Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- Karen Robinson-Jacobs: Apple Owes Tech Companies $506M For Patent Infringement, Jury Says (Source: Forbes)
- Malcolm Owen: Apple Returns Fire in Koss AirPods Patent Infringement Battle (Source: Apple Insider)
- Benjamin Pirus: US Postal Service Files Blockchain Voting Patent Following Trump Cuts (Source: Coin Telegraph)
- David Phelan: Apple Patent Reveals Exciting New AirPods Pro Accessory (Source: Forbes)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Dr. Kavitha Chalakkal: Working Requirements In The Patent System: A Critical Analysis (Source: SSRN)
- Zachary Shufro: What’s In A Name? Curver Luxembourg and Its Implications for Design Patents (Source: SSRN)
- Prof. Cynthia Dahl: Did the America Invents Act Change University Technology Transfer? (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
Dahl, page 45, has this paragraph:
“What the AIA has sparked among university technology transfer is even
more emphasis on filing patents that are complete and high quality. That is
probably a positive outcome. Driven by limited TTO budgets, a larger
universe of prior art post-AIA, and the risk of losing all rights in a first to
file system if an insufficient patent loses priority, TTOs are being more
judicious about what and when they file. They are also enlisting inventors in
the efforts to increase patent quality, by educating them in how to collect
more supporting data for the claims and target their research to a likely
market or sure licensee. All of these efforts to create more robust and more
relevant patents leads to better technology transfer outcomes.”
Who knew? Who is not surprised?
“If one keeps in mind that TTO’s were sub-optimally run PRIOR to the AIA…”
On the other hand, the Dahl article shows aggressive promise with its scope of “focuses on the five key areas of most interest to TTOs: i) first to file priority; ii) broadening of the universe of prior art; iii) carve-out to the prior commercial use defense; iv) micro-entity fees; and v) post grant proceedings to challenge patent validity.”
If one keeps in mind that TTO’s were sub-optimally run PRIOR to the AIA (and still suffer many conflating ‘cultural’ and other issues), the scope of the effort alone may warrant more time for that article.
As suspected, the “working requirements” paper employs false logic from the start:
“The condition that the patentees must satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public is an accepted principle under the patent law regimes. This is a significant legislative tradition of the IP system and none of the developed countries have departed from this key norm.”
The gold standard (at least before the captured Congress got their hands on it) if the developed country of the US flat out rejected this notion of “reasonable requirement” to so subtlety be made equivalent to a working requirement.
“Working requirement” is a form of ‘positive action,’ as opposed to the foundation in the US that the patent right is a negative right.
Here in the US, we should not be so blithely assuming that an academic from India will be writing something that fits the views of THIS Sovereign.
Working requirements = US law since eBay = compulsory licensing
You can sugar coat it if you want, but it is still lipstick on a pig.
Comments are closed.