Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 322

Patent, , ,

PatentlyO036Chicago Area Creative Achievement Award: The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) invites nominations for its 2010 Creative Achievement Award (formerly called the Inventor of the Year Award). In addition to recognizing inventors, the award is intended to recognize significant achievements in the creation of a trademark or service mark and related branding, marketing, and advertising activities, as well as achievements in literary, visual, musical, dramatic, and other arts protected by copyrights. The annual award may fall in any one of these categories for inventive/creative activity conducted in the Chicago metropolitan area. Details on criteria for the award and a nomination form are available on the IPLAC website. Nominations are due by Friday, March 12, 2010. IPLAC will announce the award winner at its Annual Meeting on May 4, 2010. Please email mrichards@brinkshofer.com or call Marc Richards at 312.321.4729, chair of IPLAC's Creative Achievement Award committee, with any questions.

Most popular Patently-O posts during the past month:

  1. Dear Patent Attorney and Patent Agent: Consider Joining to the PTO
  2. Top-Ten Pending Patent Cases
  3. Patent Reform Moving Forward
  4. What Does a Patent Examiner Do with 900+ References?
  5. Ariad v. Eli Lilly: Written Description Requirement
  6. The North Face versus The South Butt
  7. Patent Examiner Experience Levels
  8. Inequitable Conduct Based on Contradictory Statements to the EPO (in a non-family member application)
  9. False Marking False Marking False Marking False Marking all at up to $500 per offense
  10. Viagra, Cialis, & Levitra: Board of Patent Appeals Affirms Rejection of Pfizer’s Broad Patent over ED Treatment

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 322

Patent, , ,

PatentlyO036Chicago Area Creative Achievement Award: The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) invites nominations for its 2010 Creative Achievement Award (formerly called the Inventor of the Year Award). In addition to recognizing inventors, the award is intended to recognize significant achievements in the creation of a trademark or service mark and related branding, marketing, and advertising activities, as well as achievements in literary, visual, musical, dramatic, and other arts protected by copyrights. The annual award may fall in any one of these categories for inventive/creative activity conducted in the Chicago metropolitan area. Details on criteria for the award and a nomination form are available on the IPLAC website. Nominations are due by Friday, March 12, 2010. IPLAC will announce the award winner at its Annual Meeting on May 4, 2010. Please email mrichards@brinkshofer.com or call Marc Richards at 312.321.4729, chair of IPLAC's Creative Achievement Award committee, with any questions.

Most popular Patently-O posts during the past month:

  1. Dear Patent Attorney and Patent Agent: Consider Joining to the PTO
  2. Top-Ten Pending Patent Cases
  3. Patent Reform Moving Forward
  4. What Does a Patent Examiner Do with 900+ References?
  5. Ariad v. Eli Lilly: Written Description Requirement
  6. The North Face versus The South Butt
  7. Patent Examiner Experience Levels
  8. Inequitable Conduct Based on Contradictory Statements to the EPO (in a non-family member application)
  9. False Marking False Marking False Marking False Marking all at up to $500 per offense
  10. Viagra, Cialis, & Levitra: Board of Patent Appeals Affirms Rejection of Pfizer’s Broad Patent over ED Treatment

Rise in Restrictions: A Response

Patent

A Patent Examiner offered the following perspective on the seeming rise in the number of restriction requirements:

The numbers cited in this article to indicate an enormous rise in restriction requirements within the biotech group since the early 90’s are misleading. While restrictions have risen since that time what has really changed is the percentage of biotech restriction requirements which are written compared to those which are done telephonically and thus included within the FAOM. I have been a biotech examiner for almost twenty years. In the early 90’s I would estimate that approximately 75% of all cases within my art unit required a restriction requirement but virtually all of these were done telephonically. Thus the only first actions which were only restriction requirements were those in which the attorney would not elect over the phone. Today I would estimate that somewhere close to 90% of all cases in my art unit receive an initial restriction requirement but almost all of these are now done as written requirements prior to the FAOM. There two main reasons for the change from telephonic to written restrictions. They are a large increase in complexity of the requirements (in the early 90’s most requirements included only 2-4 groups and restrictions with more than 10 groups were very rare while today the average requirement probably has more than 10 groups and cases with even more than 100 groups are not uncommon) and the PTO’s policy of granting 1 hour of other time for written restrictions but not for restrictions included within an FAOM. This policy essentially penalizes an examiner for doing a telephonic restriction even though this would reduce overall pendency of many cases.

Federal Courts Closely Scrutinizing and Slashing Patent Damage Awards

Patent, ,

Michael Kasdan and Joseph Casino discuss recent shifts in reasonable royalty jurisprudence with a particular focus on the recent cases of Cornell, Lucent, and Lansa.  Together, these decisions "indicate an emerging trend to more carefully scrutinize the evidentiary and economic basis of reasonable royalty-based patent damages awards in the setting of the appropriate royalty base, the application of the entire market value rule, and the calculation of the appropriate royalty rate." [Download Kasdan.Casino.Damages]

Other recent Patently-O Patent Law Journal Articles: 

Federal Courts Closely Scrutinizing and Slashing Patent Damage Awards

Patent, ,

Michael Kasdan and Joseph Casino discuss recent shifts in reasonable royalty jurisprudence with a particular focus on the recent cases of Cornell, Lucent, and Lansa.  Together, these decisions "indicate an emerging trend to more carefully scrutinize the evidentiary and economic basis of reasonable royalty-based patent damages awards in the setting of the appropriate royalty base, the application of the entire market value rule, and the calculation of the appropriate royalty rate." [Download Kasdan.Casino.Damages]

Other recent Patently-O Patent Law Journal Articles: 

Rise in Restrictions

Patent,

A recent article co-written by former PTO Director Jon Dudas along with Stepen Maebius and Sean Tu makes a strong statement regarding the rise in restriction requirements:

Restriction practice has clearly grown in the past few years. In 1993, there were only approximately 1,000 restriction requirements in the biotech practice group (out of approximately 32,000 first office actions). However, in 2008, the number of restrictions ballooned to 21,911 restriction requirements in the biotech practice group (out of approximately 42,000 first office actions). Thus, there has been a growth from only 1.5% of patents receiving restriction requirements to over 50% of patents receiving restriction requirements in the biotech practice group.

Squeezing More Patent Protection from a Smaller Budget Without Compromising Quality (2009).

Patent Prosecution Malpractice: Proving the Case-Within-a-Case

Patent,

Davis v. Brouse McDowell (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Ms. Davis has developed the “IP-Exchange” as a networking portal for IP professionals. The site boldly claims a “Patent Pending Business Method.”

Before releasing her website, Ms. Davis spoke with Daniel Thomson then of the Ohio-based Brouse McDowell law firm about patent protection. Their conversation apparently included a discussion of potential international filing. There was no direct evidence, however, that Mr. Thomson informed her of the “absolute novelty” rule found in most countries that bars an inventor from obtaining a patent on material that had been publicly disclosed prior to the filing of the patent application.

Ms. Davis released her website in 2005 and then several months later (January 2006) she filed two provisional applications pro-se. Five-days before the non-provisional application was due, Ms. Davis again approached Mr. Thomson and asked him to file non-provisional applications and a PCT application. He agreed to do so in a rushed manner (despite a planned vacation). The PCT application was not filed by the one-year expiration date, although three US non-provisional applications were filed.

Ms. Davis eventually allowed her US patent applications to go abandoned. She then sued Thomson and Brouse McDowell for malpractice based on failure to file the PCT applications and negligence in preparing the US applications. The district court (Judge Sara Lioi) dismissed the case on summary judgment – finding that the case lacked merit. On appeal, Federal Circuit affirmed in an opinion written by Judge Moore and signed by Judges Newman and Bryson.

Patent prosecution malpractice has historically been difficult to prove because the court requires proof that – but for the malpractice, the invention would have been covered by a valuable patent.

We agree with the district court that Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s [expert] report provides sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Thomson breached a duty he owed to Ms. Davis as her attorney. Mr. Thomson went on vacation, missed filing dates, and, by his own admission, filed an application which he realized contained a poorly drafted specification and claims which he intended to repair at a later time. This is certainly not standard or adequate patent attorney representation, especially if, as Ms. Davis alleges, he did not inform her of his intention to proceed this way.

However, even if Ms. Davis can establish that Mr. Thomson breached a duty to her, she must still also prove causation, i.e., that absent his breach she would have obtained a patent. . . . [However, the] district court observed that Mr. O’Shaughnessy had not performed a prior art search or a “patentability analysis,” nor had he identified particular claims that could be made for Ms. Davis’s inventions. Therefore, the court found that Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s patentability opinion lacked adequate foundation and could not be relied upon by Ms. Davis as evidence of patentability.

We agree with the district court’s conclusion. . . . Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s opinion that Ms. Davis’s inventions are patentable is precisely [the] type of conclusory statement [that are insufficient to defeat summary judgment]. His expert report contains no affirmative analysis supporting his opinion on patentability; instead, the opinion is followed only by the equally conclusory assertion that Mr. O’Shaughnessy has seen nothing to “block” this patentability. An unsupported opinion such as this cannot and does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of Ms. Davis’s inventions. . . . [A]n expert’s naked conclusion is insufficient to survive summary judgment.

In dicta, the court made clear that the “case-with-a-case” does not require that the malpractice plaintiff identify the exact patentable claims and how those claims would have been patentable over the prior art. Rather, the burden is to “establish the likelihood that her inventions would have been held patentable on examination . . . in accordance with the criteria of patentability applied during examination.”

Federal Courts Jurisdiction: An interesting aspect of the decision involves the jurisdiction of federal courts. Malpractice is typically a state claim, but some patent malpractice cases are properly adjudged by federal courts if the “relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law.” In this case, the court noted that federal jurisdiction would not exist if the malpractice claim had been wholly based on loss of foreign patent rights.

The Marking Requirement: Here is How the Statute has been Interpreted.

Patent,

The Marking Requirement: Here is how the marking statute has been interpreted.

  • If a patentee sells (or authorizes the sale of) a product that is covered by the patent, the patentee can only collect past-damages for patent infringement if either (1) the product was properly marked as patented or (2) the infringer had actual notice of its infringement and continued to infringe.
  • If there is no authorized product covered by the patent, then the patentee can collect past damages (up to six years) even if the infringer had no knowledge of the patent.  Method claims typically do not have a corresponding product. However, there is some debate about the collection of past-damages without notice for method claims when the patent also includes apparatus claims that cover an authorized product.

Thus, the seeming plain language of 35 USC 287 does not apply. Section 287 indicates that “[i]n the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice.”  Courts have held that this section does not apply if the patentee had nothing to mark. 

This background law was described by the Supreme Court in its 1936 case captioned Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Enter. Ry. Equip. Co., 297 U.S. 387 (1936).  In that case the court held that “issuance of a patent and recordation in the Patent Office constitute notice to the world of its existence.”  Interpreting a precurser to today’s marking statute, the Supreme Court wrote that “[p]enalty for failure [to mark] implies opportunity to perform.”

Princo v. ITC and the FTC’s Radical Analytical Framework

Patent, ,

Princo v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2010) (En banc)

On Wednesday, March 3, the Federal Circuit will sit en banc to hear the oral argument in Princo v. ITC.  Two questions are presented in the appeal: < ?xml:namespace prefix ="" o />

1.       Whether a supposed agreement, between developers of new technology and a new product standard, to license one of the resulting patents only for use under that standard, thus foreclosing the possibility that it might be used to create a competing standard, could be held anticompetitive without (i) defining a relevant market in which the standards compete and (ii) proving that the agreement injured or was likely to injure competition in that market.

2.       Whether such an agreement, even if deemed anticompetitive, would be a proper basis for invoking the doctrine of patent misuse to refuse enforcement of different patents used to practice the joint standard.

More information on the case can be found in David Ryan short article published today titled Princo v. ITC and the FTC’s Radical Analytical Framework. [File Attachment: Princo.DavidFRyan.pdf (208 KB)]. 

This article is intended to assist those who wish to audit Wednesday’s oral argument . . . by providing an overview of the issues for determination before the en banc Court and a discussion of how the FTC’s arguments might affect determination of those issues.  Those issues and arguments are outlined in Section B, and the technical and procedural background facts are then set forth briefly in Sections C and D, respectively.  Section E then discusses in summary fashion the pertinent research market in which the RJV operated, the two pertinent product markets and the two vertical licensing markets within which the effects of the challenged patent rights clearance agreements must be assessed.

Scheduling

Patent

PatentLawPic938I don’t actually carry a calandar any more… But if I did carry a calendar, it would include the following three upcoming events where I will be speaking: 

  • Washington University Law School – local IP professionals are welcome for this free noon-time event on March 4, 2010, 12:00 noon – 1:00 pm.
  • IP Law Summit for Corporate IP Counsel in Miami at the Doral Resort on March 25–27, 2010 (This conference is virtually free for senior in-house IP counsel, but quite expensive for attorneys at law firms).
  • Corporate IP Counsel Summit in New York City at the Helmsley Hotel on April 27–28, 2010 (Use code FCZ835 when registering for a $500 discount).

Ending the Doctrine of Non-Statutory Double Patenting

Patent,

In Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l v. Barr Labs and Mylan Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit made an interesting statement regarding the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting — that the doctrine has been historically important.

The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is an important check on improper extension of patent rights through the use of divisional and continuation applications, at least for patents issued from applications filed prior to the amendment of 35 U.S.C. § 154 to create twenty-year terms running from the date of the earliest related application.

As suggested, the advent of a twenty-year term based on application priority date means that the justification for a double patenting rejection is largely becoming a moot-point.  And, I suspect that the court will eventually change the law by holding that a terminal disclaimer is not necessary if the two patent terms are already identical. A family of patents filed in the past decade will typically all have roughly the same ending-dates except for differences created by patent term extensions and adjustments (PTE & PTA). In my view, applicants should be allowed to take advantage of those extensions apart from any terminal disclaimer. The other hang-up with terminal disclaimers is that they require the two applications be commonly owned.

False Marking and Patent Reform

Patent,

Marking Products as Patented: Many manufacturers mark their products as patented by listing the associated patent number on the product or its packaging. The marking serves as constructive notice to potential infringers — allowing a patentee to collect damages for infringement even if the infringer had no actual knowledge of the patent. There have also been a few cases where marking was important to support a plaintiff’s willful infringement allegations. From a non-rights-based perspective, marking a product as patented may create additional consumer goodwill by suggesting that the marked product is innovative and that the design is the valuable property of the manufacturer. The markings may also tend to deter would-be competitors.

Marking is not without risk. The Patent Act provides a cause of action against those who “falsely claim that their products are patented.” The false-marking cause of action is termed a qui tam action because the action may be taken by any private individual on behalf of the government. A successful false-marking claimant must prove two elements: first, that an unpatented article has been marked as patented; and second that the marking was done with intent to deceive the public. Clontech Labs. Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 406 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Rather than calling for damages or compensation, the false-marking statute calls for a fine of “not more than $500 for every … offense.” 35 U.S.C. 292. In the recent case of Forest Group v. Bon Tool, the Federal Circuit held that the “offense” relates to each article that has been falsely-marked. Thus, the fine against a manufacturer that sells a batch of 1,000 tubes of lip-gloss would have an upper limit of $500,000.

Patent Reform: In her recent article, Professor Winston (Catholic U) has argued that the rules of false-marking should be shifted to place more of a burden onto the patentee to avoid false marking. Winston would ease the proof necessary for to prove “intent to deceive the public.” Some manufacturers are requesting patent reform that goes the other way. I have heard of three potential changes being suggested: (1) clarifying that the listing of expired patents is not actionable; (2) limiting the standing to only particular individuals who have been harmed (such as competitors) or otherwise eliminating qui tam enforcement; and (3) overruling the Forest Group decision as a way to limit damages.

The Harm of False-Marking: I am working on a project to understand how the false-marking fine should be calculated. Notably, the fine could be based on any of (1) compensation for the harm caused to the public by the false-marking; (2) disgorgement of the false-marker’s profits due to the false-marking; or (3) punitive damages based on the culpability.

Related Posts:

Patent Law Professors on the Move

Patent,

Every year March-Madness hits a handful of law professors as they lateral to other law schools. This year is no different.

Moves:

  • Josh Sarnoff is moving from American University to De Paul. Professor Sarnoff has been a champion of applying classic legal theory in his arguments for "shaking the foundations" of our current patent law system. The slot at De Paul opened when Katherine Strandburg left for NYU
  • Michael Risch is moving from West Virginia to Villanova. In addition to patent law, Professor Risch has considerable experience litigating trade secret and copyright cases.
  • Sean Seymore is moving from Washington and Lee to Vanderbilt. Professor Seymore has a PhD in chemistry and likes to focus on issues involving patenting by academic institutions.
  • Ed Lee is moving from Ohio-State to Chicago-Kent (IIT). Professor Lee's scholarship has focused primarily on copyright and internet law.

Many leading law schools still lack a full time faculty members with a patent law focus.

False Marking False Marking False Marking False Marking all at up to $500 per offense

Patent,

pic-86.jpgSimonian v. Blistex, Ciba, Pfizer, 3M, Edgecraft, Darex, Cisco, Bunn-O-Matic, Oreck, Novartis, Merck, etc. (N.D. Ill. 2010)

Thomas Simonian is a self-described “individual living in Geneva, Illinois.” In a series of at least 27 complaints filed in the past few days, Simonian has raised the stakes of the Federal Circuit’s false marking jurisprudence. Most of the complaints assert false marking claims based on the continued marking of products with now-expired patents. However, a few cases focus on marked products that are allegedly not covered by the patent rights. For instance, in Simonian v. 3M, the plaintiff asserts that the 3M patent requires a “hook portion” but that the marked 3M “Command Strips” do not include that feature.

The cases were filed by the Chicago-based law firm of Vanek, Vickers & Masini.

  • Simonian Cases: Simonian v. Blistex, Inc.(Blistex); Simonian v. Ciba Vision Corporation (Clear Care); Simonian v. Hunter Fan Company (thermostat); Simonian v. Mead Westvaco Corporation (envelopes); Simonian v. Fiskars Brands, Inc. (Fiskars scissors); Simonian v. Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer); Simonian v. Pella Corporation (Pella windows); Simonian v. 3M Company; Simonian v. The Quigley Corporation; Simonian v. Edgecraft, Corp.; Simonian v. Tru Fire Corporation; Simonian v. Darex, LLC; Simonian v. Cisco Systems, Inc.; Simonian v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Simonian v. Bunn-O-Matic Corporation; Simonian v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation et al; Simonian v. Merial L.L.C. et al; Simonian v. Weber-Stephen Products Co.; Simonian v. Oreck Corporation et al; Simonian v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc.; Simonian v. Irwin Industrial Tool Company; Simonian v. Novartis Animal Health US, Inc.; Simonian v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc.; Simonian v. Monster Cable Products, Inc.; Simonian v. Global Instruments, Ltd. et al (Riddex); Simonian v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al; Simonian v. Advanced Vision Research, Inc.
  • Other Recent False Marking Cases: O’Neill v. Roche Diagnostics Corporation; Akbar v. Proctor & Gamble Co.; Josephs v. Federal-Mogul Corporation; Josephs v. Sigma-Aldrich Corporation; Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. v. Cabela’s, Inc.; Yarbough v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. et al.

Patent Reform Moving Forward

Patent

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced this morning that a “tentative agreement” has been reached on the patent reform bill with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). “No one will think this is a perfect bill, but we are close to a comprehensive patent reform bill that benefits all corners of the patent community.” Leahy did not provide any further details except that the compromise will “address” the issues of “runaway damage awards” and patent quality.

The reform bill has already been passed by the House.

Standard for Reviewing BPAI Obviousness Decisions

Patent,

In re Chapman (Fed. Cir. 2010)

The BPAI rejected Chapman's claimed antibody fragment-polymer invention as obvious and Chapman (UCB Pharma) appealed. The 103/102(e) rejection was based on the teaching of a Genentech patent that had been filed two years before Chapman's application.

The appellate decision provides a concise overview of the standard of review of BPAI decisions on obviousness.  However, it leaves opon questions regarding the "legal-conclusion" of obviousness.

The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and PTO decisions are reviewed under the APA standard. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 152 (1999). Thus, we review Board's legal conclusions without deference, and review its findings of fact to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. . . .

The judicial review provision of the APA includes a harmless error rule. We have noted that "the harmless error rule applies to appeals from the Board just as it does in cases originating from district courts." . . . [T]he burden of showing that the error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency's determination. . . .

The government argues that these errors are harmless, but we conclude that these errors are harmful because they increase the likelihood that Chapman was erroneously denied a patent on grounds of obviousness. If the Board based its decision on a misunderstanding of [the prior art], its conclusions regarding obviousness are called into question. . . . Because we cannot say with confidence that the Board would have reached the same conclusion in the absence of these errors, we are persuaded they are indeed harmful.

The interpretation of the harmless error rule did not receive significant attention pre-KSR because the rule-oriented approach of the TSM test left meant that most BPAI errors were harmful. The post-KSR law of obviousness is based more on a contextual whole-picture analysis. As such, the line between harmless error and harmful error is blurred. This case resolves some issues by indicating that a BPAI error is harmful if (1) the error "increase[d] the likelihood" that the BPAI erred in its obviousness conclusion and (2) the court cannot confidently announce that the BPAI would have reached the same conclusion absent the error.

Obviousness as a Matter of Law: Although the ultimate conclusion of obviousness is a matter of law, the appellate panel did not take-on the role of analyzing the law. Rather, after identifying the correct factual interpretation of the prior art, the Federal Circuit remanded to the BPAI with instructions to "only revisit its conclusion of obviousness."

The Rising Stature of Reexaminations (Meet in St. Louis)

Patent

WulogoOn Thursday, March 4, 2010, 12:00 noon – 1:00 pm, I will be speaking at the Washington University Law School (Room 305 in Anheuser-Busch Hall) on the topic of patent reexaminations. The talk will be primarily directed toward IP-focused law students and faculty. However, the law school has offered to open its doors to folks from the community (free). Last year, several local patent attorneys attended when I spoke about design patent law and their comments really enriched the program. I look forward to meeting you there!

The title of my talk this year is “the rising stature of patent reexaminations.” That title reflects the reality that reexamination filing has become a default strategy for accused patent infringers.  We will talk about recent statistics involving reexamination quality and timeliness as well as “success rates” (AKA “kill rates”).  Most patents undergoing reexamination are also simultenously involved in patent infringement litigation. Those parallels actions create unique and sometimes problematic cross-links that we will discuss.  The final topic will involve potential reexamination reforms that could further improve (or ruin) the process.

Send questions about the event to MPCooper [at] wulaw.wustl.edu.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Patent
  • InventorsEye is the PTO’s new publication for the independent inventor community with a goal of bi-monthly publication. Looks good. As expected, the publication provides good information with a solid mix of propaganda. The first InventorsEye article writes hopefully that “we currently offer a 50% discount for independent inventors in virtually every fee category. That fee is further reduced by another 50% for independent inventors who make use of our electronic filing system.” Of course, that statement is misleading because it implies that the 50% reduction for EFS use also applies to “virtually every fee category.” Rather, independent inventors receive a 50% reduction on most fees, and an additional 50% reduction on the $330 filing fee. Thus, to file a utility patent application, large-entities pay $1090 ($330 filing fee + $540 search fee +$220 examination fee); Independent inventors pay $545 ($165 filing fee + $270 search fee + $110 examination fee); and electronic filing independent inventors pay $462 ($82 filing fee + $270 search fee + $110 examination fee).
  • Chicago: For several years, the Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property has been staging an annual IP symposium. This year’s speakers for the March 5 event include several law professors, Sharon Barner (PTO Deputy) and three partners from my former law firm (MBHB): Donald Zuhn, Joe Herndon, and Mike Baniak. Cost: Free ($200 for CLE Credit).
  • International IP Litigation Costs: Read the new WIPO Magazine special edition on IP Litigation Costs.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Patent
  • InventorsEye is the PTO’s new publication for the independent inventor community with a goal of bi-monthly publication. Looks good. As expected, the publication provides good information with a solid mix of propaganda. The first InventorsEye article writes hopefully that “we currently offer a 50% discount for independent inventors in virtually every fee category. That fee is further reduced by another 50% for independent inventors who make use of our electronic filing system.” Of course, that statement is misleading because it implies that the 50% reduction for EFS use also applies to “virtually every fee category.” Rather, independent inventors receive a 50% reduction on most fees, and an additional 50% reduction on the $330 filing fee. Thus, to file a utility patent application, large-entities pay $1090 ($330 filing fee + $540 search fee +$220 examination fee); Independent inventors pay $545 ($165 filing fee + $270 search fee + $110 examination fee); and electronic filing independent inventors pay $462 ($82 filing fee + $270 search fee + $110 examination fee).
  • Chicago: For several years, the Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property has been staging an annual IP symposium. This year’s speakers for the March 5 event include several law professors, Sharon Barner (PTO Deputy) and three partners from my former law firm (MBHB): Donald Zuhn, Joe Herndon, and Mike Baniak. Cost: Free ($200 for CLE Credit).
  • International IP Litigation Costs: Read the new WIPO Magazine special edition on IP Litigation Costs.