets that are used to help prevent postmenopausal osteoporosis. In May 2006, Teva filed an abbreviated new drug agreement (ANDA) and Lilly subsequently sued for patent infringement and to block the generic release. Under the law, after the patentee files suit, the FDA cannot then approve the generic for thirty months “unless the court has extended or reduced the period because of a failure of either [party] to cooperate reasonably in expediting the action.” This is commonly known as the “thirty month stay.”
In this case, the court originally set a trial date four months after the end of the thirty month period. In the months leading up to trial Teva altered its proposed generic formulation, which changed Lilly’s litigation strategy. As a result, the district court ordered that the FDA thirty month stay be extended for four extra months – until May 2009. Teva filed an emergency appeal to lift the stay.
On appeal, a split Federal Circuit panel affirmed – finding that the district court acted within its discretion in extending the stay based on Teva’s activity. “Trial courts, thus, may shorten or extend the thirty-month statutory period based on the parties’ uncooperative discovery practices before the court.” In its decision, the court distinguished the 2002 Andrx v. Bioval case. In Andrx, the Federal Circuit found that the district court had abused its discretion in shortening a thirty-month stay based on a party’s “positions before the FDA.” Rather, changes to the thirty-month period must be based on failure to cooperate court.
In dissent, Judge Prost argued that the majority misinterpreted the statute to grant too much deference to the district court in extending the stay. Rather, the statute requires that the stay should only be extended when a party fails “to cooperate reasonably in expediting the action.” Here, Judge Prost argues, the lower court did not find that Teva failed to cooperate, but only that Lilly could use more time to respond. The statute is limited in a way that does not allow extension of the stay in that situation.
Notes:
- Judge Rader wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Judge Michel.
- On the expedited schedule, Appellant filed its principle brief November 24, 2008; briefing was complete on December 30, 2008; Oral arguments were heard on January 14, 2009; and a decision rendered on February 24, 2009.
Merchants Warranty of Non-Infringement
Section 2-312 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) discusses warranties of title against infringers. Unless disclaimed, a “merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kinds” automatically warrants to the buyer that the goods being sold are “free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like.” The accompanying notes make clear that when goods are sold out of the seller’s normal stock (rather than special ordered) “it is the seller’s duty to see that no claim of infringement of a patent or trademark by a third party will impair the buyer’s title.” On the other hand, if the buyer makes a special order with its own specifications, any patent liability “will run from buyer to seller” and “the buyer is under an obligation in good faith to indemnify the seller for any loss suffered.”
In the 2008 case of Pacific Sunware of California, Inc. v. Olaes Enterprises, Inc, the California Court of Appeals interpreted the parallel provision in the California Uniform Commercial Code. The court there -HISTORY focused on the phrase “rightful claim” and held that a “rightful claim” is not limited to winning claims. Rather, the seller is liable to defend the buyer against any “nonfrivolous claim of infringement that has any significant and adverse effect on the buyer’s ability to make use of the purchased goods.” (Reversing the lower court ruling).
In its analysis, the court relied upon Professor Hricik’s 1997 Texas Tech Law Review article on how to “shift liability” for patent infringement. [link]
At this point, I will note that Patently-O hereby disclaims all warrantees – especially this one.
USPTO Maintenance Fees
A large portion of PTO revenue comes through applicant’s payment of maintenance fees. Under the current fee structure, three post-grant maintenance fees must be paid in order to keep a patent from prematurely expiring. A large entity pays $980 3.5 years after issuance; $2,480 7.5 years after issuance; and $4,110 11.5 after issuance. If the fee is not paid then the patent will expire at the next 4, 8, or 12 year mark. In FY08, the PTO reported over $500 million in revenue from maintenance fees.
I wanted to look at how maintenance fees are being paid, so I downloaded the past decade of OG Notices and parsed-out notices of patent expiration. The chart below shows some results.
The chart shows survival rates for the four (red), eight (blue), and twelve (green) year marks. Each datapoint represents the average survival rate for patents that would have expired on that date. For instance, of the 2229 utility patents that issued on December 31, 1996, the first fee was paid for 84% of the patents, the first two fees were paid for 63% of the patents, and all three fees were paied for 49% of the patents. (Note – I did not yet add-back cases that were revived due to unintentional abandonment.)
The median patent has an ordinary enforceable term of about 17 years. This is based on the twenty year term which begins at filing of the non-provisional application minus three years of prosecution. If prosecution takes longer than three years, then the term will likely be extended under the PTA provisions.
However, this data shows that the median patent term is actually cut short by about five years because applicants decide not to pay the large final fee.
A third feature to recognize from this chart is that the percentage of patents whose fees are being paid is increasing over time. However, the PTO has indicated that it expects a drop in maintenance fee payments due to the economic slump.
Judge Moore looked at expiration data for patents issued in 1991 in her paper on “Worthless Patents.” Her result is that patents were more likely to “survive” (i.e., have their maintenance fees paid) when they have more claims, more art cited, more related applications, and longer prosecution times. US corporate owners were more likely to pay the fees than individual or foreign owners. She also found that Semiconductor and Optics patents were the most likely to survive. Amusement patents were unlikely to survive.
Top Patent Blogs (according to links from other blogs)
Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog has complied the following ranking of “top patent blogs” based on their Technorati.com rating. Technorati rates blogs according to how many other blogs link-back. The actual ranking is not of much use (some of my favorites did not even make the list), but it is nice to have an updated list of sources. Thanks Gene.