Tag Archives: Trade Secrets

The following are a collection of posts on trade secrets. Trade secrets are essentially of two kinds. On the one hand, trade secrets may concern inventions or manufacturing processes that do not meet the patentability criteria and therefore can only be protected as trade secrets. This would be the case of customers lists or manufacturing processes that are not sufficiently inventive to be granted a patent (though they may qualify for protection as a utility model). On the other hand, trade secrets may concern inventions that would fulfill the patentability criteria and could therefore be protected by patents. In the latter case, the SME will face a choice: to patent the invention or to keep it as a trade secret.

Fixing the “First Inventor to File” One-Year Grace-Period Provision of the Patent Reform Bills

Patent, , ,

Guest Post by Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law

As any avid reader of Patently-O knows, the pending patent reform bills all contain a shift from a primarily "first to invent" to a primarily "first to file" approach. Previous posts have described many of the differences between the present and proposed approaches (see, e.g., here and here). In this post, I focus on the treatment in the bills of an inventor's sale and use of a claimed invention in the one-year period just prior to filing. I argue that the bills' language does not effectuate Congress's intent to keep the inventor grace period intact, and I propose suitable language to do so at the end of the post.

Under the Patent Act now in effect, an inventor's disclosure of a claimed invention in a previously filed patent or application, or an inventor's use, sale, or offer for sale of the invention can only count as prior art or a bar to patenting (if at all) if those events occurred more than one year before the effective filing date of the application claiming the invention. This one year limitation on prior art is commonly referred to as the "grace period."

Apparently, the Senate meant to carry over the grace period for an inventor's disclosure, use, or sale of a claimed invention—as well as exclude potential prior art derived from the inventor—in the bill it recently passed. As Senator Patrick Leahy exclaimed in a colloquy with Senator Orrin Hatch, if the inventor's invention is "described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise [made] available to the public" by the inventor (or one who derives from the inventor) less than one year before filing, then "there is absolutely no situation in which" this activity would bar patentability.

Unfortunately—as Dennis Crouch, Hal Wegner, and others have recognized—the plain language of the relevant provisions in the recently passed Senate bill, as well as the pending House bill, does not appear as broad as Senator Leahy believes. In particular, the relevant provisions only exclude from prior art "disclosures" by inventors (and derivers) made less than one year before filing ("A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention …") (emphasis added).

A plain language interpretation of "disclosure" would refer to printed material, such as patents and publications—as well as oral disclosures, such as at a trade show—but not necessarily uses, sales, or offers for sale of the invention. Moreover, an actual "disclosure" of the invention would presumably require that the disclosed material be "enabling" in the prior art sense—namely, that description, use, sale, etc., disclose to one of the ordinary skill in the art how to make (or perform the steps of) the invention (see, e.g., Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a "disclosure is prior art to the extent of its enabling disclosure"); In re Donohue (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("[E]ven if the claimed invention is disclosed in a printed publication, that disclosure will not suffice as prior art if it is not enabling.")).

Yet, the Federal Circuit has routinely held that "non-informing" uses or sales of the claimed invention made more than one year before filing—namely, ones which would not inform one of ordinary skill how to make the invention—may count as prior art under the current statute (see, e.g., See In re Epstein (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("Beyond this 'in public use or on sale' finding, there is no requirement for an enablement-type inquiry.").). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that secret use of a claimed method by an inventor to make a product that is sold to the public may count as prior art (see Gore v. Garlock (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Thus, a plain language reading of "disclosure" arguably would not—contrary to Senator Leahy's intention—exclude from prior art non-informing or secret uses and sales made within the grace period.

Senator Hatch asserts there is no problem with the "disclosure" language because "[i]f a disclosure resulting from the inventor's actions is not one that is enabled … then such a disclosure would not constitute patent-defeating prior art … in the first place." Yet, nothing in the Senate bill points towards such a reading. Specifically, the provision in the bill enumerating what counts as prior art states:

Sec. 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty

(a) Novelty; Prior Art-

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless–

(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ….

Granted, this provision appears to require that sale and use prior art be made "available to the public." Yet, under Federal Circuit doctrine, sale and use art need not be enabling in order to be available to the public. In particular—as I just mentioned—"non-informing" and "secret" uses and sales may count as prior art. Thus, a plain language reading of the pending bills would arguably include as prior art sales and uses that are clearly not "disclosures" in the ordinary sense of the term.

And because courts of late—particularly the Supreme Court (see, e.g., Bilski)—have used plain language interpretations of the Patent Act, it is not prudent drafting to hope courts will look to the legislative history to fix the situation. Moreover, as Hal Wegner has noted, the Leahy-Hatch statements actually post-date the passage of the Senate bill, potentially negating their value as probative legislative history—especially in view of some seemingly contrary statements in the pre-passage legislative history (see, e.g., 157 Cong. Rec. 1348, 1355-56 (Mar. 9, 2011) ("An inventor who publishes his invention retains an absolute right to priority if he files an application within one year of his disclosure.") (emphasis added)).

The policy problem with treating (at least many) sales and uses made during the one-year grace period as prior art is that it forces inventors to forgo a wide range of commercial activity prior to filing for a patent. This would impose a particularly heavy burden on independent inventors, as well as startup and early-stage companies, who simply cannot afford to file patent applications on every invention before getting a sense of the invention's commercial viability. (See here and here for data on startup patenting costs.)

In order to remedy the problem, the bills' proposed provision can be easily revised. Just this morning, a Manager's amendment (Download Managers_Amendment_to_HR1249) was introduced in the House that would remove "in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public" from the prior art provision of Section 102(a)(1) and replace it with "otherwise disclosed to the public." This change would presumably mandate that only sales and uses, whether made by the inventor or a third party, that are enabling would ever count as prior art—and not just for grace period purposes. This legislative change would effectively overrule many years of well-established judicial precedent that non-informing uses and sales by inventors and third parties, as well as a secret use of a claimed method by an inventor to manufacture products then sold to the public, count as bars to patenting.

Such a shift would be unwise, because it would allow inventors to commercially benefit from their inventions (without disclosing them) for an indefinite period of time before filing for a patent. As Judge Learned Hand explained in Metallizing Engineering (2d Cir. 1946) (emphasis added), "It is indeed true that an inventor may continue for more than a year to practice his invention for his private purposes of his own enjoyment and later patent it. But that is, properly considered, not an exception to the doctrine, for he is not then making use of his secret to gain a competitive advantage over others; he does not thereby extend the period of his monopoly."

Instead, the provisions enumerating prior art should be left intact, and the exclusionary clause revised to make it absolutely clear that all inventor sales, uses, or other activities that make the invention available to the public less than one year before filing would be excluded as prior art (added material underlined):

SEC. 2. FIRST INVENTOR TO FILE.

* * *

`(b) Exceptions-

`(1) DISCLOSURES, USES, OR SALES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION- A disclosure, use, offer for sale, or sale made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention, or making the claimed invention available to the public 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if–

`(A) the disclosure, use, offer for sale, or sale of the claimed invention, or the making of the claimed invention available to the public, was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed, used, offered for sale, sold, or made available to the public, directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

`(B) the subject matter disclosed, used, offered for sale, sold, or made available to the public had, before such disclosure, use, offer for sale, or sale of the claimed invention, or the making available to the public of the claimed invention, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

Ted Sichelman is an Assistant Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, where he teaches patent law and other intellectual property courses. Charles Coover provided helpful research assistance for this post.

Patent Reform 2011: House of Representatives Bill No. H.R. 1249

Patent, , , , ,

Representatives Lamar Smith, Bob Goodlatte, and Darrell Issa have introduced their version of the America Invents Act (AIA) to the House of Representatives. H.R. 1249. [AIA.pdf] The AIA closely tracks the Senate’s bill on comprehensive patent reform (S. 23) that was passed in the Senate earlier this year on a 95-5 vote. Parallel changes include a switch to a first-to-file system (with the retention of a limited one-year grace period); establishment of a modified inter partes reexamination and post grant opposition system; providing USPTO with fee-setting authority; neutering of the false marking provision; allowing pre-issuance submissions by third-parties; creating a supplemental examination system to correct inequitable conduct; and elimination of best mode failure as an invalidity defense.

The statute continues to include a substantial error in its codification of the grace period. Namely, the grace period only applies to “disclosures” and not to other commercialization activities such as sales and offers for sale.  In addition, it is unclear whether the grace period would apply situations such as the original public use case of Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. 1, 23, 7 L. Ed. 327 (1829).  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the inventor could not obtain a patent on its hose-making process because the inventor had sold the product (hoses) for several years before filing for patent protection. 

Some key differences from the Senate version that will lead to substantial debate include: 

  1. Details of the Post Grant Opposition Provisions…
  2. Prior User Rights: Whether “prior user rights” should be expanded to accompany the switch to a first-to-file regime. This issue arises when, for instance, a manufacturing company is using a particular process as a trade secret before another party invented and patented the process.  Under our current first-to-invent regime if the prior-user was sued for infringement, the patent would likely be invalidated under Section 102(g). See  Dunlop Holdings Ltd v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1975).  The invention-date priority contests of Section 102(g) are eliminated in a first-to-file system, raising the question of whether a non-patent-filing manufacturer should be given some prior user rights that would continue to allow these trade-secret uses. Currently, the patent statute also has a prior user right codified in Section 273. That section, however, is limited purely to business method patents. The proposed legislation would expand Section 273 to cover all patents.
  3. Special Business Method Proceedings, venue restrictions, interlocutory appeals, and attorney fee shifting.
  4. Automatic stay of litigation for inter partes reviews.
  5. Elimination of Tax Strategy patents (by considering the subject matter within the prior art).
  6. Codification of Knorr Bremse (failure to present advice of counsel cannot be used as evidence of willful infringement). 

Read the Bill: File Attachment: 033011_America Invents Act.pdf (266 KB)

MBHB Snippets

Patent,

My former law firm MBHB just released its quarterly snippets Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law. A group of new associates started snippets around the time I started at the firm nine years ago (hard to believe). I have a short article in the newest volume discussing “Patent Data, Prior Art, and Operational Transparency at the USPTO.” Kevin Noonan of Patent Docs has written an interesting discussion of the advantages of trade secret protection (in certain situations). Other articles include (1) an international comparative analysis of software patents and (2) a discussion of some limits of KSR.

snippets 9:1, Table of Contents:

  • Considerations for Software Patent Claims in the United States, Europe, and Canada by Michael S. Borella, Ph.D., Daniel R. Bestor and Alan W. Krantz
  • Where (and Even When) Does KSR Belong in Obviousness Arguments? by Daniel P. Williams and Christopher D. Butts
  • While Not Right for Every Invention, Trade Secret Protection Has Its Appeal by Kevin E. Noonan, Ph.D.
  • Patent Data, Prior Art, and Operational Transparency at the USPTO by Dennis D. Crouch

Download it while it’s hot (PDF). You can fill-out a form to receive a hard copy.

White House Recommends Increased Criminal Penalties for Intellectual Property Crimes

Patent,

The White House today released a white paper on its recommendations for intellectual property enforcement legislation. The recommendations all involve increasing rights and increasing penalties “so as to more effectively address the substantial harm caused by intellectual property crimes.”

Recommended changes include:

  1. Increase prison term for counterfeit drug distributors;
  2. Increase prison terms for theft of trade secrets;
  3. Increase prison terms for intellectual property offences that risk serious bodily injury;
  4. Clarify that unlicensed streaming of copyrighted material is a felony;
  5. Provide the federal government with authority to conduct wiretaps when pursuing criminal copyright and trademark offenses;
  6. Create a new right of public performance for copyright owners for sound recordings transmitted by over-the-air broadcast stations;

As a reminder, willful copyright infringement is a crime so long as committed either (a) for commercial advantage or private financial gain; (b) by copying or distributing works with a retail value of more than $1,000 within a 180-day period; or (c) making a commercial work “available on a computer network accessible to members of the public.” 17 U.S.C. § 506. Federal law also makes it a crime to steal, appropriate, take, carry away, or conceal a trade secret or to obtain the trade secret by fraud, artifice, or deception – with intent to convert the trade secret and for the economic benefit of someone other than the trade secret owner. 18 U.S.C. § 1832. The trade secret law creates a criminal cause of action against someone “copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information” or “receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization.” Finally, the trade secret law also creates a criminal cause of action for attempts and conspiracies.

/media/docs/2011/03/ip_white_paper.pdf

 

Microsoft v. i4i: Shifting Weight of Evidence versus Shifting Burden of Proof

Patent

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership

This case, now pending before the US Supreme Court, questions the standard of proof necessary to invalidate an issued patent based on issues not considered by the USPTO during examination. For Microsoft, lowering the standard appears to be its only chance to escape from a pending judgment of over $100 million in favor of i4i. Microsoft lost at the district court, lost on appeal, lost at the PTO during reexamination, and was summarily denied a second attempt at reexamination. The Supreme Court, however has offered the software giant some light.

The issue is whether the District Court and Federal Circuit erred in holding that Microsoft was required to prove its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence “even though the prior art on which the invalidity defense rests was not considered by the Patent and Trademark Office prior to the issuance of the asserted patent.”

It turns out that the parties are not so far apart on the answer. Although i4i argues that the level of proof should remain clear-and-convincing, it also admits that the Federal Circuit has consistently held that the burden can be more easily satisfied with prior art that the PTO never considered.

Throughout its existence, the Federal Circuit has held that the clear-and-convincing standard may be more easily satisfied with references the PTO did not consider. See, e.g., Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1983); SSIH Equip. S.A. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 718 F.2d 365, 375 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (five-judge panel); SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1355-1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Jervis B. Webb Co. v. Southern Sys., Inc., 742 F.2d 1388, 1392 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing cases). . . . As with such other evidence, prior art that the PTO never considered does not change the standard of proof. Instead, the jury can give more or less weight to the evidence because of its particular characteristic.

This argument apparently works for i4i because, although the jury might not have been instructed on the proper appliation of the standard, Microsoft has not preserved that issue for further appeal.

The i4i brief serves as a point-by-point critique of the arguments introduced by Microsoft and others. This technocrat approach is effective, but it also leaves i4i open to the simple cross-doctrinal counter that was so effective in the eBay case. The court will certainly ask – If a preponderance of the evidence is all that is required to invalidate a real property claim, a personal property claim, a registered copyright, a trademark, or a trade secret claim, what is so different about patent law?

Friend-of-the-court briefs in support of i4i’s position are expected this week.

Documents:

Final Draft of ACTA Released

Copyright, Patent, Rantanen, Trademark

By Jason Rantanen

Yesterday, the negotiating parties (which include the United States) released the final draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a document that purports to combat the proliferation of pirated and counterfeit goods.  The development of this Agreement has been subject to considerable controversy, in large part due to the secretive nature of its negotiation, which took place outside conventional International IP bodies such as TRIPS and WIPO.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, has written extensively about the subject, as has Michael Geist. 

In its final state, ACTA relates primarily to copyright and trademark infringement, and expressly disclaims application to patent law in several sections.  Nevertheless, everyone interested in intellectual property law issues should give it a read (and at only 24 pages long it's a surprisingly concise document), as within the area of trademark and copyright infringement the scope of ACTA is very broad: despite its characterization as a "Trade Agreement," it covers the enforcement of IP rights in the domestic civil, criminal, and digital spheres in addition to providing for border control measures, 

Although ACTA generally tracks existing U.S. law on copyright and trademark infringement, the Agreement has a clear pro-rights holder slant.  For instance, provisions on discovery discuss only the rights of the party asserting the infringement claim, and do not require similar rights on the part of the alleged infringer.  Readers may also want to pay particular attention to the criminal provisions – which seem on their surface to make any commercial willful trademark or copyright infringement subject to criminal penalties.

Given that this document likely will be scrutinized by scholars and practitioners concerned about the implications of strong copyright and digital property rights, I'll identify just a few specific drafting issues that leaped out at me.

  • "Trademark counterfeiting" and "copyright piracy" are broadly defined, and seem to include any form of trademark or copyright infringement.  In other words, these terms could be readily replaced with "trademark infringement" and "copyright infringement" wherever they appear in the document.  That said, the trademark counterfeiting language is somewhat ambiguous, and could plausibly be read to only apply to instances where the mark "cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects" from the registered trademark.
  • Another issue is the sudden appearance of "copyright or related right," which is first used in Chapter Two, Article 2.2(1).  Perhaps this is an artifact from earlier drafts, but I didn't see any definition of these "related rights."
  • The procedures for civil enforcement of IP rights largely appear to parallel U.S. law.  However, the damages provisions strongly favor rights holders, perhaps more so than current domestic copyright and trademark law. 
  • Similarly, to the extent the sections on litigation discovery procedures expand parties' rights and obligations, they may create a disjunction with current law.
  • In the context of border measures, the terms "goods of a commercial nature" and "goods of a non-commercial nature" are left undefined.  On the surface, it seems like nearly every good hs a commercial nature, but perhaps I'm just picking at nits with this one.
  • Likewise, the term "acts carried out on a commercial scale," used in the context of the section on criminal penalties, seems equally broad, especially given that it includes "at least those carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage."
  • The pro-rights holder forum and education campaign requirements seem quite one-sided, especially for such a sensitive subject.  Chapter Three, Articles 3.1(4) and 3.4 are particularly strong in their requirement that governments present a pro-IP rights holder message.

The full text of the proposed version of ACTA is available here:  Download Finalized ACTA text.  In addition to substantive issues, some organizations have raised concerns about the potential approval of ACTA via Executive Agreement, as opposed to ratification by the Senate.  If the former approach is indeed used, it will likely have profound legal implications that courts, practitioners and scholars will need to address.

Update: As one commenter pointed out, Terry Hart's blog Copyhype has a detailed point-by-point comparison of many ACTA provisions to the relevant U.S. law.  Mr. Hart also responds to some of the negotiation transparency criticisms that various organizations have raised. 

Patentable Subject Matter at the Board of Patent Appeals

BPAI, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, , , , ,

The work of the Board must go on . . . . In several recent decisions, the Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI or Board) has continued to affirm rejections of claims on patentable subject matter eligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In Ex parte Kelkar, App. No. 2009–004635 (BPAI, September 24 ,2010), the applicant had claimed a method of determining the similarity between two genetic profiles and a computer program stored on a recordable medium for accomplishing the method. The method involves the broad steps of iteratively matching gene expression profile pairs in clusters until a best match is found. Because the method neither recites any particular machinery nor transforms an article into a different state or thing, the Board held that it failed the machine-or-transformation test. Citing Flook (1978), the Board then held that the claim was improperly directed to an abstract algorithm because the underlying innovation was the unpatentable mathematical algorithm. Some of the method claims included a preamble statement that the method occurred “in a computer.” The Board found that limitation at most a “a field-of-use limitation that is insufficient to render the otherwise ineligible process . . . patent eligible.”

The Board went on to affirm the rejection of the computer program claims that were “stored on a recordable medium.”  The Board agreed with the examiner that those the storage medium limitation was broad enough to encompass unpatentable “carrier wave storage.” (See Nuijten (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The Board wrote:

When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering nonstatutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

In Ex parte MacKenzie, App. No. 2009–-7332 (BPAI, October 4, 2010), the Board issued a new grounds of rejection under Section 101 because the claimed method was directed to an abstract process under Bilski. MacKenzie's rejected claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A method for use in a device associated with a first party for performing a signature operation on a message substantially based on the digital signature algorithm (DSA), the method comprising the steps of:

generating in the first party device a first component associated with the signature operation based on assistance from a device associated with a second party, wherein the assistance from the second party device is received as a first message from the second party device;

transmitting the first component to the second party device;

generating in the first party device a second component associated with the signature operation based on further assistance from the second party device, wherein the further assistance from the second party device is received as a second message from the second party device, wherein the second message comprises results generated using the transmitted first component; and

outputting a form of the first component and the second component as a result of the DSA signature operation.

Although MacKenzie's claim does recite various devices, the Board saw these as “nominal” limitations to “generic devices.” The Board wrote:

As the unpatentability of abstract ideas was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski (2010), clever claim drafting involving the nominal addition of generic structures cannot circumvent the principles articulated by the Court. That is, even when a claim appears to apply an idea or concept in combination with a nominal claim to generic structure(s), one must ensure that it does not in reality seek patent protection for that idea in the abstract.

In Ex parte Venkata, App. No. 2009–007302 (BPAI, October 5, 2010), the Board held that “the claim’s body recites nothing more than software [and therefore] lacks statutory subject matter.” Venkata's claim was directed to a “system” that included two “discovery agents” that operate either via a local network or via an Internet host.

Kelkar's patent application is owned by IBM and prosecuted by its in-house patent department. MacKenzie's patent application is owned by Lucent and prosecuted by the small firm of Ryan, Mason & Lewis. Venkata's patent application is owned by Nokia and prosecuted by the small firm of Hollingsworth & Funk.

Notes:

The USPTO's January 2010 guidance on the Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media is repeated as follows. I would argue that the Nuijten decision – if read to categorically exclude transitory embodiments, is no longer good law post-Bilski.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to
statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.

The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals – Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

USPTO Jobs

Patent,

The USPTO is hiring.  In addition to a number of patent examiner positions, the office is also hiring new executive-level leaders.

  • Chief Administrative Patent Judge: The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) is charged with managing and deciding internal patent appeals as well as interference proceedings.  Former Chief Judge Mike Fleming recently moved to a PTO management position working directly under Director Kappos and opened a new position.  The new Chief Judge will move into a role that has become increasingly public. An increasing percentage of rejections are being appealed and the Board has a rapidly growing backlog.  An additional new challenge/potential of the position Director Kappos has recently shifted the organizational chart so that the BPAI Chief Judge reports directly to the PTO Director rather than being part of the Office of the General Counsel. [JOB POSTING]
  • Associate Commissioner for Innovation Development: The  Associate Commissioner would work with Commissioner Robert Stoll in an outreach-role to work with inventors, entrepreneurs, non-profits, and the US innovation community to help ensure that the US intellectual property protection system continues to work well with these groups. [JOB POSTING]
  • IPR Commercial Officer for the International Trade Administration in Bangkok Thailand (Not a USPTO Job): The ITA is a branch of the department of commerce that is designed to help US firms compete globally. This position would be situated at the US Embassy in Bangkok and would focus helping US companies protect their intellectual property rights. [JOB POSTING] 

PatentLawImage014In an e-mail, Hal Wegner highlighted other organizational changes in PTO management. The former public relations office has been revitalized under Peter Pappas in his role as the “Chief Communications Officer and Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary.” [Org Chart] [Pappas Bio] [Management Bios]

Professor Arti Rai recently left her role as Administrator for External Affairs and returned to teaching at Duke Law School.  Paul Salmon has stepped-in to fill her role as the Acting Administrator. However, the Office is looking to fill that position on a more permanent basis.

Recent Patently-O Job Postings:

  • Marjama Muldoon Blasiak & Sullivan LLP is looking to hire an experienced patent attorney for its Syracuse office.
  • A Charlotte, N.C. firm is looking to hire a docket administrator.
  • Holland & Hart is seeking an experienced transactional attorney to work in one of its mountain-west offices. 
  • Lee & Hays is looking for an experienced patent attorney with some portable business to join one of its Washington-state offices.
  • Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney is seeking a patent agent or patent attorney for its Alexandria office.
  • Dorsey & Whitney is seeking an experienced patent attorney for its Seattle office.
  • Design IP is looking for a patent attorney for its Allentown office.
  • Morgan Lewis is seeking an entry or junior level associate for its patent litigation practice in Houston.
  • Frost Brown LLC is seeking a Mechanical Engineering focused Patent Prosecution Associate with at least 3 years of experience for its Cincinnati office.

Law Review Case Note Topics for 2010-2011

Academic Studies, Articles and Publications, Law School, Patent, , , , , , , ,

Dear Law Review Editors: Please send me a note (dcrouch@patentlyo.com) to let me know about patent law focused articles that you publish in your journal so that I can highlight them on Patently-O.

Student Note Topics: Here are some suggestions for patent law focused law review topics for 2010-11 that I would like to see for my own edification. Please send me an e-mail if you choose one of these.

Tags:

Guest Post: Patent Abstracts Are Not The Answer To Repatriating Jobs

Guest Post, Patent, Patent Legislation, ,

by Jeremy Kriegel of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun

In an effort to promote repatriation of jobs, H.R. 5980 was introduced on July 29, 2010. The Bill proposes replacing the 18-month publication of U.S. patent applications in their entirety with a requirement that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) publish only the abstract of an application until it issues as a patent. This change would detrimentally impact the ability to monitor competitors’ pending applications (provided the full text of the applications were not otherwise still available via Public PAIR, an on-line resource provided by the USPTO that supplies free access to all patent documents exchanged between patent applicants and patent examiners upon publication of an application).

The proposed shift would potentially impact companies that have come to depend on access to published patent applications as a source of lawful competitive intelligence and freedom-to-practice planning.

With knowledge that only an application’s abstract will be made available to the public, it would likely just be a matter of time before applicants become more evasive in the drafting of patent abstracts. Even today, patent abstracts rarely provide meaningful detail as to the scope of the claims of a patent application, and are limited by USPTO regulations to 150 words or less. 37 CFR 1.72(b).

While a change to the statutory term of U.S. patents and a judicially-created “prosecution laches” defense eliminated most concerns over “submarine” patents (where an applicant would keep at least one of a chain of patent applications pending before springing an issued patent on an unsuspecting party or industry), limiting public access to only the abstract of a pending application would invite a return to such undersea tactics in patent prosecution.

To the extent publishing only the abstracts of patent applications has any potential to reduce the loss of American jobs, this protection is illusory in most situations. Many patent applications on products having significant commercial potential are filed not only in the United States, but also in foreign countries (and/or internationally under the Patent Cooperation Treaty). Most foreign countries already require publication of the entire patent application 18 months from the earliest priority filing date, so publishing only the abstract in the U.S. would merely invite interested third parties to search for foreign counterpart applications published in their entirety.

For applicants concerned about foreign competitors learning of the details of their inventions prior to issuance of their patents, U.S. patent law already provides an avenue even more secure than limiting publications of applications to abstracts as proposed in H.R. 5980. So long as an applicant agrees at the time of filing a U.S. application to forego foreign patent filings in countries that publish applications 18 months after filing, the application may include a request for non-publication. The USPTO will then maintain the entire application in secrecy until the application issues as a patent. The option of foregoing foreign filings in exchange for non-publication of a U.S. patent application was proposed to assuage concerns over the disparate impact pre-grant U.S. publication might have on small businesses. This was known as the Kaptur Amendment and was initially limited to “small entities” (i.e., entities with fewer than 500 employees, universities and independent inventors), but the small entity requirement was ultimately removed.

Alternatively, 35 U.S.C. Section 154(d) provides provisional rights to obtain a reasonable royalty for infringement occurring prior to the issuance of a patent, beginning as early as the date of publication of the application. Recovery of pre-issuance royalties requires the infringed claims ultimately issuing in a patent to be substantially identical to claims of the published application and requires actual notice to the infringer of the published patent application. If claims are substantially amended during prosecution, an applicant may, for a fee, electronically request republication of the application with the amended claims. H.R. 5980 would limit provisional rights to claims of published PCT applications that later mature into U.S. patents. Ironically, this disparity would favor foreign applicants of US patents (who typically file PCT applications prior to filing a US national phase application) over US inventors who opt not to file a PCT application. Foreign patentees in some situations would effectively have a longer term to collect patent damages than their US counterparts.

Another problem with the “Patent Protection” proposal of H.R. 5980 is that it runs contrary to commitments the United States made to Japan under the U.S.-Japan Letters of Agreement signed August 16, 1994 by then-Commerce Secretary Richard H. Brown and Japanese Ambassador Takakazu Kurizama. In exchange for U.S. commitments to publish applications 18 months after filing, expand the grounds for requesting patent reexamination, and permit increased third party participation in reexaminations, Japan agreed to eliminate dependent patent compulsory licenses, end third party pre-grant oppositions, and offer an accelerated examination procedure. It took five years for mandatory publication of applications to become law with passage of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999.

Though mandatory publication of U.S. patent applications is barely a decade old, H.R. 5980’s bid to substitute abstracts for full publication of U.S. applications would return a cloak of secrecy to some U.S. patent applications. However, for patent applications also filed abroad, the reality is that corresponding applications filed in other countries would still be published in their entirety. Given the ubiquitous access to published foreign patent applications made possible by the Internet, publishing only patent abstracts in the U.S. would not provide a meaningful obstacle to foreign companies seeking to capitalize on U.S. ingenuity.

Jeremy R. Kriegel is a partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP in Chicago. This article expresses the views of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun or its clients.

Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part II of III)

Guest Post, Inventors, Inventorship, Patent, Survey,

Guest Post by Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law; Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law

In our previous post, we discussed three major findings from the Berkeley Patent Survey—the most comprehensive survey to date in the United States, probably worldwide, on how patents are used by and affect entrepreneurs, startups, and early-stage high technology companies. As we noted in that post, the survey collected responses from over 1,300 companies less than ten years old (hereinafter, "startups") in the biotechnology, medical device, software, and hardware/IT sectors. In this post, we discuss three additional major findings. (For those interested in more information, a detailed discussion of the survey results is available here; a focused analysis on the drivers of startup patenting, here; and some background on the genesis of the survey, here.)

Our fourth major result is that our respondents—particularly software companies—find the high costs of patenting and enforcing their patents deter them from filing for patents on their innovations (see Fig. 1 below). Given the reported importance of patents to startups not only in the financing process, but also for strategic reasons—especially for increasing bargaining power—these cost barriers are worrisome.

Another of our survey questions revealed that the average out-of-pocket cost for a respondent firm to acquire its most recent patent was over $38,000. This figure is significantly higher than the averages for patent prosecution reported in the literature, which vary from a low of $10,000 to a high of $30,000.

Our respondents also offer a variety of other reasons for not patenting, including the ease of competitors designing around a potential patent and the belief that the innovation was not patentable (both of which are more salient for software companies) as well as the reluctance to disclose information in a patent and a preferred reliance on trade secrecy (which are more salient for biotechnology companies).

Figure 1. "For your last innovation you did not patent, which if any of the following influenced your company's decision?"

A fifth major finding is that although many respondents report licensing in patents from others, most of them did so to acquire technology, with fewer seeking licenses to avoid a lawsuit. So, while we find that 15% of technology companies licensed in at least one patent, there are industry differences.

Specifically, among biotechnology companies, while 37% had licensed in at least one patent, for their last license, 81% did so to acquire technology, and only 30% to (sometimes also) avoid a lawsuit. Among software firms, only 8% report taking at least one patent license, with 79% taking such a license to (at least in part) gain information or know-how. In each sector, less than 10% of companies taking licenses report licensing only to avoid a law suit.

When we restrict our focus to only venture-backed companies, inbound licensing is much more prevalent, with 37% of all companies licensing in a patent. However, there is once more wide variation from one industry to another. While 89% of venture-backed biotechnology companies licensed in at least one patent, only 12% of similarly-funded software companies had reported as much. Also, while only 3% of these biotech companies that had licensed at least one patent reported licensing in their last patent only to avoid a lawsuit, 22% of such software companies reported as much.

Last, we asked how much of a role patents play in the steps of the innovation process, from invention to R & D to the commercialization of products and processes. Somewhat surprisingly, the responses on the whole are rather tepid. For instance, biotechnology companies report that patents provide closer to a "moderate" than a "strong" incentive to engage in the innovation process. Among software companies, the results are even more striking, with them reporting that patents provide less than a "slight" incentive. These findings raise questions about the importance of patents to innovation for entrepreneurs and startups. Indeed, the results have spurred some vigorous debate in the blogosphere of late, and we devote our entire next post on Patently-O to discussing them in detail.

Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part I of III)

Guest Post, Inventors, Inventorship, Patent, Survey, , ,

Guest Post by Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law; Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law

Why do entrepreneurs and startup companies file for patents? Why not? How often do startups acquire patents from others? How important are patents in fostering innovation at startups? In helping them raise financing? In providing leverage in cross-licensing negotiations? Are entrepreneurs and startups subject to patent thickets?

These and many related questions were the subject of the Berkeley Patent Survey—the most comprehensive survey to date in the United States, probably worldwide, on how patents are used by and affect entrepreneurs, startups, and early-stage high technology companies. Funded by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation—and conducted by us, along with Robert Barr (Executive Director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Tech and former VP of IP at Cisco) and Stuart Graham (then a professor at Georgia Tech's College of Management, and currently Chief Economist of the USPTO)—the survey collected responses from over 1,300 companies less than ten years old (hereinafter, "startups") in the biotechnology, medical device, software, and hardware/IT sectors.

In this first post of three, we briefly review three major findings from our initial analysis of the survey about the frequency of patenting among high-tech startups, why startups seek patents, and how they rate patents and other strategies for attaining competitive advantage. In the next post, we'll discuss some reasons startups give for not seeking patents and why they sometimes license-in patents from other companies. In the last post, we'll specifically address startup perceptions about the incentives that patents provide for engaging in innovation as well as the perceived importance of patents in securing outside investments. The investment incentive role of patents has been not only a subject of enduring interest in the patent field generally, but also an important topic of interest of late at the Department of Commerce and PTO. (For those interested in more information, a detailed discussion of the survey results is available here; a focused analysis on the drivers of startup patenting, here; and some background on the genesis of the survey, here.)

First, startups hold many more patents and applications than previously believed. Instead of asking companies how many patents and applications they actually hold—like we did—earlier studies solely used the PTO databases to determine portfolio size. Unfortunately, these databases are unreliable, because the assignee records—particularly for patents acquired from founders and third parties—are incomplete. Our more complete data shows that about 40% of our respondents hold patents or applications, with the figure rising to about 80% for startups funded by venture capital firms.

As expected, this figure varies widely by industry—for example, 97% of venture-backed biotechnology companies hold patents or applications, while only 67% of venture-backed software startups do. And among the general population of software startups responding, the rate was only about 25%. In terms of raw numbers, among biotechnology companies, those with patents and applications have about 13 on hand, with the number rising to about 20 for medical device companies, and falling to about 7 for software companies. In sum, many startups are filing for patents and hold greater numbers than previously believed, though most software companies have never filed for patents.

Second, startups report that they primarily file for patents to prevent against copying of their innovative products and services (see Fig. 1 below). This holds true across all industries and by a variety of other company characteristics, such as age and revenues.

Respondents also note that filing for patents to improve their chances of securing investment and generating a liquidity event (such as an IPO or being acquired) are between moderately and very important reasons to file. In addition, the respondents state that a moderately important reason to file patents is for strategic reasons, such as defending against and preventing patent lawsuits as well as increasing negotiating leverage.

Figure 1: Reasons to File for Patents

Our third major finding concerns startup executives' perceptions of the effectiveness of patents and other methods of providing competitive advantage. Interestingly, responses vary widely (see Fig. 2 below). Biotechnology companies rate patents as the most effective means of capturing competitive advantage, more effective than first-mover advantage (though the differences are not statistically significant), trade secrecy, reverse engineering, copyright, and other means. Software companies, on the other hand, rank patenting dead last in providing competitive advantage.

Figure 2: Measures of Capturing "Competitive Advantage" from Inventions

In sum, the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey has found that startups are patenting more than previous studies have suggested; that patents are being sought for a variety of reasons, the most prominent of which is to prevent copying of the innovation; and that there are considerable differences among startups in the perceived significance of patents for attaining competitive advantage, with biotech companies rating them as the most important strategy and software companies rating them least important.

Our next post will delve into reasons high tech entrepreneurs gave for not seeking patents for recent innovations and for licensing of patents from other companies.

Gary Locke: Patent Office Needs Self-Control of Funding and Enhanced Post-Grant Review

Patent, , ,

PatentLawPic985The following essay was written by Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and originally published in Politico. Locke is the former Governor of Washington and former partner at Davis Wright Tremaine. As you may know, the US Patent & Trademark Office operates as a branch of the Department of Commerce. 

* * * * *

As Congress hurtles toward the midterm elections, there are two things everyone agrees Washington needs to keep working on: spurring job creation and promoting continuing economic recovery.

Fortunately, there’s legislation now before Congress that has bipartisan support, can boost our economy and doesn’t add a cent to our federal debt. This bill aims to fix the outdated patent system, which has left the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with a backlog of 750,000 applications — a backlog that’s threatening America’s ability to innovate. 

And that’s a big problem, because innovation is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. The introduction of new products and services accounts for three-quarters of America’s annual growth rate since World War II. This innovation is fueled by businesses, inventors and entrepreneurs who depend on patent protection to attract capital investment and to promote and protect their products and services in the global marketplace. Today, America’s patent system – and by extension our entire innovation system – isn’t working. As a result, we are jeopardizing our edge in the global economy.

America may still be a world leader in key metrics of economic success – like levels of entrepreneurship, R&D investment and IT infrastructure – but a report last year from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation concluded that no advanced economy has done less than the United States to improve its competitive position over the past decade. President Barack Obama sees the urgency of this problem and has announced a formal National Innovation Strategy, which, among other things, calls for doubling the budgets of agencies like the National Science Foundation so they can better support the basic research that spawns new products and services.

But to unleash the full power of America’s innovators, we’ve got to repair an overloaded and inefficient patent system. The unacceptably long backlog at the patent office – in which the average time it takes to grant or deny a patent is more than 34 months – is a striking signal of the system’s dysfunction. Since taking over at the patent office last August, David Kappos has already made significant strides in reforming the workplace, improving productivity and boosting morale. These steps and others have been applauded by all sectors of the innovation community. But additional, desperately needed reforms require action by Congress. The Commerce Department just released a white paper that quantifies the effect America’s patent system has on the economy and job creation and describes the benefits of two key elements of pending patent reform legislation.

First, Congress will grant fee-setting authority to the patent office, which will enable it to adjust the actual costs of the services it provides. This could contribute significantly to the office’s ability to reduce the application backlog by 40 percent. Second, creating an enhanced post-grant review procedure within the office will provide an alternative to costly – and often lengthy – litigation. It could also provide greater marketplace certainty – at lower cost. This review procedure is expected to be 50-100 times less expensive than litigation.

The patent reform legislation being considered by both chambers will also improve patent quality, streamline the patent examination process, promote international harmonization of patent law and limit litigation expenses. All these provisions will foster innovation and contribute to long-term economic growth. As we move forward on reforming our patent laws, we need to remember that the ultimate goal is to create more American jobs that can provide dignity, security and a sense of hope for the future. After a decade fueled by speculation and short-term thinking, the United States needs to refocus on nurturing innovations that generate real value for society and spur sustainable job creation. It’s not the role of the federal government to predict or dictate exactly how this new economy will take shape. Our job is to create the right set of incentives, regulations and laws that allow innovators to experiment with new ideas, build new businesses and follow their dreams. Patent reform legislation is a key part of this strategy. To promote continued economic recovery, it is critical for Congress to create a business environment that fosters innovation and risk taking ‹ accelerating economic growth and job creation and expanding America’s ability to innovate. Now is the time to act. Congress should seize this opportunity and send patent reform legislation to the president’s desk. Gary Locke is the secretary of commerce.

Recordation of Assignment Creates Rebuttable Presumption that Assignment is Valid, etc.

Patent,

PatentLawPic967

SIRF Technology v. ITC and Broadcom (Fed. Cir. 2010)

In a 2009 decision, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that SIRF and four others were violating Section 337 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling products with GPS devices that infringe patents owned by Broadcom (via a 2007 acquisition of Global Locate). See U.S. Patent Nos. 6,417,801, 6,606,346, 6,651,000, 6,704,651, 6,937,187, and 7,158,080.  The patents claim various forms of “assisted-GPS” that improve GPS signal reliability and location calculation speed.

Patent Ownership and Standing: One of the inventors conceived of the invention while an employee of Magellan (another GPS company) and while under an employee agreement that operated as an effective assignment of “all inventions . . . which are related to or useful in the business of the Employer . . . and which were . . . conceived . . . during the period of the Employee’s employment, whether or not in the course of the Employee’s employment.”  Magellan was aware of the inventions, but never pursued ownership rights.  Here, in an effort to disrupt Broadcom’s standing to sue, the defendants asserted that Magellan should be considered a co-owner of the patent rights.

Many patent assignment issues are determined under the appropriate state law. However, federal patent law is used to determine whether an assignment is an automatic assignment or only an agreement to later assign rights.  Applying federal law, the Federal Circuit interpreted this agreement as an automatic assignment that effectively assigns rights to inventions automatically upon their invention. 

Also as a matter of federal patent law, the court held that recordation of an assignment creates a rebuttable presumption that the assignment is valid.  Here, the appellate panel agreed that the defendants had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.  In particular, the defendants had failed to prove that the prior-employer Magellan was the true owner. 

“If Magellan and Abraham recognized that Global Locate was the owner of the trade secret rights to the invention, it logically follows that Magellan and Abraham did not think that Magellan was the owner of similar rights that eventually became the subject of the ’346 patent.”

Patentable Subject Matter: The asserted claims included several methods of calculating position. On appeal, the Federal Circuit confirmed that those methods fit within the machine-or-transformation test of Bilski and therefore are patentable. In Bilski, the court held that the a patentable method claim must be either (a) implemented using particular machine or (b) transform an article from one state to another.  In addition, the machine-or-transformation must create a “meaningful limit on the scope of the claims.”  Here, the court held that the methods as claimed “could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver.”  And that limits were meaningful because the GPS receiver is not simply “an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly.” 

We also think that the presence of the GPS receiver in the claims places a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. We are not dealing with a situation in which there is a method that can be performed without a machine. Contrary to appellants’ contention, there is no evidence here that the calculations here can be performed entirely in the human mind. Here, as described, the use of a GPS receiver is essential to the operation of the claimed methods.

Comment: I certainly believe that the patents are directed toward the type of subject matter that should be patentable. However, the Federal Circuit’s analysis here is not convincing. Rather, the fact that “a GPS receiver is essential to the operation of the claimed methods” indicates that inclusion of the “GPS receiver” limitation is not meaningful. 

The question of whether the inventions were “related to or useful in the business” of Magellan was a matter of California state law.

Divided Infringement: An portion of the decision that will be interesting for patent prosecutors is directed toward joint infringement. Here, the court upheld the patentee’s efforts to direct claims toward certain particular actors and therefore avoid the Muniauction problem. Here, the steps of “communicating” and “transmitting” to a user-device were interpreted as steps that did not require end-user action even though the actual process involves end-user devices downloading the transmitted data.  Thus, despite what your speech teachers taught, communication can be one-way.

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.

Recent Jury Verdicts

Patent, , ,

Cerner v. Visicu, 4-cv-1033 (W.D. Mo., December 8, 2009) (Visicu’s asserted claims held not infringed and invalid as obvious).

Hologic, Inc. et al v. SenoRx, Inc, 08-cv-0133 (N.D. Cal. December 17, 2009) (Hologic asserted claims held not infringed and obvious).

DNT, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, 03-cv-0021 (E.D. Va. December 14, 2009) (DNT’s claims held not infringed and lacking written description & enablement)

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Occupational & Medical Innovations, Ltd., 08-cv.-0120 (E.D. Tex. December 18, 2009) (patent claims held infringed and valid with damages of $1.5 m). Verdict included additional $2.2m for trade secret misappropriation.

Presidio Components Inc v. American Technical Ceramics Corp, 08-cv-0335 (S.D. Cal. December 16, 2009)(patent claims held infringed and valid with damages of $1.0 m in lost profits).

Underlying data via http://lexmachina.com.

  

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 137

Bits and Bytes, Patent
  • Pirates: The EU Parliament now has two members from the Swedish Pirate Party. The Pirates platform is based on weakening copyright laws and eliminating patents. The first line of the party website reads: “The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected.” [LINK]
  • Billion Dollar Trade Secret Trial: The top semiconductor manufacturer in Taiwan (TSMC) sued the top mainland China semiconductor manufacturer (SMIC) for stealing its trade secrets (in state court in California). The jury sided with the plaintiff, although the damage calculation is still underway. [LINK]
  • JOAO Control & Monitoring v. Playboy & Penthouse: The JOAO patent holding company has sued a dozen online pornography providers alleging patent infringement. The asserted patent claims an apparatus for transmitting audio and video information from a vehicle to a website. The inventor Ray Joao is also a patent attorney and is represented by Andrew Spangler.
  • Who Owns Patents being Reexamined: The folks at Westerman Hattori have been writing about reexaminations. In a recent post, they list the top-ten patentees whose patents are undergoing reexaminations (based on reexaminations granted since January 2009). The top five include Rambus, LGE, Weatherford/Lamb, Mondis Tech, and ADC Tech. [LINK]

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 137

Bits and Bytes, Patent
  • Pirates: The EU Parliament now has two members from the Swedish Pirate Party. The Pirates platform is based on weakening copyright laws and eliminating patents. The first line of the party website reads: “The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected.” [LINK]
  • Billion Dollar Trade Secret Trial: The top semiconductor manufacturer in Taiwan (TSMC) sued the top mainland China semiconductor manufacturer (SMIC) for stealing its trade secrets (in state court in California). The jury sided with the plaintiff, although the damage calculation is still underway. [LINK]
  • JOAO Control & Monitoring v. Playboy & Penthouse: The JOAO patent holding company has sued a dozen online pornography providers alleging patent infringement. The asserted patent claims an apparatus for transmitting audio and video information from a vehicle to a website. The inventor Ray Joao is also a patent attorney and is represented by Andrew Spangler.
  • Who Owns Patents being Reexamined: The folks at Westerman Hattori have been writing about reexaminations. In a recent post, they list the top-ten patentees whose patents are undergoing reexaminations (based on reexaminations granted since January 2009). The top five include Rambus, LGE, Weatherford/Lamb, Mondis Tech, and ADC Tech. [LINK]

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 137

Bits and Bytes
  • Pirates: The EU Parliament now has two members from the Swedish Pirate Party. The Pirates platform is based on weakening copyright laws and eliminating patents. The first line of the party website reads: “The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected.” [LINK]
  • Billion Dollar Trade Secret Trial: The top semiconductor manufacturer in Taiwan (TSMC) sued the top mainland China semiconductor manufacturer (SMIC) for stealing its trade secrets (in state court in California). The jury sided with the plaintiff, although the damage calculation is still underway. [LINK]
  • JOAO Control & Monitoring v. Playboy & Penthouse: The JOAO patent holding company has sued a dozen online pornography providers alleging patent infringement. The asserted patent claims an apparatus for transmitting audio and video information from a vehicle to a website. The inventor Ray Joao is also a patent attorney and is represented by Andrew Spangler.
  • Who Owns Patents being Reexamined: The folks at Westerman Hattori have been writing about reexaminations. In a recent post, they list the top-ten patentees whose patents are undergoing reexaminations (based on reexaminations granted since January 2009). The top five include Rambus, LGE, Weatherford/Lamb, Mondis Tech, and ADC Tech. [LINK]

Bits and Bytes No. 125: Comments on Comments

Patent, ,
  • Gil Hyatt’s attorney contacted me this morning and asked that a few “offending” comments be removed from the post associated with his case. I agreed that they were potentially problematic and removed them. Two discuss LL’s role as an examiner of HYATT’s cases. Because Hyatt’s applications were filed before 1995, those files are likely still secret and thus should not be publicly discussed. I also removed the “sleazeball” comments. As a reminder to commenters – you may appear anonymous, but a well heeled plaintiff could probably track you down unless you take special precautions. I have thus-far successfully resisted providing any identifying information to interested parties. However, I would obey a court order.
  • For PTO Examiners who Comment Regularly. I enjoy your comments and they helpfully reveal aspects of PTO operations that would otherwise be hidden. You should, however, occasionally re-read MPEP 1701: “Public policy demands that every employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refuse to express to any person any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of, or the patentability or unpatentability of any claim in any U.S. patent, except to the extent necessary to carry out (A) an examination of a reissue application of the patent, (B) a reexamination proceeding to reexamine the patent, or (C) an interference involving the patent. “
  • Fraud not Inequitable Conduct: IPO executive director Herb Wamsley (writing as the IP LANGUAGE CURMUDGEON) argues that the term “Inequitable Conduct” is misleading. The doctrine does not follow a traditional balancing of the equities, but is seated in fraud. Thus, Wamsley “proposes scrapping the term ‘inequitable conduct’ in favor of ‘fraud,’ a term that is not very well defined in law either, but which better conveys the idea that patents should be unenforceable only if serious misconduct has been proven. If courts had to find ‘fraud’ before they could hold a patent unenforceable, perhaps they would apply the doctrine now called inequitable conduct only in cases of very clear intent and materiality” as the law requires. I think that Wamsley’s suggestion makes perfect sense.
  • IPO’s annual meeting is Sept 13-15 in Chicago: Link. Over 500 individuals (including yours truly) are already signed-up to attend this patent law powwow. This is probably the largest mixer of in-house patent counsel and patent attorneys in private practice. The only problem is the cost: IPO members pay $950; Non-Members pay $1,450; Inventors and academics pay $500.
  • Update on the Faculty Position at the University of Utah Law School200908142110.jpg : They are hiring, but may not have received your e-mail. “Due to a server switch, the email address facultyrecruitment@law.utah.edu was not functioning correctly for a few days in August. We sincerely apologize for this error. As of today, August 14th, the email address is once again fully functional. We encourage interested applicants to send their materials to us at that email address, particularly those who sent, or attempted to send, materials in the past two weeks, so that we can be sure that we received them.” [Read the Job Listing] [Klarquist Sparkman is also looking for an O-Chem Patent Attorney or Agent]