Tag Archives: USPTO Director

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent, , ,

USPTO Hoteling Report

  • The US Department of Commerce recently performed an audit and evaluation of the USPTO's Hoteling program. The report shows that the average Patent Hoteling Program (PHP) examiner spends 66.3 more hours a year examining patents than does the average in-house examiner (which translates to reviewing about 3.5 more patent applications a year. However, the report shows that PHP participants are no more efficient at reviewing patent applications than individuals at the USPTO headquarters. At the end of the fiscal year 2011 over 2,600 patent examiners were Hoteling. To be able to participate in the PHP an examiner must be GS-12 or above, worked at least 2 years at the USPTO, passed the certification exam (essentially the Patent Bar), & currently not under any warnings. [Link]

U.S. House introduces bill to amend design patent law

  • The proposed House bill, known as the Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales (PARTS) Act, would reduce the time period when auto manufacturers are able to enforce design patents on collision repair parts against alternative suppliers from 14 years to 30 months. The bill claims that it would save Americans money on car parts, by removing auto manufacturer monopolies from the equation. [Link]

Can University Tech Transfer save the Pharma Industry?

  • The pharmaceutical industry has been hit hard by the fall in revenue because of expiring patents. Pfizer's profit declined 50% because of Lipitor going into the public domain. Eli Lilly's profit dropped 27% because of Zyprexa going generic. AstraZeneca revenue declined and they plan to lay off 7,350 people, because Nexium fell out of patent protection in Europe. Also, later this year Plavix and Singulair will face competition, which will probably cause those companies' profits to drop. With all of these multi- billion dollar patents expiring, it seems that pharma companies need new compounds and drugs to increase profit. I think that Universities will be the key to the pharma industry. Universities have many patents waiting to be licensed by big companies that could be very profitable for both the University and the company. The problem that I see is that there is a lack of communication between companies and Universities. Most University Tech Transfer offices are limited in what they can do, and if they do not have an inside connection at a company, it is difficult to market an invention to a big company. This problem can be overcome in many ways; however it would seem that an intermediary may be needed. An intermediary would be of great value if they can connect pharma companies (or companies in general) with University Tech Transfer offices to help broker a deal. While this is not a new idea in the patent world, I do not think that many universities currently use individuals from the outside to help get technology licensed. [Link]

Patent Jobs:

  • Apple seeks to hire a Sr. IP Counsel with 6+ years of experience in patent disputes to work at their Cupertino location. [Link]
  • Sughrue Mion is searching for candidates for an associate or technical specialist positions with a BS in chemical fields and candidates with Ph.D. level education in Molecular/Cell biology to work in their D.C. office. [Link]
  • Brookstone is looking for IP Counsel with a minimum of 5 years of experience to work at their Merrimack, New Hampshire location. [Link]
  • Christopher & Weisberg is seeking a patent attorney with 1-5 years of experience and degree in EE to work in their Fort Lauderdale office. [Link]
  • Harness, Dickey & Pierce is searching for a patent prosecution associate with 3-4 years of experience and Bachelor's degree in Biotech or a Biotech-related degree to work in their Saint Louis office. [Link]
  • Faegre Baker Daniels is looking for an IP associate with degree in EE, ME, CE, physics, or chemistry and up to 5 years of patent prosecution experience to work in their Fort Wayne, Indiana office. [Link]
  • Bluestone Innovations is seeking to hire in house counsel with 5 years of patent litigation experience to work at their Reston, Virginia location. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The New Jersey IP Association is sponsoring, The Inside Track to the Proposed Rules for Implementation of the America Invents Act on February 7 in Trenton, NJ. Featured speakers include: David Kappos, Philip Johnson, and Kenneth Nigon. [Link]
  • The Emory Law Journal will hold The 2012 Randolph W. Thrower Symposium, Innovation For the Modern Era: Law, Policy, and Legal Practice in a Changing World on February 9. The symposium is free and open to the public. [Link]
  • The Intellectual Property Law Section of the Utah State Bar is hosting its annual IP Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 17, 2012, at the Little America Hotel. This full day event includes two tracks of topics in various areas of IP law, lunch, and a networking reception. Confirmed speakers include Ted McAleer, Executive Director of USTAR; Robin Zhao, Jeekai & Partners; Hon. Dee V Benson, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Ted Stewart, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Virginia Kendall, US Dist. Ct for Northern Dist. of Illinois; Paul Marchegiani, NBC; Howard Michael, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Jeff Gee, Symantec; and Richard Chang, ICON. [Link]
  • IBC Legal's 20th Annual Biotech & Pharmaceutical Patenting Conference 2012 will be held on February 21-22 in Munich, Germany. Get advice and analysis from a diverse team of international life science and IP experts on recent case law and developments, patent filing, patent life cycles, SPCs, patent infringement, EC Bolar implementation and more! Patently-O readers get a 10% discount when registering with this link. [Link]
  • The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 in London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • Maurer School of Law Center for IP Research will hold a CLE Fundamentals of Federal Circuit Advocacy event on February 23. Greg Castanias will lead a discussion of patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. Also appearing: Center for Intellectual Property Research senior advisor Donald Knebel, Prof. Mark D. Janis, and former Federal Circuit clerk Allison Kerndt. [Link]
  • The Florida Bar 3rd Annual IP Law Symposium will be held on March 1-2 on Orlando. The IP Symposium will address recent developments and important issues in IP law, including: Perspectives on the America Invents Act, Copyright Law and the First Sale Doctrine, Third Party Liability in IP, Enforcing IP on the Internet, Latest Developments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law, and Recent Developments at the TTAB. Guest speakers include; Anne Gilson LaLonde, Scott Bain, John Welch, and many others. [Link]
  • Section 101 Gatekeepers: Finding the Patentable Subject Matter Line in a Judicial Sandstorm, webinar will be hosted by AIPLA on March 7. The webinar will be presented by Professor Christopher Holman and attorney Robert H. Fischer. [Link]
  • LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Save $100 before January 31. [Link]
  • C5's 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conference brings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • American Conference Institute's FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI's FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of core FDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
  • American Conference Institute's PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent, , ,

USPTO Hoteling Report

  • The US Department of Commerce recently performed an audit and evaluation of the USPTO's Hoteling program. The report shows that the average Patent Hoteling Program (PHP) examiner spends 66.3 more hours a year examining patents than does the average in-house examiner (which translates to reviewing about 3.5 more patent applications a year. However, the report shows that PHP participants are no more efficient at reviewing patent applications than individuals at the USPTO headquarters. At the end of the fiscal year 2011 over 2,600 patent examiners were Hoteling. To be able to participate in the PHP an examiner must be GS-12 or above, worked at least 2 years at the USPTO, passed the certification exam (essentially the Patent Bar), & currently not under any warnings. [Link]

U.S. House introduces bill to amend design patent law

  • The proposed House bill, known as the Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales (PARTS) Act, would reduce the time period when auto manufacturers are able to enforce design patents on collision repair parts against alternative suppliers from 14 years to 30 months. The bill claims that it would save Americans money on car parts, by removing auto manufacturer monopolies from the equation. [Link]

Can University Tech Transfer save the Pharma Industry?

  • The pharmaceutical industry has been hit hard by the fall in revenue because of expiring patents. Pfizer's profit declined 50% because of Lipitor going into the public domain. Eli Lilly's profit dropped 27% because of Zyprexa going generic. AstraZeneca revenue declined and they plan to lay off 7,350 people, because Nexium fell out of patent protection in Europe. Also, later this year Plavix and Singulair will face competition, which will probably cause those companies' profits to drop. With all of these multi- billion dollar patents expiring, it seems that pharma companies need new compounds and drugs to increase profit. I think that Universities will be the key to the pharma industry. Universities have many patents waiting to be licensed by big companies that could be very profitable for both the University and the company. The problem that I see is that there is a lack of communication between companies and Universities. Most University Tech Transfer offices are limited in what they can do, and if they do not have an inside connection at a company, it is difficult to market an invention to a big company. This problem can be overcome in many ways; however it would seem that an intermediary may be needed. An intermediary would be of great value if they can connect pharma companies (or companies in general) with University Tech Transfer offices to help broker a deal. While this is not a new idea in the patent world, I do not think that many universities currently use individuals from the outside to help get technology licensed. [Link]

Patent Jobs:

  • Apple seeks to hire a Sr. IP Counsel with 6+ years of experience in patent disputes to work at their Cupertino location. [Link]
  • Sughrue Mion is searching for candidates for an associate or technical specialist positions with a BS in chemical fields and candidates with Ph.D. level education in Molecular/Cell biology to work in their D.C. office. [Link]
  • Brookstone is looking for IP Counsel with a minimum of 5 years of experience to work at their Merrimack, New Hampshire location. [Link]
  • Christopher & Weisberg is seeking a patent attorney with 1-5 years of experience and degree in EE to work in their Fort Lauderdale office. [Link]
  • Harness, Dickey & Pierce is searching for a patent prosecution associate with 3-4 years of experience and Bachelor's degree in Biotech or a Biotech-related degree to work in their Saint Louis office. [Link]
  • Faegre Baker Daniels is looking for an IP associate with degree in EE, ME, CE, physics, or chemistry and up to 5 years of patent prosecution experience to work in their Fort Wayne, Indiana office. [Link]
  • Bluestone Innovations is seeking to hire in house counsel with 5 years of patent litigation experience to work at their Reston, Virginia location. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The New Jersey IP Association is sponsoring, The Inside Track to the Proposed Rules for Implementation of the America Invents Act on February 7 in Trenton, NJ. Featured speakers include: David Kappos, Philip Johnson, and Kenneth Nigon. [Link]
  • The Emory Law Journal will hold The 2012 Randolph W. Thrower Symposium, Innovation For the Modern Era: Law, Policy, and Legal Practice in a Changing World on February 9. The symposium is free and open to the public. [Link]
  • The Intellectual Property Law Section of the Utah State Bar is hosting its annual IP Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 17, 2012, at the Little America Hotel. This full day event includes two tracks of topics in various areas of IP law, lunch, and a networking reception. Confirmed speakers include Ted McAleer, Executive Director of USTAR; Robin Zhao, Jeekai & Partners; Hon. Dee V Benson, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Ted Stewart, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Virginia Kendall, US Dist. Ct for Northern Dist. of Illinois; Paul Marchegiani, NBC; Howard Michael, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Jeff Gee, Symantec; and Richard Chang, ICON. [Link]
  • IBC Legal's 20th Annual Biotech & Pharmaceutical Patenting Conference 2012 will be held on February 21-22 in Munich, Germany. Get advice and analysis from a diverse team of international life science and IP experts on recent case law and developments, patent filing, patent life cycles, SPCs, patent infringement, EC Bolar implementation and more! Patently-O readers get a 10% discount when registering with this link. [Link]
  • The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 in London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • Maurer School of Law Center for IP Research will hold a CLE Fundamentals of Federal Circuit Advocacy event on February 23. Greg Castanias will lead a discussion of patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. Also appearing: Center for Intellectual Property Research senior advisor Donald Knebel, Prof. Mark D. Janis, and former Federal Circuit clerk Allison Kerndt. [Link]
  • The Florida Bar 3rd Annual IP Law Symposium will be held on March 1-2 on Orlando. The IP Symposium will address recent developments and important issues in IP law, including: Perspectives on the America Invents Act, Copyright Law and the First Sale Doctrine, Third Party Liability in IP, Enforcing IP on the Internet, Latest Developments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law, and Recent Developments at the TTAB. Guest speakers include; Anne Gilson LaLonde, Scott Bain, John Welch, and many others. [Link]
  • Section 101 Gatekeepers: Finding the Patentable Subject Matter Line in a Judicial Sandstorm, webinar will be hosted by AIPLA on March 7. The webinar will be presented by Professor Christopher Holman and attorney Robert H. Fischer. [Link]
  • LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Save $100 before January 31. [Link]
  • C5's 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conference brings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • American Conference Institute's FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI's FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of core FDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
  • American Conference Institute's PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

Guest Post on New Inter Partes Reexamination Standard

Patent, , , , , ,

Guest Post by Jon E. Wright and Joseph E. Mutschelknaus of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC1

On September 16, 2011, the America Invents Act (“AIA”) changed the threshold standard for initiating inter partes reexamination. The new standard requires a requester to demonstrate that:

[T]he information presented in the request shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request.

America Invents Act – Sec. 6(c)(3)(A)(i)-(ii). We refer to the new standard as the “RLP” standard. The RLP standard is significant because it matches the future standard for initiating inter partes review under the AIA.

This post addresses the new RLP standard. First, we review case law surrounding the “reasonable likelihood” standard as it exists in other contexts such as preliminary injunctions. Next, based on our analysis of every single post-AIA inter partes reexamination the PTO has acted upon, we analyze how the Office has been applying the new RLP standard in reexamination orders. Finally, we consider how inter partes reexamination requests (and future petitions for inter partes review) should be structured for the best chance at meeting the RLP threshold.

The “Reasonable Likelihood” Standard

Patent practitioners are familiar with the “reasonable likelihood” standard in the context of preliminary injunctions. For a court to grant a preliminary injunction, a patentee must demonstrate four factors, one of which is a “reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.” Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 350 F.3d 1235,1239 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This standard may be instructive in learning how the Office will deal with the new RLP standard for current inter partes reexamination requests and inter partes review petitions later this year.

According to the Federal Circuit, the reasonable likelihood of success standard for preliminary injunctions must be made “in light of the presumptions and burdens that will inhere at trial on the merits….” Id. In the context of inter partes patentability proceedings at the Office, claims do not enjoy the presumption of validity that they do before a district court. Rather, the standard of proof before the Office is the “preponderance of evidence” standard. MPEP § 706.I. The same is true for the new inter partes review proceedings. See AIA § 316(e). Therefore, Requesters (or Petitioners) must demonstrate a “reasonable likelihood” that they can invalidate at least one claim of the patent for which reexamination is sought under the preponderance of the evidence standard.

But what does this really mean? In the context of preliminary injunction proceedings, the Federal Circuit has stressed that “[a]t this preliminary stage, the trial court does not resolve the validity question….” New England Braiding Co., Inc. v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 970 F.2d 878, 882-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Rather, the decision maker “must … make an assessment of the persuasiveness of the challenger’s evidence, recognizing that it is doing so without all evidence that may come out at trial.” Id. This is just as true in inter partes reexamination (or review) because both parties to the proceeding are permitted to submit additional evidence in support of their positions, at least during the first round of replies and comments.

Moreover, in addition to recognizing that it may not have all the facts, the decision maker must also assess the persuasiveness of the evidence. This may include making credibility determinations. As the Federal Circuit stated in New England Braiding, “[a] credibility determination is well within the court’s province when ruling on a preliminary injunction motion.” Id.

If the preliminary injunction standard for determining a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits is any guide, we can thus surmise the following with respect to requests for inter partes reexamination (or future petitions for inter partes review):

  • The request or petition must be based on “evidence,” which at the initial stage will likely be limited to prior art patents or printed publications;
  • The request or petition must reviewed by the Office under the “preponderance of evidence” standard, with the burden placed on the requester or petitioner;
  • The request or petition need not conclusively demonstrate unpatentability;
  • The Examiner (or Board) may properly make credibility determinations; and
  • The Examiner (or Board) must make an assessment of the persuasiveness of the evidence and accompanying argument set forth by the requester or petitioner, recognizing that it does not have all the evidence.

As shown next, the Office appears to be adhering to these standards.

The Office’s Application of the RLP Standard

As of the date of this post, the Office has acted on forty-two (42) requests for inter partes reexamination that were filed on or after September 16, 2011. The authors analyzed each one to determine how the Office is implementing the new RLP standard. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Central Reexamination Unit is still struggling with the new standard. But nonetheless, several observations can be made from these orders.

First, despite the change, early data suggests that the Office continues to be granting reexaminations at about the same rate under the new RLP standard as it was under the old “substantial new question” or “SNQ” standard. In fiscal year 2011, for example, the Office granted 342 inter partes reexamination requests out of 366 total decisions. That accounts for a 93% grant rate under the old SNQ standard. Of the 42 orders issued under the new RLP standard, 38 have been granted (at least in part), putting the current grant rate under the RLP standard at about 90%. Thus, while the sample set is still limited, the Office appears to be granting reexamination requests at about the same rate under the RLP standard as it had been under the SNQ standard. This runs contrary to the general belief among practitioners that the RLP standard would be stricter than the SNQ standard.

 Wright Guest Post

Second, in finding an RLP, the Office appears to be focusing on the persuasiveness of the requester’s evidence on the merits. The Office is also correctly placing the burden of establishing the reasonable likelihood prevail on the requester. In cases where RLPs are denied, the Office frequently uses language like, “Requester has failed to show the claim step is taught by the reference.” (See, e.g., 95/001,809, p. 6.) At the same time, the Office is not shying away from addressing the underlying legal issues presented in the request, such as claim construction. For example, in several cases, the Office explicitly construed claim terms, and then made a finding that the cited references do not teach claims under that construction. (See, e.g., 95/001,785, 95/001,792.) Thus, in establishing whether there is an RLP, the Office is considering the merits of the cited prior art against the claims on both factual and legal bases.

Third, while the importance of the art’s strength against the claims may have increased with the RLP standard, the importance of the art’s “newness” may have decreased. Under the SNQ standard, the Office would almost always take into account the prosecution history and discuss whether the cited prior art was presented a new light. In contrast, of the forty-two (42) orders issued under the RLP standard, only three (3) make any discussion of the prosecution history or cumulativeness of the art. And in no case did this appear to be dispositive. This is consistent with the AIA, which made the newness requirement effectively discretionary on the Office. See AIA codified at 35 U.S.C. § 325 (“In determining whether to … order a proceeding under [the inter partes reexamination/review chapter], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the … request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously were presented to the Office.”) (emphasis added). In sum, the weight given to the art’s newness appears to be waning.

Practice Tips

Given the above observations, drafting a strong, persuasive request supported by quality prior art references remains paramount under the new RLP standard, just as it was under the old SNQ standard. But in view of the Office’s tendency to now focus more intently on the merits of the individual rejections under the new standard, requesters may want to provide and justify claim constructions in their initial requests. Also, requesters may want to consider including expert declarations with their request, especially if the art upon which the reexamination is based is complicated and would benefit from expert clarification or explanation. Keep in mind, though, that reexaminations must still be based on patents and prior-art publications, not expert declarations.

At the same time, requesters may need less discussion in their requests of how their art is noncumulative or new with respect to what the Office has already considered. This could result in structural change to reexamination requests. For example, prior inter partes reexamination requests usually included two separate questions, one developing and showing the SNQ and a second section with the proposed rejections—i.e., the manner and pertinency of applying the prior-art references. Now, with the increased focus on the substantive merits of the proposed rejections and the decreased focus on newness or cumulativeness of the art, the second section becomes the most important section. Indeed, a fully developed set of proposed rejections would seem to be sufficient in proving up the RLP standard.

In sum, the authors believe it was a good idea for Congress to immediately implement the RPL standard for inter partes reexaminations. It gives patent practitioners a taste of what is to come for inter partes review under the AIA, and the ability to prepare for that change. It also appears as if the Office is adopting evaluation standards similar to those used the context of preliminary injunctions. We hope this post provide some new insight into the RLP standard—a standard with which we will have to live for the foreseeable future.

1Jon Wright is a Director and Joe Mutschelknaus is an Associate at Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC www.skgf.com. The views expressed herein are the authors’ alone and should not be attributed to the firm or its clients.

Edited on 2/2/2012 to reflect that it was Congress's decision to immediately implement the RPL standard.

Prior User Rights Defense

Patent, , , ,

Later today I will be testifying in Congress at a hearing on Prior User Rights being held by the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet chaired by Republican Representatives Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Ben Quayle of Arizona along with Congressman Mel Watt as the ranking member of the Subcommittee. The hearing comes in the wake of the USPTO’s recent Report on Prior User Rights. The primary focus of my testimony is my estimation that prior user rights as circumscribed in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act are unlikely to have any real or measurable impact on the market for US patents, demand for innovation, or process of patent litigation. I explain this as follows:

There are host of conditions that must be met before the prior user defense can be exerted. Most notably, an accused infringer must be able to show that it (or its predecessor in title based upon limited transfer rights) began to commercially use the invention at least one year before the patentee’s filing date (and even further in advance if the patentee publicly disclosed the invention before filing). In the new statute, the defense only applies if the prior user’s version of the invention was created independently and without derivation from the patentee’s version and the prior user acted in good faith. When formed together, these requirements look something like the eye of the needle and are difficult to pass through.

Further marginalizing the impact of prior user rights is the reality that the defense only adds actual value when the patent being asserted is valid. I.e., if the patent is invalid then there is no need for a prior user defense. The setup of a prior user situation suggests two likely scenarios that would lead to a decision of unpatentability. First, the existence of multiple independent creators of the same invention tends to suggest that the invention itself was obvious and therefore unpatentable. This is even more so in the prior use context because the later filed patent by definition will have a priority date of at least one year later than the user’s first date of commercial use. Using the language of the Supreme Court in its KSR decision: “market forces” likely prompted researchers to take the next step. In addition, the requirement that the prior user commercially used the invention is an indicator, albeit inconclusive, that anticipating prior art may be available to invalidate the patent. Conversely, if the prior user is successful in maintaining the secrecy of its commercial use for that time period, we’re left with the suggestion that the prior user may able to continue to operate in secrecy without being uncovered and thus without being charged with infringement.

My conclusion that prior user rights will have very little impact on innovation and access is also supported by comparative analysis of the impact of prior user rights in various trading partner nations and the already existing US prior user right for business method patents. The USPTO Report correctly indicates that these defenses have seen little to no successful assertion. In the US, prior user rights have been available since 1999 for the limited class of business method patents. During that time, there have been no reported cases where the defense was successfully asserted. During this time, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided thousands of patent appeals on almost every imaginable patent doctrine – however the court did not address prior user rights. There was no need because the impact of that defense is so limited.

Two final concepts – lack of assurances and delay in patenting – push me to the same conclusion of little impact. First, I suggest that prior user rights will be given little ex ante consideration by would-be defendants because the defense does not offer any real assurances or any vested right until years after the first commercial use. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, prior user rights only come into play under a cone of secrecy. At that time, the prior user has no assurances that it made commercial use of the invention more than a year before someone else filed a patent application on the same subject matter. The expense of searching PTO records makes the task of discovering prior patent applications quite difficult. The delay in publication of applications and later-filing of applications based on foreign priority makes this task literally impossible to complete. And, the ability of patent applicants to radically amend claims during the patent prosecution process means that any assurances identified cannot not be considered vested.

The final point on this topic – based on delay in patenting – is that most qualifying prior uses may be irrelevant and out-of-use by the time that the USPTO issues the covering patent. Most recently issued US patents have an effective original filing date of more than four years ago. This provides a window of at least five years for most prior users to legally practice the invention without recourse even in the absence of the prior user defense. In many areas of technology, the original prior use will have become obsolete by the end of that five-year timeline – allowing the prior user to move to a new technology without ever needing to obtain a license or permission from the patent holder.

In the testimony, I then identify a number of particular ways that the defense could be expanded of Congress desired a more robust system of prior user right. My darling of the list is the establishment of a vested prior user right through a registration system. Although interesting, I do not at this point have real cause to call for this type of expansion.

My testimony also includes some consideration of the relative impact of prior user rights on US and non-US entities. The table below summarizes some of my thoughts.

Stakeholder

Help or Hurt by US Prior User Rights

US Universities 

Help: University derived inventions become relatively more valuable because their patents are excluded from the prior user defense.

US Manufacturers and Technology Companies 

Help and Hurt: US patents belonging to US manufacturers become less valuable because they are subject to prior user rights. However, US manufacturers have the potential of avoiding infringement charges based upon their own prior use.

US Non Practicing Entities (NPEs) 

Hurt: NPEs US patents become less valuable for NPEs because they are subject to prior user rights. By definition, NPEs do not practice the invention and therefore do not benefit from the prior user right defense.

Foreign Manufacturers and Technology Companies 

Hurt: Foreign entities US patents become less valuable because they are subject to prior user rights. Further, the foreign entities cannot assert prior user rights based upon activities in their home countries. However, foreign entities could benefit from the prior user rights if their prior commercial use of an invention was in the US.

 

Of course, my perception of the scope of prior user rights would change dramatically if the courts determine that (1) a prior user need only prove prior commercial use using a more-likely-than-not standard that (2) allowed oral testimony alone to prove the case and (3) ruled that neither secret sales nor secret uses constitute prior art under the new 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

PTO Director Dave Kappos will also be testifying as well as Bob Armitage (Lilly), Dan Lang (Cisco), and John Vaughn (AAU).

 

 

 

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent, , ,

2012 Student Writing Competition

  • The Virginia State Bar Intellectual Property Section is seeking papers written by law students who are attending law school in Virginia or are residents of Virginia attending law school outside of Virginia and relating to an intellectual property law issue or the practice of intellectual property law. The winner receives a cash prize of $4,000. The judge of the final round of the competitor is the Honorable Richard Linn, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The deadline for submissions is Friday, May 25, 2012 at 4:00 EDT. [Link]

New IP Message Board

  • IPtalk.pro is a new intellectual property law message board for the discussion of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and IP careers. It promises no spam, no downtime, and sensible moderation. [Link]

Intel buys IP for 120 million

  • Intel recently acquired about 190 patents, 170 patent applications, and video codec software from RealNetworks for 120 million dollars. Intel states that, the acquisition will enhance their ability to continue to offer richer experiences and innovative solutions to end users across a wide spectrum of devices, including through Ultrabook devices, smartphones and digital media. [Link]

Next Patent Office Location

  • Many cities would like to be the next location of USPTO's next satellite office, including Austin, Texas, Denver, Boston, Silicon Valley and now Las Vegas. It seems that the USPTO has set a deadline for groups and individuals to submit written pitches for why their cities should get a satellite office. The patent office, in soliciting proposals, listed five areas that would play a large role in the selection. Those areas included improved recruiting and retention of examiners that would hinge on factors such as cost of living and number of attorneys in the field, contributions toward speeding and improving the process, and access to innovators as judged by measures such as the number of patents already held by residents in the area. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and others will draft their letter to the USPTO, explaining the advantages of Las Vegas. [Link]

Patent Jobs:

  • Nelson Mullins is searching for 1 or more new or lateral associates with a background in CS or EE to work at their Boston office. [Link]
  • Verenium is looking for a patent agent with a BS in molecular biology or biochemistry and a minimum of 5 years of experience to work at their San Diego location. [Link]
  • Vista-IP-Law-Groups is seeking a patent attorney with a background in ME or EE and at least 2 years of experience to work at their San Jose office. [Link]
  • Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is seeking electrical IP attorneys with 1-4 years of experience to work at their Washington, DC office. [Link]
  • International IP Law Group is searching for an associate, Of Counsel to prepare and prosecute patent applications at their Houston office. [Link]
  • International IP Law Group is looking for a patent engineer/agent with 2-3 years of technical experience to work at their Houston office. [Link]
  • Microsoft is seeking a patent attorney with a BS in CS or EE and at least 5 years of experience to work in their Redmond, Washington location. [Link]
  • Toler Law Group is searching for patent attorneys with a BS in EE or CS and 0-2 years of experience to work in their Austin, Texas office. [Link]
  • Kilyk & Bowersox is looking for a biochem/chem patent agent with at least 4 years of experience to work in their Warrenton, Virginia office. [Link]
  • The Webb Law Firm is seeking an associate with a BS in chemistry or chemical engineering and at least 3 years of experience as an IP attorney to work at their Pittsburgh office. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman is searching for lateral litigation associates with 1-2 years of experience to work in their Portland office. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman is seeking a patent attorney or patent agent with an advanced degree in organic chemistry and 3+ years of experience to work in their Portland office. [Link]
  • Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is searching for a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their McLean, Virginia office. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The Synopsis under IP/Patents Telecom Sourcing (SUITS) Conference will take place January 31-February 3 in Miami, Florida. The SUITS Conference was launched to advance the knowledge innovators of telecommunications including developers, implementers, licenses, licensors, end users, carriers and enterprise patents. Guest speakers include: Jeffery Dalton, Christopher Douglas, Loren Pearson, Keith Bergelt, Todd Juneau, Michael Rouleau and many others. [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute (ACI) The Comprehensive Guide to Patent Reform For Life Science Companies, conference is scheduled for January 31- February 1 in New York. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
  • AIPLA webinar, Selecting the Right Expert to Put on (or Poke Holes in) a Patentee's Case, will be held on February 1. The webinar will focus on the process of selecting a damage expert, recent cases that may influence the decision and some of the ways that a damage expert can assist with evaluating poking holes in the opposing expert's analysis. The webinar will be presented by Gillian Thackray and Philip Green. [Link]
  • The DC Bar's IP Section will host an event, Section 337 IP Investigations at the ITC: Lessons for District Court Practitioners, on February 2. The event will discuss what practitioners need to know before appearing at the ITC. Speakers include ITC Commissioner Shara Aranoff, ITC Judges Theodore Essex and Robert Rogers, Jr., Attorney Advisor to Commissioner Michael Diehl, Christine Lehman, Marcia Sundeen, Maureen Browne, and Jaime Underwood. [Link]
  • The Intellectual Property Law Section of the Utah State Bar is hosting its annual IP Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 17, 2012, at the Little America Hotel. This full day event includes two tracks of topics in various areas of IP law, lunch, and a networking reception. Confirmed speakers include Ted McAleer, Executive Director of USTAR; Robin Zhao, Jeekai & Partners; Hon. Dee V Benson, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Ted Stewart, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Virginia Kendall, US Dist. Ct for Northern Dist. of Illinois; Paul Marchegiani, NBC; Howard Michael, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Jeff Gee, Symantec; and Richard Chang, ICON. [Link]
  • The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 on London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Save $100 before January 31. [Link]
  • C5's 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conference brings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • American Conference Institute's FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI's FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of core FDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
  • American Conference Institute's PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent, , ,

2012 Student Writing Competition

  • The Virginia State Bar Intellectual Property Section is seeking papers written by law students who are attending law school in Virginia or are residents of Virginia attending law school outside of Virginia and relating to an intellectual property law issue or the practice of intellectual property law. The winner receives a cash prize of $4,000. The judge of the final round of the competitor is the Honorable Richard Linn, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The deadline for submissions is Friday, May 25, 2012 at 4:00 EDT. [Link]

New IP Message Board

  • IPtalk.pro is a new intellectual property law message board for the discussion of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and IP careers. It promises no spam, no downtime, and sensible moderation. [Link]

Intel buys IP for 120 million

  • Intel recently acquired about 190 patents, 170 patent applications, and video codec software from RealNetworks for 120 million dollars. Intel states that, the acquisition will enhance their ability to continue to offer richer experiences and innovative solutions to end users across a wide spectrum of devices, including through Ultrabook devices, smartphones and digital media. [Link]

Next Patent Office Location

  • Many cities would like to be the next location of USPTO's next satellite office, including Austin, Texas, Denver, Boston, Silicon Valley and now Las Vegas. It seems that the USPTO has set a deadline for groups and individuals to submit written pitches for why their cities should get a satellite office. The patent office, in soliciting proposals, listed five areas that would play a large role in the selection. Those areas included improved recruiting and retention of examiners that would hinge on factors such as cost of living and number of attorneys in the field, contributions toward speeding and improving the process, and access to innovators as judged by measures such as the number of patents already held by residents in the area. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and others will draft their letter to the USPTO, explaining the advantages of Las Vegas. [Link]

Patent Jobs:

  • Nelson Mullins is searching for 1 or more new or lateral associates with a background in CS or EE to work at their Boston office. [Link]
  • Verenium is looking for a patent agent with a BS in molecular biology or biochemistry and a minimum of 5 years of experience to work at their San Diego location. [Link]
  • Vista-IP-Law-Groups is seeking a patent attorney with a background in ME or EE and at least 2 years of experience to work at their San Jose office. [Link]
  • Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is seeking electrical IP attorneys with 1-4 years of experience to work at their Washington, DC office. [Link]
  • International IP Law Group is searching for an associate, Of Counsel to prepare and prosecute patent applications at their Houston office. [Link]
  • International IP Law Group is looking for a patent engineer/agent with 2-3 years of technical experience to work at their Houston office. [Link]
  • Microsoft is seeking a patent attorney with a BS in CS or EE and at least 5 years of experience to work in their Redmond, Washington location. [Link]
  • Toler Law Group is searching for patent attorneys with a BS in EE or CS and 0-2 years of experience to work in their Austin, Texas office. [Link]
  • Kilyk & Bowersox is looking for a biochem/chem patent agent with at least 4 years of experience to work in their Warrenton, Virginia office. [Link]
  • The Webb Law Firm is seeking an associate with a BS in chemistry or chemical engineering and at least 3 years of experience as an IP attorney to work at their Pittsburgh office. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman is searching for lateral litigation associates with 1-2 years of experience to work in their Portland office. [Link]
  • Klarquist Sparkman is seeking a patent attorney or patent agent with an advanced degree in organic chemistry and 3+ years of experience to work in their Portland office. [Link]
  • Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is searching for a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their McLean, Virginia office. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The Synopsis under IP/Patents Telecom Sourcing (SUITS) Conference will take place January 31-February 3 in Miami, Florida. The SUITS Conference was launched to advance the knowledge innovators of telecommunications including developers, implementers, licenses, licensors, end users, carriers and enterprise patents. Guest speakers include: Jeffery Dalton, Christopher Douglas, Loren Pearson, Keith Bergelt, Todd Juneau, Michael Rouleau and many others. [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute (ACI) The Comprehensive Guide to Patent Reform For Life Science Companies, conference is scheduled for January 31- February 1 in New York. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
  • AIPLA webinar, Selecting the Right Expert to Put on (or Poke Holes in) a Patentee's Case, will be held on February 1. The webinar will focus on the process of selecting a damage expert, recent cases that may influence the decision and some of the ways that a damage expert can assist with evaluating poking holes in the opposing expert's analysis. The webinar will be presented by Gillian Thackray and Philip Green. [Link]
  • The DC Bar's IP Section will host an event, Section 337 IP Investigations at the ITC: Lessons for District Court Practitioners, on February 2. The event will discuss what practitioners need to know before appearing at the ITC. Speakers include ITC Commissioner Shara Aranoff, ITC Judges Theodore Essex and Robert Rogers, Jr., Attorney Advisor to Commissioner Michael Diehl, Christine Lehman, Marcia Sundeen, Maureen Browne, and Jaime Underwood. [Link]
  • The Intellectual Property Law Section of the Utah State Bar is hosting its annual IP Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 17, 2012, at the Little America Hotel. This full day event includes two tracks of topics in various areas of IP law, lunch, and a networking reception. Confirmed speakers include Ted McAleer, Executive Director of USTAR; Robin Zhao, Jeekai & Partners; Hon. Dee V Benson, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Ted Stewart, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Virginia Kendall, US Dist. Ct for Northern Dist. of Illinois; Paul Marchegiani, NBC; Howard Michael, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Jeff Gee, Symantec; and Richard Chang, ICON. [Link]
  • The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 on London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Save $100 before January 31. [Link]
  • C5's 22 Forum on Biotech Patenting conference will take place March 14-15 in Munich, Germany. The conference brings together experienced in-house counsel from both innovator and generic pharma and biotech companies and their expert legal advisors from various jurisdictions across the globe. Session will cover the patentability of gene sequence patents in Europe and the US, current developments on biotech products and patent considerations for bio-deposits, and many other sessions. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • American Conference Institute's FDA Boot Camp conference is scheduled for March 20-21 in New York, NY. ACI's FDA Boot Camp has been designed to give products or patent litigators, as well as patent prosecutors, industry in-house counsel, and life sciences investment and securities experts, a strong working knowledge of core FDA competencies. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
  • American Conference Institute's PTO Procedures Under the America Invents Act conference is scheduled for March 26-27 in New York, NY. This conference will serve as a practical and tactical guide for PTO practice post-Patent Reform. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

United States Intellectual Property Organization?: Curing a Fractured Administrative Structure

Patent, ,

By Dennis Crouch

Most operating businesses that rely on intellectual property (IP) rights do not focus on a single form of rights but instead take a layered approach that includes patent law along with trademark, copyright, contractual limitations, and design rights, for instance. Each form of IP has weak points and overlapping coverage provides a greater level of certainty that any underlying market value can be protected.  Of course, overlapping rights create difficulties for users that rely upon the public domain and fair use. The bulk of governmental money spent on administering intellectual property rights goes through the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) — an executive agency housed within the Department of Commerce.  Although the PTO only administrates patent and trademark issues, the Director of the USPTO also serves as the Undersecretary of Commerce in charge of Intellectual Property and has the role of advising the President and other federal agencies on all aspects of intellectual property – including copyright law.  Of late, this role is shared somewhat with the White House Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.

Whither the Copyright Office: There is a clear structural reason why the President and executive agencies cannot rely on the US Copyright Office for advice about copyright law.  The Copyright Office is housed within the Library of Congress, which itself is managed by Congress rather than the President.  Thus the US Copyright Office does not officially represent the Administration or shape Administration policy.  This is an odd setup — especially with the rising and overlapping market role for intellectual property rights.  From a theoretical standpoint, it is unclear whether the fractured administrative structure leads to rights that are either too strong or too weak.  What we can tell is that the structure leads to a lack of coordination in administration of the various IP systems within the US.

In his 1995 Congressional testimony on the topic, Bill Patry identified the fractured structure as "an historical anomaly."

It is not the result of a judgment that the legislative branch is where the Copyright Office belongs. It occurred solely because there was a very clever, ambitious Librarian of Congress who figured out that rather than relying upon appropriated funds, which is not a great way for agencies to fund themselves, he would get free books. He got free books by convincing Congress to require publishers and authors to give the Library free books. That is how the Copyright Office got into the Library of Congress.

The answer: In 1995, the Senate proposed a solution – a United States Intellectual Property Organization (USIPO). (S. 1961).  Although the Bill did not emerge from committee at the time, the newly proposed organization would fall in line with many of our trading partners, including the UK IPO, the Canadian IPO, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Back in 1995, then Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters commented that such a move may unduly politicize the Copyright Office. Peters was also concerned that the historic and humanist value of the copyright registry would be soiled if joined with the commerce-focused patent and trademark administrators.

Bill Patry testified before the Senate in support of the concept of the USIPO and argued that the Copyright Office functions are executive not legislative:

Well, the Office doesn't perform any legislative functions. Why should it remain in the legislative branch? The answer that you are given is essentially that is the way it has always been and we like it that way. But if you have go the two other forms of intellectual property … why should the third one be over here and on the other side of the Potomac? It is really a quaint sort of nostalgia for the past. It is an obstacle for the future.

Members of Congress also expressed reticence about giving up direct control of the office. At the time, the Intellectual Property Owners Association and AIPLA suggested "further study."

In the years since 1995, we have seen a great convergence in the marketplace role of the various intellectual property schemes. It seems to me that the time is ripe to consider the issue once again.

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent, , , , ,

Microsoft and LG Sign Patent Agreement

  • Microsoft and LG singed a patent agreement that provides coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for LG's tablets, mobile phones and other products that runs on the Android Platform. Microsoft claims that more than 70% of all Android smartphones sold in the US are now receiving coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio. It has been estimated that more than 700,000 Android based devices are sold every day and analyst have predicted that the number will reach 2.5 million devices per day. [Link] Microsoft most likely receives anywhere from $5-$15 dollars per device sold, meaning Microsoft makes $2.45 million-$7.35 million every day from Android operated phones. [Link]

Wal-Mart and Entrepreneurs

  • Wal-Mart has launched a "Get on the Shelf" contest to find the next new thing to put on their shelves. The contest is limited to categories that Wal-Mart carries, which makes the contest open to all kind of entrepreneurs. There will be 3 winners picked and their items will be sold on Walmart.com, with the grand prize winner being featured on the site's home page and stocked n select Wal-Mart stores. The public will vote for their favorite products, similar to other contest such as American Idol. [Link]

National Medal of Technology and Innovation

  • The PTO is seeking nominations for the 2012 National Medal of Technology and Innovation. The medal is presented by the President and is the highest award for technological achievement in the US. The medal is awarded to individuals, teams of up to 4, or companies for their contribution to America's economic, environmental, and social well-being. [Link]

Patent Jobs:

  • Cardinal Intellectual Property is seeking a patent search attorney to work at their Evanston, Illinois location. [Link]
  • Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is looking for a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their McLean, Virginia office. [Link]
  • Cardinal Intellectual Property is searching for patent search professional to work remotely. [Link]
  • DIRECTV is seeking a senior patent analysis counsel with 6+ years of experience to work at their El Segundo, California location. [Link]
  • Dority & Manning is seeking patent attorneys with 1-4 years of experience and a BSEE or BSME to work at their Greenville, SC office. [Link]
  • The Sughrue Firm is searching for patent agents with 1-2 years of experience and backgrounds in computer science of software to work in their Silicon Valley office. [Link]
  • Whirlpool is seeking a patent agent with a minimum of 2 years of experience and a BS in engineering to work at their Saint Joseph, Michigan location. [Link]
  • Hiscock & Barclay is seeking patent agents/attorneys with a minimum of 3-5 years of experience to work at their New York offices. [Link]
  • Steptoe & Johnson is searching for IP associates with a minimum of 4 years of experience in patent litigation and a technical background to work in their DC or Chicago offices. [Link]
  • Edell, Shapiro & Finnan is looking for a patent attorney with 2+ years of experience and a degree in EE or physics to work at their Rockville, Maryland office. [Link]
  • Michael Best & Friedrich is seeking a biotech associate with 5+ years of experience and a Ph.D. to work at their Madison, Milwaukee or Chicago office. [Link]
  • Intellectual Ventures and Invention Law Group is looking for a Chief Policy Counsel with 15+ years of experience to work at their Bellevue, Washington location. [Link]
  • Telesign is seeking a IP analyst with 2+ years of experience to work at their Marina Del Rey, California location. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law, Young Lawyers Division, ABA-IPL Young Lawyers Action Group and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education will sponsor a webinar on January 20 at 1 p.m. Eastern time. The webinar, Prosecution Strategies: Tackling USPTO Obviousness Rejections will explore how the KSR standards have been applied in various technology areas and provide guidance for effective avenues of argument based on the technology area. Speakers include: Janet Hendrickson, Gregory Hillyer, Michelle O'Brien, and Zachary Stern. [Link]
  • American University Washington College of Law Administrative Law Review will be hosting an afternoon symposium on January 25 on the creation and administration of a new trial-like review procedure, more commonly known as post-grant patent opposition, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, titled Regulating Innovation: How the Patent and Trademark Office Intends to Create Adjudication From Scratch. The symposium will explore the rulemaking that will be required of the agency, the implementation of the post-grant review process, and industry reaction to the proposed changes.
  • International IP- Is the IP World Flat? Santa Clara Computer & High Tech Law Journal is hosting its annual symposium January 27 on SCU Campus. The symposium will include the following 4 panels: (1) International Patent Harmonization; (2) Non Practicing Entities: Going Global; (3) The Rise of Chinese IP; and (4) Comparative e-Privacy Regimes. Speakers include: David Abrams, Colleen Chien, Nancy Kremers, Francois Gilbert and many others. Also, PatentlyO's Dennis Crouch will be a Speaker discussing International Patent Harmonization. [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute (ACI) The Comprehensive Guide to Patent Reform For Life Science Companies, conference is scheduled for January 31- February 1 in New York. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
  • AIPLA webinar, Selecting the Right Expert to Put on (or Poke Holes in) a Patentee's Case, will be held on February 1. The webinar will focus on the process of selecting a damage expert, recent cases that may influence the decision and some of the ways that a damage expert can assist with evaluating poking holes in the opposing expert's analysis. The webinar will be presented by Gillian Thackray and Philip Green. [Link]
  • The DC Bar's IP Section will host an event, Section 337 IP Investigations at the ITC: Lessons for District Court Practitioners, on February 2. The event will discuss what practitioners need to know before appearing at the ITC. Speakers include ITC Commissioner Shara Aranoff, ITC Judges Theodore Essex and Robert Rogers, Jr., Attorney Advisor to Commissioner Michael Diehl, Christine Lehman, Marcia Sundeen, Maureen Browne, and Jaime Underwood. [Link]
  • The Intellectual Property Law Section of the Utah State Bar is hosting its annual IP Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 17, 2012, at the Little America Hotel. This full day event includes two tracks of topics in various areas of IP law, lunch, and a networking reception. Confirmed speakers include Ted McAleer, Executive Director of USTAR; Robin Zhao, Jeekai & Partners; Hon. Dee V Benson, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Ted Stewart, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Virginia Kendall, US Dist. Ct for Northern Dist. of Illinois; Paul Marchegiani, NBC; Howard Michael, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Jeff Gee, Symantec; and Richard Chang, ICON. [Link]
  • The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 on London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Save $100 before January 31. [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Patent, , , , ,

Microsoft and LG Sign Patent Agreement

  • Microsoft and LG singed a patent agreement that provides coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for LG's tablets, mobile phones and other products that runs on the Android Platform. Microsoft claims that more than 70% of all Android smartphones sold in the US are now receiving coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio. It has been estimated that more than 700,000 Android based devices are sold every day and analyst have predicted that the number will reach 2.5 million devices per day. [Link] Microsoft most likely receives anywhere from $5-$15 dollars per device sold, meaning Microsoft makes $2.45 million-$7.35 million every day from Android operated phones. [Link]

Wal-Mart and Entrepreneurs

  • Wal-Mart has launched a "Get on the Shelf" contest to find the next new thing to put on their shelves. The contest is limited to categories that Wal-Mart carries, which makes the contest open to all kind of entrepreneurs. There will be 3 winners picked and their items will be sold on Walmart.com, with the grand prize winner being featured on the site's home page and stocked n select Wal-Mart stores. The public will vote for their favorite products, similar to other contest such as American Idol. [Link]

National Medal of Technology and Innovation

  • The PTO is seeking nominations for the 2012 National Medal of Technology and Innovation. The medal is presented by the President and is the highest award for technological achievement in the US. The medal is awarded to individuals, teams of up to 4, or companies for their contribution to America's economic, environmental, and social well-being. [Link]

Patent Jobs:

  • Cardinal Intellectual Property is seeking a patent search attorney to work at their Evanston, Illinois location. [Link]
  • Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole is looking for a patent attorney with 2-4 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their McLean, Virginia office. [Link]
  • Cardinal Intellectual Property is searching for patent search professional to work remotely. [Link]
  • DIRECTV is seeking a senior patent analysis counsel with 6+ years of experience to work at their El Segundo, California location. [Link]
  • Dority & Manning is seeking patent attorneys with 1-4 years of experience and a BSEE or BSME to work at their Greenville, SC office. [Link]
  • The Sughrue Firm is searching for patent agents with 1-2 years of experience and backgrounds in computer science of software to work in their Silicon Valley office. [Link]
  • Whirlpool is seeking a patent agent with a minimum of 2 years of experience and a BS in engineering to work at their Saint Joseph, Michigan location. [Link]
  • Hiscock & Barclay is seeking patent agents/attorneys with a minimum of 3-5 years of experience to work at their New York offices. [Link]
  • Steptoe & Johnson is searching for IP associates with a minimum of 4 years of experience in patent litigation and a technical background to work in their DC or Chicago offices. [Link]
  • Edell, Shapiro & Finnan is looking for a patent attorney with 2+ years of experience and a degree in EE or physics to work at their Rockville, Maryland office. [Link]
  • Michael Best & Friedrich is seeking a biotech associate with 5+ years of experience and a Ph.D. to work at their Madison, Milwaukee or Chicago office. [Link]
  • Intellectual Ventures and Invention Law Group is looking for a Chief Policy Counsel with 15+ years of experience to work at their Bellevue, Washington location. [Link]
  • Telesign is seeking a IP analyst with 2+ years of experience to work at their Marina Del Rey, California location. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • The American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law, Young Lawyers Division, ABA-IPL Young Lawyers Action Group and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education will sponsor a webinar on January 20 at 1 p.m. Eastern time. The webinar, Prosecution Strategies: Tackling USPTO Obviousness Rejections will explore how the KSR standards have been applied in various technology areas and provide guidance for effective avenues of argument based on the technology area. Speakers include: Janet Hendrickson, Gregory Hillyer, Michelle O'Brien, and Zachary Stern. [Link]
  • American University Washington College of Law Administrative Law Review will be hosting an afternoon symposium on January 25 on the creation and administration of a new trial-like review procedure, more commonly known as post-grant patent opposition, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, titled Regulating Innovation: How the Patent and Trademark Office Intends to Create Adjudication From Scratch. The symposium will explore the rulemaking that will be required of the agency, the implementation of the post-grant review process, and industry reaction to the proposed changes.
  • International IP- Is the IP World Flat? Santa Clara Computer & High Tech Law Journal is hosting its annual symposium January 27 on SCU Campus. The symposium will include the following 4 panels: (1) International Patent Harmonization; (2) Non Practicing Entities: Going Global; (3) The Rise of Chinese IP; and (4) Comparative e-Privacy Regimes. Speakers include: David Abrams, Colleen Chien, Nancy Kremers, Francois Gilbert and many others. Also, PatentlyO's Dennis Crouch will be a Speaker discussing International Patent Harmonization. [Link]
  • The American Conference Institute (ACI) The Comprehensive Guide to Patent Reform For Life Science Companies, conference is scheduled for January 31- February 1 in New York. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
  • AIPLA webinar, Selecting the Right Expert to Put on (or Poke Holes in) a Patentee's Case, will be held on February 1. The webinar will focus on the process of selecting a damage expert, recent cases that may influence the decision and some of the ways that a damage expert can assist with evaluating poking holes in the opposing expert's analysis. The webinar will be presented by Gillian Thackray and Philip Green. [Link]
  • The DC Bar's IP Section will host an event, Section 337 IP Investigations at the ITC: Lessons for District Court Practitioners, on February 2. The event will discuss what practitioners need to know before appearing at the ITC. Speakers include ITC Commissioner Shara Aranoff, ITC Judges Theodore Essex and Robert Rogers, Jr., Attorney Advisor to Commissioner Michael Diehl, Christine Lehman, Marcia Sundeen, Maureen Browne, and Jaime Underwood. [Link]
  • The Intellectual Property Law Section of the Utah State Bar is hosting its annual IP Summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 17, 2012, at the Little America Hotel. This full day event includes two tracks of topics in various areas of IP law, lunch, and a networking reception. Confirmed speakers include Ted McAleer, Executive Director of USTAR; Robin Zhao, Jeekai & Partners; Hon. Dee V Benson, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Ted Stewart, US Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Utah; Hon. Virginia Kendall, US Dist. Ct for Northern Dist. of Illinois; Paul Marchegiani, NBC; Howard Michael, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Jeff Gee, Symantec; and Richard Chang, ICON. [Link]
  • The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 on London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
  • LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Save $100 before January 31. [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

Guest Post: Should you Submit Third-Party Prior Art?

Patent, , , , , , , , , , ,

By Paul Morgan

Introduction and Summary

On January 5 the PTO proposed a new 37 CFR §1.290 in the Federal Register for third party pre-issuance submissions of prior art in patent applications of others. The new rule is needed to implement the new statutory provision – 35 U.S.C. §122(e) – found in Section 8 of the AIA [Leahy Smith America Invents Act]. 35 U.S.C. §122(e) will be effective as of September 16, 2012, and will be usable against any pending applications [including reissues but not reexaminations] filed before or after that date. It will permit anyone to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications, to the USPTO for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application as long as the submission includes a "concise statement of relevance" and meets some other paperwork requirements, which need not be discussed here since they will be clearly spelled out in the final PTO rules. As discussed below, §122(e) includes a significant expansion of the time period for submitting prior art documents to be put into someone else's pending application. The statute also expands what you can say about the documents (accompanying explanations and arguments) well beyond the present limitations found in 37 CFR §1.99. The submission process will remain cheap and simple, but it will still present the same conundrums as to whether or not you should use it?

In the same Federal Register is the proposed PTO rulemaking for amending 37 CFR §1.501 to accommodate the amendment of 35 U.S.C. §301. This amendment will slightly expand what information anyone can submit to the USPTO for inclusion in an already issued patent file when accompanied by a written explanation regarding the "pertinency and manner of applying" the information to at least one patent claim. That expand [new] information which can be put into an issued patent file will include written statements made by the patent owner before a Federal court or the Office regarding the scope of any claim of the patent. But the Office's use of such written statements will be limited to determining the meaning of a patent claim in reexamination proceedings and post grant review proceedings. This provision is also effective on September 16, 2012.

The Present Situation [PRE AIA]

First keep in mind that the PTO considers it to be actionable unethical conduct to put any papers into anyone else's ex parte [normal] patent application file unless there is an express statutory basis for doing so. Furthermore, papers attempted to be filed in a reexamination in which you are not a party [other than just the initial request papers for an ex parte reexamination], will not be entered. Adverse prior art submissions for anything in the PTO are quite restricted.

37 CFR §1.291 "Protests by the public against pending applications" and 37 CFR §1.292 "Public use proceedings" have existed for many years, but have been rarely used, and I suspect that few PTO practitioners or PTO personnel have ever seen one. Some senior PTO officials I asked at a CLE meeting several years ago doubted if there had been more than a handful per year. The rare Rule 292 proceedings are mostly used in connection with a parallel interference. Rule 291's potential usage was significantly restricted when the statute providing for U.S. 18 month application publications went into effect, ending Rule 291 "protest" filing opportunities after an application publication date.

The PTO at that time also put severe rule constraints that were not statutorily required into a 37 CFR §1.99 limiting what could be submitted and when. Rule 99 has a short time limit of only two months following the application publication date. Rule 99 also expressly states at (d) that a "submission under this section shall not include any explanation of the patents or publications, or any other information. The Office will not enter such explanation or information if included in a submission under this section." There is also a limit of 10 submitted documents. The PTO even threatened to reject submitted prior art patent copies if they were merely marked or high-lined to show the examiner where the relevant teaching or disclosure was buried in the patent! It seemed obvious to me at that time that the PTO did not really want to be bothered with any extra examiner work from third party prior art submissions. [The AIA has now at least made it clear that that is not quite what Congress has in mind.] An English language translation must be provided for all relevant portions of any listed non-English language document to be considered by the examiner, and that requirement will continue under the proposed new rules. Some patent attorneys reportedly consider it preferable to just send prior art to an applicant's patent attorney by registered mail and rely on the inequitable conduct concerns of that patent attorney to get that patent attorney to file the prior art the application, or to set up an IC defense if they do not.

35 U.S.C. §301 above [with its original 37 CFR §1.501] was enacted years ago accompanying the first [ex parte] reexamination system. It is simply to allow people to place prior art in an issued patent file without having to initiate a reexamination, so that the art might hopefully be considered if anyone subsequently requested a reexamination. It is understood that §301 has rarely been used, and I am not aware of any PTO statistics to the contrary, even though §301 says that it can be done anonymously. My very limited experience was that the PTO clerical staff did not know what to do with the [rare] §301 submittal and it was not placed in the patent file until we made follow-up efforts. [A copy of the PTO submittal mailed to the patent owner was helpful for a licensing discussion, but I wouldn't count on that happening often.]

What's New?

New 35 U.S.C.122(e)(1) and its proposed new rule 37 CFR §1.290 will greatly expand when you can legally put prior art into someone else's pending application file. As shown below, that is awkwardly expressed as "before the earlier of .. or the later of" three events in an application. But clearly it will normally be available for a much longer time period than the mere 2 months after a patent application is published of present Rule 99. It may be submittable for several years for applications not yet having a first office action with a claim rejection, as long as there is as yet no notice of allowance. Nor can the present unreasonable Rule 99 prevention of any explanations or comments on the submitted art remain, since "a concise description of the asserted relevance of each submitted document" is specifically required by this new statute:

(e) Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties-

(1) IN GENERAL- Any third party may submit for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patent, published patent application, or other printed publication of potential relevance to the examination of the application, if such submission is made in writing before the earlier of–

(A) the date a notice of allowance under section 151 is given or mailed in the application for patent; or

(B) the later of–

(i) 6 months after the date on which the application for patent is first published under section 122 by the Office, or

(ii) the date of the first rejection under section 132 of any claim by the examiner during the examination of the application for patent.

(2) OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Any submission under paragraph (1) shall–

(A) set forth a concise description of the asserted relevance of each submitted document;

(B) be accompanied by such fee as the Director may prescribe; and

(C) include a statement by the person making such submission affirming that the submission was made in compliance with this section.

As noted, the proposed amended 37 CFR §1.501 for the AIA amendment of 35 U.S.C. §301 will just slightly add to the information can be submitted to the PTO to merely put into an issued patent file. That information can now comprise or include written statements made by the patent owner before a Federal court or the Office regarding the scope of any claim of the patent, and that information can supposedly be used in subsequent actual reexaminations. However, even if that made sense tactically or strategically in some situation, perhaps in anticipation of a potential ex parte reexamination initiated by the patent owner itself, I fail to see how that kind of material can affect that many reexaminations? The Fed. Cir. requirement that claim scope in a reexamination apply a "broadest reasonable interpretation" test is not the same as claim interpretation in patent litigation.

But Do You Really Want To Do It & How Likely Is the Overall Usage?

How likely is it that this somewhat increased opportunity to cite prior art in applications or patent files of others will be used? That depends largely on whether you think doing so is really a good idea or not. That obviously includes guessing how likely is a regular examiner in normal ex parte patent examination [not a reexamination] going to consider and apply that prior art to reject claims? A prior statistical study published by Prof. Crouch on his Patently-O blog of a low examiner usage rate of prior art cited by the applicants themselves is not encouraging. But perhaps a novel third party submission is more likely to get an examiner's attention and claim rejections than routine applicant IDS dumps?

Even if that effectiveness was predictable, there is clearly a serious risk in third party submissions of art into applications of others under any system. It will case the application owner to think that someone else thinks their patent application is important enough be worth attacking its claim scope. That is logically going to cause the patent application owner to put extra effort into getting that application allowed, with broad and variable scope claims, including possible RCE's and appeals if necessary, and possibly filing and keeping divisionals and continuations pending. Furthermore, the claims can be amended to distinguish the third party cited art without incurring "intervening rights" as would be the case in a reexamination. While the third parties citing the prior art do not face dangerous estoppels [as in inter partes reexaminations or PGR] they do risk greatly strengthening the enforceability of the resultant patent against that or similar prior art if not all potentially infringed claims are finally rejected.

The rare use of any of the present third party prior art submission systems does not suggest their likely future use, [unlike the increasing use of reexaminations]. The PTO has apparently never kept statistics on the number of prior art filings in other peoples patent applications under present 37 CFR 1.99 (in force since 2000), or otherwise. But I was cognizant of a docketing operation that was handling thousands of pending patent applications, and only one such third party prior art submission was ever identified as being filed against any of those thousands of U.S. applications [excluding those in interferences] and it was not successful in getting any claims rejected.

Perhaps there will be somewhat higher usage and success rates for the new 35 U.S.C.122(e)(1) and 37 CFR §1.290 because it will allow attached explanations of the relevance of the cited art. But until that is demonstrated, the conservative tendency of patent attorneys to save prior art defenses until they think they can be used more effectively later, especially in an inter partes reexamination [where the patent owner cannot make completely unchallenged ex parte arguments against the cited art] seems likely to prevail.

There is of course an academic myth, supported by some companies presumably for its PR value, that was at play in the lead-up to these AIA changes. Namely a strange inherent assumption that large numbers of the public have nothing better to do with their time and money than to undertake the tens of thousands of prior art searches and claim-relevant submissions that would be needed to have any significant effect on patent examination quality for the more than 500,000 patent applications a year, even though they are not aware of any that could ever threaten any of their products. A mere couple of hundred patent applications were provided with prior art submissions under a pilot "Peer to Patent" system, despite all its publicity, of which only a minority resulted in claims being rejected using the submitted prior art.

As usual, I would appreciate comments from others with relevant information on these subjects.

How does the USPTO Investigate Allegations of Misconduct?

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In this post, I discuss the process that the PTO follows in investigating allegations of attorney or agent misconduct. In addition, I review two recent disciplinary decisions. Both involve the submission of information disclosure statement. In one case, the attorney improperly submitted documents subject to a litigation protective order. In the other case, the attorney improperly submitted prior art documents without properly reading and reviewing the documents.

In the recent proposed rule on the statute of limitations for USPTO disciplinary proceedings, new Office of Enrollment and Discipline director William Covey provided a nice summary of the process that his office uses to investigate allegations of improper conduct by registered patent practitioners.

Generally speaking, there are four steps taken by the OED Director prior to the filing of a Sec. 11.32 disciplinary complaint against a practitioner:

  1. Preliminary screening of the allegations made against the practitioner, see Sec. 11.22(d);
  2. requesting of information from the practitioner about his or her alleged conduct, see Sec. 11.22(f)(1)(ii);
  3. conducting a thorough investigation after providing the practitioner an opportunity to respond to the allegations, see Sec. 11.22(a); and
  4. submitting the investigated case to the Committee on Discipline for a determination of whether there is probable cause to bring charges against the practitioner, see Sec. 11.32.

The first step is the preliminary screening of allegations to evaluate whether they merit providing the practitioner the opportunity to address them. Allegations are often incomplete and do not provide the OED Director with a full picture of what may have transpired. In other words, mere allegations do not necessarily provide the OED Director with a reasonable basis for automatically seeking information from the practitioner regarding a possible ethical violation; therefore, the OED Director always conducts an initial review of the allegations. Moreover, the OED Director recognizes that issuing a request for information to the practitioner–the second step–typically triggers anxiety for the practitioner, may interfere with the practitioner's practice, and may cause the practitioner to incur legal expenses in responding to investigative inquiries by OED. For this reason also, OED does not contact the practitioner automatically upon receipt of information alleging a practitioner committed an ethical violation. In short, the OED Director seeks the practitioner's side of the story, if at all, only after the OED Director preliminarily screens the information and determines that possible grounds for discipline exist. See 37 CFR 11.22(d).

During the preliminary screening process, an OED staff attorney reviews the allegations to determine whether they implicate any of the Disciplinary Rules of the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility. To this end, the attorney may seek out additional evidence (review Office records, request additional information from the person making the allegations or from third persons, etc.) to ensure that the matter is disciplinary in nature and the allegations are supported by objective evidence.

The OED's preliminary screening may obviate the need to seek information from the practitioner because the screening often reveals that the allegations do not present a basis for filing a Sec. 11.32 disciplinary action against the practitioner. Under such circumstances, the OED Director closes the case without contacting the practitioner. Hence, the preliminary screening helps ensure that a practitioner is not subjected to a premature request for information or its attendant stress, turmoil, and cost. The screening also ensures that the Office does not expend its limited resources seeking information from a practitioner unnecessarily.

After the preliminary screening, if the OED Director determines that the allegations establish possible grounds for discipline, the OED Director seeks the practitioner's side of the story–the second step prior to filing a Sec. 11.32 action. Specifically, the OED Director requests information or evidence from the practitioner pursuant to Sec. 11.22(f)(1)(ii). The practitioner will then have an opportunity to respond to the allegations levied against him or her. Typically, the OED Director does not and cannot have sufficient information to complete a thorough investigation–the third step–before the practitioner has had the opportunity to present his or her side of the story.

Based on current caseload and staffing levels, the OED Director has set a goal to complete the preliminary screening and issue a Sec. 11.22(f)(1)(ii) request, when warranted, to the practitioner under investigation within 60 calendar days of the initial receipt by the OED Director of information suggesting possible misconduct. OED will allow the practitioner 30 calendar days to provide a complete, written response and, as discussed below, may grant a reasonable request for an extension of time to respond.

A complete response to an initial Sec. 11.22(f) request frequently raises factual issues that require further investigation before the OED Director can determine whether actual grounds for discipline exist. Hence, after the OED Director receives the practitioner's response to the Sec. 11.22(f)(1)(ii) request, the OED Director moves to the third step: conducting a thorough investigation of the allegations to uncover all relevant incriminating and exculpating evidence. The third step is time-consuming because it involves the OED Director undertaking a thorough fact-finding (e.g., reviewing issues raised for the first time by the practitioner, obtaining information from any person who may be reasonably expected to provide information or evidence in connection with the investigation pursuant to Sec. 11.22(f)(iii) and from non-grieving clients pursuant to Sec. 11.22(f)(2)) and performing legal analyses of issues. It is in the interests of the public as well as the practitioner under investigation that OED conduct a thorough investigation prior to determining whether the matter should be submitted to the Committee on Discipline pursuant to Sec. 11.32. Hence, such additional follow-up investigative and legal work can take several months to complete.

After completing an investigation of the allegations against a practitioner, the OED Director has the authority to close the investigation without pursuing disciplinary action, issue a warning to the practitioner, enter into a proposed settlement agreement with the practitioner, or convene the Committee on Discipline to determine whether there is probable cause to file a Sec. 11.32 action against the practitioner. See 37 CFR 11.22(h). Based on current caseload and staffing levels, the OED Director has set a goal to submit a matter to the Committee on Discipline for a probable cause determination–the fourth step–within 10 months of the initial receipt by the OED Director of the allegations that a practitioner engaged in misconduct.

Over the past year, the USPTO OED has issued 38 Disciplinary Orders.  Most of the disciplinary problems come from mishandling of client funds, failure to communicate with clients, unauthorized practice of trademark law (for patent agents), and criminal convictions. However, two recent disciplinary orders relate directly to patent practice decisions relating to difficult issues that regularly arise for patent practitioners. Neither case involves any morality judgment, but both resulted in the (stipulated) finding of a violation of the USPTO's code of conduct.  

Conflict created by Parallel Litigation and Reexamination: One recent order involves a "public reprimand" of John Janka. Janka was put a tough position because his client's patent was being simultaneously litigated and reexamined (inter partes). Janka prepared and caused-to-be-filed an IDS in the reexamination that contained material subject to a protective order in the litigation. In addition, Janka sent the confidential documents to another patent practitioner (and asked him to file the IDS) without first obtaining guidance from the district court regarding the protective order. The district court later ruled that these actions violated the protective order. As part of a settlement, Janka agreed with the USPTO that these actions show a violation of 37 C.F.R. § 10.77(b) (handling a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances).

This is a tough case because Janka is obviously under conflicting duties—to both obey the district court's protective order and to disclose material information to the USPTO. The best course of action in this situation would have been to ask the court to lift the protective order regarding the material information. If the court refuses, the patent attorney may have to withdraw from the case. (As an aside, the patentee won both the litigation and the reexamination).

Submitting IDS without reading documents: In a related OED settlement, William Bollman agreed to a 24-month probationary period. Bollman – himself a very experienced patent prosecutor – was the attorney who actually filed the IDS for Mr. Janka.  Bollman admitted that he did not actually read, review, or inspect the six boxes of documents that he received from Janka and filed at the PTO. The order includes the following statement: 

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)(2)(i)[], a registered practitioner who presents a paper to the Office [implicitly] certifies to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances that, inter alia, the paper is not being presented for any improper purpose. A practitioner who submits an information disclosure statement without inspecting the submitted documents -i.e., merely acts as a conduit for another person – is considered to have made a false certification to the Office.

This rule follows former OED director Harry Moatz's 2008 statements regarding the submission of papers without proper inspection by the patent law professional responsible for the filing. 

Have you submitted an IDS without reading and reviewing the submitted documents?

The text of of the rule is provided below.

37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b). By presenting to the Office … any paper, the party presenting such paper, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, is certifying that—

(1) All statements made therein of the party's own knowledge are true, all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to be true, and all statements made therein are made with the knowledge that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Office, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or knowingly and willfully makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be subject to the penalties set forth under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and any other applicable criminal statute, and violations of the provisions of this section may jeopardize the probative value of the paper; and

(2) To the best of the party's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,

(i) The paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass someone or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office;

(ii) The other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(iii) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(iv) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

Estimate: Fewer than 26,000 Active US Patent Attorneys & Agents

Patent, ,

by Dennis Crouch

USPTO records identify about 41,800 active registered patent practitioners.  That number is obviously wrong because many folks have retired from the practice of patent law or even passed-away in the many years since the many years since the USPTO last conducted a survey of active practitioners. Because the PTO has no CLE requirement or regular registration fee, non-practitioners often stay on the rolls even when they should have been dropped.

The Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) has a new director — William Covey — who has initiated a new survey of practitioners that will attempt to refresh the rolls. The USPTO will begin mailing survey letters later this month to practioners whose registration numbers are below 25,000.  A response must be returned to the PTO within 45–days in order to remain on the rolls.  Questions can be sent to: OED@USPTO.gov.

In addition to this survey, I am looking to find the rough number of patent attorneys that are actively practicing before the PTO.  As a first cut, I decided to identify all of the registered practitioners associated with one or more recently filed patent applications.  To do this, I pulled up the PAIR files of 47,000 of the patent applications that published in the calendar year 2011. (This represents about 15% of the applications published that year).  Using those documents, I identified all of the patent attorneys associated with each application (usually by PTO customer number). 

It turns out that this group of 47,000 patent applications is associated with about 21,500 patent practitioners — just over half of the 41,800 practitioners on file at the PTO.  Based on my rudimentary stats, this projects-out to an estimate of fewer than 26,000 patent practitioners associated with at least one application published in 2011.

As an aside, about 82% of these active practitioners are registered as attorneys and the remaining 18% as agents.  Not surprisingly, agents have a much greater drop-out rate than attorneys. About 8% of the applications listed no professional.

Notes:

  • I'm planning to work these numbers up a couple of different ways and would appreciate comments or suggestions. dcrouch@patentlyo.com
  • If anyone would like to help with the population estimate based on my sample, please let me know. The problem is a bit tricky because each attorney may be associated with any number of applications and each application may be associated with any number of attorneys. You can download the raw data listing each attorney for each application in my sample. [qryExportFile.zip]

  

New Detroit Office

Patent,

Patent2011061

The USPTO has announced that the new Detroit Branch of the USPTO will be located in the old Parke-Davis Lab on River Place Drive and next to the Detroit Riverwalk. The office is expected open by July 2012 and emply about 100 individuals –  mainly patent examiner.  Prospective employees can e-mail detroitHiring@uspto.gov.  The new site is next-door to an Omni Hotel.

The City of Detroit has a population of about 700,000 — that includes only 21 active patent practitioners. General Motors is the only entity with a significant patent-attorney presence in the city proper.  However, the surrounding suburban area is thick with patent law professionals.  The Detriot site makes economic sense because the of the access to highly-trained but under-employed engineers, low cost of living, and low cost of commercial real estate. 

The USPTO is in the process of selecting two additional satellite offices.  Public comments on the location of the next two satellite offices is due by January 30, 2012 to satelliteoffices@uspto.gov.

 


View Larger Map

Patent2011060

Preliminary Report on Track I: Prioritized Patent Examination Program

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

The USPTO’s new Commissioner for Patents is Peggy Focarino. In a recent post to Dir. Kappos Blog, Commissioner Focariono provided a report on the PTO’s “Track I Prioritized Patent Examination Program.” Under Track I, a patent applicant can complete a simple one page form and pay a $4,800 fee to have their patents processed quickly. The goal is that patents will be “processed to completion” within 12-months of an application entering the Track I program. Track I was authorized by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that was enacted on September 16, 2011. The program became effective on September 26, 2011.

As of January 3, 1,694 Track I petitions applications had been filed and the Office has granted 99% of the petitions it has decided. First office actions are being sent – on average – about one month after approval of the petition. So far, the longest delay has been 70 days from grant of the petition to mailing of the first office action.

* * * *

This morning I identified the first Track I patent issued thus far – U.S. Patent No. 8,094,942 owned by Google and directed to a method and system of character recognition for overlapping textual user input. The application was filed on September 30, 2011 along with a Track I request. The request was granted on November 1, 2011. The applicant then filed an IDS and a proactive terminal disclaimer associated with a parent case. The case was handled by a primary examiner who had handled the parent case and who allowed the claims with examiner-proposed amendments following an interview.

* * * *

Commissioner Focariono added the following note to her post: “For those applicants or practitioners concerned about whether Track I applications will be treated differently from others in terms of grant/denial rate, our examiners are being given exactly the same training, credits and incentives to accurately examine Track I cases as for all other cases, and no training, credits or incentives are being given to bias examiner decisions in any way. And as for the data, given the statistics provided above, so far there is no basis to believe there is any difference in result for Track I versus non-Track I processing, other than the significantly faster responsiveness.”

Chief Judge Rader & Band DeNovo to “Rock” San Diego’s House of Blues

Patent,

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

Aside from his international and national speaking tours, Chief Judge Rader recently embarked on a musical “tour” with his band, DeNovo. After playing a few IP-related events and a recent Federal Circuit holiday party, DeNovo—which also includes Professor Sean O’Connor of the University of Washington and Matthew Bryan of WIPO—is hitting the big time by playing at the House of Blues in downtown San Diego on Thursday, January 19. Bands from NuVasive and Qualcomm will open, and Dean for IP Studies at George Washington School of Law and former SG of the USPTO, John Whealan will MC. The bands are performing as part of University of San Diego’s Second Annual Patent Law Conference (click here for more info), taking place Friday, January 20. Chief Judge Rader will give the keynote address—other panelists include Judge Marilyn Huff, Judge Janis Sammartino, and Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo (Southern District of California), as well as Professors Colleen Chien, Mark Lemley, Robert Merges, Shine Tu, and John Whealan, and distinguished local attorneys.

Fed Cir HOB

2011 Patent Grants: A New Record

Patent,

By Dennis Crouch

The USPTO issued more utility patents in calendar year 2011 than in any year in history. The 2011 total – just shy of 225,000 issued patents – is only a small increase over 2010, but towers above all other historic figures. The previous record was set in 2006 with about 173,000 issued utility patents. The dramatic rise in issuance rate is not tied directly to an increase in filings (although there has been a small increase in new application filings). Rather, the two-year increase appears to be the result of regime changes instituted by USPTO Director David Kappos who took office mid-year 2009 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.

Notes:

Vote for Patently-O Today – Get Free Books! :)

Patent,

(Click here to vote)

In the final two days of voting, Patently-O needs another 150 votes to win the American Bar Association's "Favorite" IP law blog. Gene & Renee Quinn's excellent IP Watchdog took the lead in the voting during the Holiday weekend with an offering of a free patent bar review course for votes in their favor. (Nobody reads Patently-O during the Holidays). 

What can I offer?: Free books!  I receive lots of interesting and excellent books in the mail. Two that I recently received from Oxford University Press (OUP) are the U.S. Patent Prosecutor's Desk Reference by Graham and Marlow and Patent Litigation in China by Douglas Clark. Each are listed at $225. 

To enter a drawing for the books, just vote for Patently-O in the IP Law Category and let me know via e-mail by Saturday (12/31) (dcrouch@patentlyo.com).

To vote, direct your browser to http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100, complete the 15-second registration form (anon registration OK); locate the IP Law Category; and Vote.  

(Click here to vote)

Pic-107  Pic-108

For Republicans, think of this as a warm-up for next week's primary season.  For everyone else, this may be your most meaningful vote until November. 

PS: Get a second entry into the drawing by letting me know that you have posted the following to your Facebook or Twitter account: "Vote for Patently-O http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100 and mail @patentlyo to win $450 in patent law books.  Requires 15-second anon registration."

Patents, Litigation and Reexaminations

Patent, ,

By Jason Rantanen

The number of patents involved in litigation
The number of patent suits filed each year is well known.  But what about the number of patents involved in those cases?  Mark Lemley and others have estimated that about 1-2% of all issued patents have ever been litigated.  To test this estimate, I searched the LEXIS utility patents database using the LIT-REEX field to identify all patents that were flagged as the subject of litigation filed in the year 2009.*  I ended up with 3404 patents, or approximately 2% of the average number of utility patents that the PTO issued annually over the previous decade. 

This result provides further confirmation of the conventional belief that the vast majority of patents are never litigated – especially since I suspect it overstates the percentage of patents involved in litigation, as it assumes that the litigation flag is limited to just infringement suits (as opposed to inventorship disputes, for example) and it does not take into consideration the fact that some patents are the subject of multiple suits filed in different years.  

How old are these patents?
The below chart shows the age of the patents involved in suits filed in 2009.  More than half (55%) of these patents were at least five years old as of the litigation filing date; 24% were over ten years old. 

Reexams and litigation

What about reexamination requests?
The above chart also shows the number of patents involved in suits filed in 2009 that have ever been the subject of a reexamination request.  Of the 3404 total patents, LEXIS reports that reexams were requested at some point for 578 (17%).  Many of these requests were filed in 2009 or later (likely as part of a litigation strategy): 398, or 11% of the total number of patents involved in suits filed in 2009 were the subject of a reexam request in 2009, 2010, or 2011.

*I used 2009 because the 2010 and 2011 results were affected by the numerous false marking suits filed in those years.  

CAFC & TTAB: No (Excess) Leeway for Pro Se

Patent,

ImageAgentProxyBenedict v. Super Bakery (Fed. Cir. 2011)

by Dennis Crouch

Mr. Benedict from British Columbia holds the U.S. trademark registration for the mark G THE GOODYMAN – U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,966,255, granted on July 12, 2005.

Super Bakery holds U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,930,398, granted on March 8, 2005 for the word mark GOODY MAN.  Both marks are registered in International Class 30 with Benedict specifying, inter alia, “cookies, cakes, tarts, rice cakes, strudels, and donuts” and Super Bakery specifying “bakery products, namely cupcakes.”

In 2007, Super Baker filed a petition with the TTAB for cancellation of Benedict’s mark. During discovery, Super Bakery requested a number of documents and Benedict (acting pro se) failed to either object or provide the documents. Super Baker then filed a motion to compel discovery that went unopposed, followed by a motion for default judgment.  Based upon Benedict's failure to comply, the TTAB awarded Super Bakery a default judgment and cancelled Benedict's mark. 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Writing for the unanimous court, typically pro-applicant Judge Newman agreed that "The remedy of default judgment was within the Board’s discretion in view of Benedict's repeated failures to comply with established and reasonable procedures orders.” 

Although the Board did give some leeway to Mr. Benedict as a pro se applicant, Judge Newman agreed that the rules can only bend so far.  "The possession of a trademark registration places a routine obligation on the possessor [even a pro se trademark owner] to participate in reasonable procedures concerning rights or interests affected by that registration."  Here, default judgment and cancellation was appropriate based upon Benedict's "repeated failures to comply with established and reasonable procedures orders."

Notes: 

Inter Partes Re-exam Requests Continue To Rise, For Now

Patent, , , ,

By Jason Rantanen

Some of the most touted changes of the America Invents Act are its modifications to ex parte and inter partes reexaminations, modifications that are intended to fine tune these post-grant review mechanisms.  Both ex parte and inter partes reexam requests have been on the rise for the past decade, as shown by the following two graphs:

Ex parte requests

Inter partes requests 2000-2011
Inter partes reexaminations, in particular, saw a dramatic increase in popularity over the last few years. 

The above data may paint an overly rosy picture of reexams, however.  Especially with respect to inter partes reexams, I am dubious that their rapid growth will continue.  One of the AIA's most significant changes to inter partes reexams (inter partes review starting on September 16, 2012) is to raise the standard for successfully initiating a reexam from "a substantial new question of patentability" to "a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail."  This change took effect when the AIA was enacted, and may lead to a decrease in the number of inter partes reexam requests filed – or at least, a slowing down of the rapid growth in this area. 

Inter partes reexam requests may also plateau for another reason.  The PTO reports that 70% of the patents involved in inter partes reexams are known to be in litigation.  If the initiation of re-exams is largely a function of litigation, there is a soft cap on the number of potential reexams that will be initiated.  In addition, AIA limitations on inter partes reexam requests involving patents that are the subject of infringement litigation, although easily avoided with foresight, may have a depressing impact on the number of requests filed.

Source data for reexams: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/Reexamination_Information.jsp

The above graphs are corrected from an earlier version.  The original graphs treated the PTO's fiscal year as running from January to December.  It runs from October of the preceding year to September of the identified year.