Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

The Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Timothy Dyk, Evan Wallach and Richard Taranto determined that the PTAB’s decision to uphold patent claims challenged by WhatsApp as nonobvious wasn’t supported by substantial evidence and that the PTAB didn’t properly consider expert testimony provided by WhatsApp… Here the prior art references that supplied all of the claim limitations and the Federal Circuit found that testimony from expert witnesses on both sides supported the idea that video and multimedia content was better at conveying more powerful messages than text or still photos.

Artificial intelligence technologies are transforming industries and improving human productivity and health. Unfortunately, the stark reality appears to be that artificial intelligence technologies are likely to be more heavily scrutinized under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and less likely to be allowed… The Court in Electric Power Group made note that: “we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”.  The authors propose that this sentence of the decision is of utmost importance in the context of patenting A.I. technology.

Despite potentially relevant Supreme Court precedent in Thomas and Granfinanciera, the better view under the weight of Supreme Court precedent with respect to patent validity, absent the recent decision by the Court in Oil States, is that determination of the validity of issued patents does not include the government as a party and, therefore, only private rights are involved.  Jurisdiction should, therefore, be solely within Article III, and preclude final determinations of patent validity as they currently exist under the AIA, as well as other post-issuance adjudication, such as interference proceedings and ex parte reexamination.  Statutory provisions for post-grant examination at the Patent Office should be limited to an advisory capacity as an adjunct to a federal district court and address only issues of fact.  Such factual determinations coming from the Patent Office should be subject to review for substantial evidence by a district court in order to pass constitutional muster under Article III. However, given that issued patents are deemed to be “public rights” and that IPRs have been upheld as constitutionally valid under Oil States, there may be no limit to the power Congress can grant to the Patent Office over the validity of patents, potentially usurping any role for the judiciary in this regard under Article III.

Looking first at patent litigation, approximately 20,000 companies have been sued for patent infringement in the U.S. since 2010; even your neighborhood restaurant is at risk. A particular global fast food chain is sued, on average, at least once a year for patent infringement. Those suits aren’t over hamburger recipes or kids’ meal toys: They’re over its mobile apps, point-of-sale technologies and other software that have nothing to do with food. Even financial and management consulting firms find themselves in the middle of trade secret, patent and copyright disputes over issues ranging from talent acquisition to website display carousels to website functionality to software the firms themselves developed.

Christopher Gordon, under the pseudonym “Randall,” released the Honey Badger movie in 2011 and the 3:20-long video has been viewed more than 89 million times. Gordon filed trademark applications to cover the use of the video’s well-known phrase Honey Badger Don’t Care in various classes including audio books, greeting cards, mugs and clothing. In 2012, Gordon hired a licensing agent who contacted American Greetings, the parent company of co-defendant Papyrus-Recycled Greetings, to discuss a potential licensing deal but those parties never agreed to a deal. Beginning in June 2012, the defendants released a series of seven greeting cards, including birthday, Halloween and election cards, which made use of the trademarked phrase Honey Badger Don’t Care and another well-known phrase from the video, Honey Badger Don’t Give A S—.

Effective December 1, 2018, electronic retrieval of priority documents between the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) will be managed via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Digital Access Service (DAS), in accordance with the WIPO DAS agreement established on April 20, 2009. The certified copy requirement is considered satisfied when a foreign priority document is retrieved electronically via the WIPO DAS service during pendency of the U.S. application. There is no fee for this service and participation for a particular application is voluntary.

Darrow became the first millionaire game inventor, thanks to royalty payments. The irony, however, is that Darrow may not have invented the game at all, but rather he may have taken a locally popular game and made only a few changes. By the time Parker Brothers realized that Darrow may not have been the true inventor the game was already a huge success. In order to protect the game and its investment the decision was made to buy up all patents and copyrights on any related game, thereby ensuring the monopoly on Monopoly®. Thus, the story of Monopoly® provides inspiration to inventors who at first are told no, and for companies who acquire intellectual property rights.

A jury in the United Stated Federal District Court for the District of Delaware recently delivered a verdict awarding nearly $24 million dollars in reasonable royalty damages to plaintiffs Bio-Rad Laboratories and the University of Chicago. Along with finding that defendant 10x Genomics had infringed upon patents covering genetic analysis technologies, the jury also found that 10x Genomics’ infringement was willful and found it “highly unprobable” (i.e., the words of the jury verdict form) that the asserted patent claims were valid.

It’s football season, so of course we should be talking about beer. Specifically, beer secrets. For fourteen years James Clark had an enviable job at Anheuser-Busch, where he had access to the brewer’s confidential recipes. For unexplained reasons he resigned. Instead of joining a competitor, he went to see a lawyer about planning a class action against his former employer for “intentionally overstating the alcohol content” of the company’s “malt beverages.”… Anheuser-Busch sued him for misappropriation of its secrets for making beer.

A trademark audit is a review of a brand owner’s current trademark portfolio to ensure that the brand owner’s trademark usage and trademark holdings are sufficient, comprehensive, and accurate. Good practices requires that a trademark audit be conducted yearly, or any time an existing trademark portfolio is acquired, even if there has already been IP due diligence. The primary goal of conducting a trademark audit is to ensure that there are no deficiencies in protection.

Despite the April 2011 priority date asserted for the ‘031 design patent, the PTAB found in its institution decision that the ‘031 patent wasn’t entitled to the priority date for the patent application resulting in the ‘838 patent because of a lack of written description support for the design claimed in the ‘031 patent… C&D Zodiac had provided evidence from a slide-show presentation shown at a B/E Aerospace Investor Day event in March 2012 which included slides (see left) depicting the Spacewall technology covered by the ‘031 patent as well as commercial success including an $800 million contract with Boeing signed in 2011.

Why in the world would the federal government want to be an active participant in invalidating patents that the USPTO grants? Does the federal government believe that an insufficient number of patents are challenged through inter partes reviews, that there is insufficient gang tackling (which occurs when another petitioner requests joinder using a near-photocopy of the original petition), or that there are insufficient serial attacks on the same patents? To put the last issue in other words, does the federal government really believe that nine attacks against some patents are needed?

When you are moving from idea to invention to patent, regardless of how or why you find yourself stuck in the idea phase, the first order of business to get the ball rolling. You need momentum. In order to get that ball rolling what you need is a strategy to help you move past the idea and learn to describe your idea with enough specifics so that it no longer is what the law would call a merely an idea.  In a nutshell, if you can describe your idea with enough detail you don’t have an idea, what you have is an invention, or at least the makings of an invention. Here are 7 concrete steps you can take to help you get from your idea, to an invention worth patenting.

It is that time of year where we annually pause as a nation, taking time out of our busy lives to visit family, watch football, eat too much turkey and other holiday foods, and read about patents that related to turkeys in one way, shape or form.  Well, most of the nation won’t be engaging in the later, but obviously you are here, it is a holiday and you are reading IPWatchdog.com. Predicting you were going to spend a portion of the day reading about patents that in some way relate to turkeys was really a lay-up in the world of predictions and prognostications!

From 2011 to 2017, patent applications at the EPO for automated driving increased by 330%, compared to 16% across all technologies in the same period, according to the study, titled “Patents and self-driving vehicles”. And in the past ten years, the EPO received some 18 000 patent applications related to self-driving vehicles, with nearly 4,000 in 2017 alone. The study also shows that half of the top 25 companies active in this field at the EPO, including the top four applicants, are not traditional automotive/transport companies, but information, communication and technology (ICT) firms.