Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

Like anything in life worth doing, the path of an independent inventor from initial stage idea to making money can be challenging. If it were easy then everyone would be a rich inventor. Luckily for those who have the determination to pursue innovation as a business it is not easy enough for anyone to do, which means that there are opportunities available. One of the keys to successfully making money as an inventor is understanding that those who are successful operate in a business responsible way, and this requires closely monitoring expenditure of funds. While you may want to rush out and build a prototype you need to be careful. There is nothing like the show and tell of a working prototype to lure investors, partners and licensing deals, but inventing is better viewed as a marathon than a 100 yard dash, and preserving capital is absolutely essential if you are going to be successful.

In order to have a patentable business method it is necessary for the invention to accomplish some practical application. In other words, in order for a business method to be patentable it must produce a “useful, concrete and tangible result.” Although the United States Supreme Court did away with that test when it issued its decision in Bilski v. Kappos, it is still nevertheless illustrative and the best test that is out there. If you really understand what Judge Rich meant by “useful, concrete and tangible result” you come to the inescapable conclusion that it is the appropriate test and if you really target the description of the invention to satisfy the test you will have something that is patentable under the Supreme Court Bilski v. Kappos test and the USPTO guidelines that have followed.

Funai appealed the examiner’s rejection to the PTO Board which conducted oral argument on August 18th. The CAFC’s earlier decision in favor of Funai was mentioned in passing, but the Judges seemed largely indifferent to it. Counsel for Funia remarked that “at this point the Examiner has adopted our claim construction, which was also adopted by the [ITC], which I know is not [binding] on this Board, and affirmed by the Federal Circuit.” One of the Judges spoke up “…did you say it was affirmed by the Federal Circuit?” Yes, replied counsel, “[i]t should be in the record….” The Judges and counsel then proceeded to discuss the merits of the appeal without further mention of the earlier appellate decision.

In the election yesterday the Republicans scored an enormous victory in the United States House of Representatives, gains of a still unknown number in the United States Senate, and gains in Governors’ races as well as State House and State Senate chambers across the country.  Earlier this afternoon, at 1:00 pm Eastern Time, President Barack Obama held a press conference…

As the evening moves forward it is increasingly apparent that the Republicans are having an excellent night, and exactly what the vast majority of pundits have predicted seems to be coming true. Not withstanding the potentially historic nature of this election, there will be plenty of time to consider what the election results mean in general, for business and for a variety of issues important to families; the so-called kitchen-table issues. But for tonight I will reserve my commentary to what the election results mean for patent reform. Those following my recent articles might find themselves surprised. In order to discuss the impact of patent reform we first need to define what is meant by “patent reform.” I am going to divide patent reform into two categories: (1) pending patent reform that might get consideration in the lame duck session; and (2) patent reform that we desperately need the next Congress to take up.

On Monday evening, November 1, 2010, David Kappos, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, told the Dow Jones news service: “The USPTO at the present time is maintaining the status quo. We’re continuing with current procedures as they are.” This could set up a contentious and public policy battle between the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Department of Justice. This battle of agency titans — DOJ v. DOC — comes as a result of the Department of Justice filing an amicus brief in The Association of Molecular Pathology v. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, which actually does not take the side of the USPTO, but rather says that what the USPTO is doing is wrong. Thus, in an extremely odd twist the DOJ is supporting the plaintiffs’ against the United States Patent Office.

Like it or not, the patent system is a great motivator, and used appropriately to incentivize the type of behavior we want to encourage it is a powerful tool in the government arsenal. To fundamentally alter what is considered patentable subject matter will not only negatively impact cutting edge biotechnology research, but it will also have a chilling effect. Uncertainty causes business paralysis and forces investors to the sidelines. The uncertainty that would be created by the curtailing of patentability would not be isolated to the biotechnology sector, and is exactly the opposite of what our economy presently needs.

On Friday, October 29, 2010, practically on the eve of a national election that will in all certainty be an enormous rebuke of the Obama Administration and the Democrats’ agenda in general, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that would destroy the U.S. biotechnology sector. In an astonishing and irresponsible policy shift that directly contradicts the long-standing policy of the United States federal government and a variety of agencies, the Department of Justice is promoting the dialing back of what is considered patentable subject matter and is urging the Federal Circuit to rule that “isolated but otherwise unaltered genomic DNA is not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

The Executive Director of the AIPLA, Q. Todd Dickinson, then took the stage to introduce a video that was dedicated to this year’s AIPLA Board of Directors’ Excellence Award. This year the award was given to the Honorable Chief Justice Paul R. Michel, who retired earlier this year. Dickinson explained the award was being given to him “in recognition of his extraordinary leadership and service to the United States Government and in particular his leadership of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as Chief Judge while having a distinguished career marked by intellect, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to the administration of justice.”

This is the final installment in my follow-up interview with Chief Judge Paul Michel, who retired from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit effective June 1, 2010. In some ways this might be the most interesting of all of the interview segments for those practicing in the patent arena, or those who have any reason to appear in front of the Federal Circuit. In this final installment Chief Judge Michel speaks with me about what, in his opinion, makes for effective appellate advocacy, both in terms of written briefs and in terms of oral presentation.

Like other years, the agenda is filled with great educational programs, such as commercializing intellectual property through licensing, claim drafting for beginners, advanced claim drafting, why file a provisional patent application, licensing vs. direct marketing, considerations for foreign filing, how to work with a patent practitioner and many other great sessions. There will be lunch presentations each day as well. On Thursday, November 4, 2010, the lunch speaker will be Arthur Fry, National Inventors Hall of Fame Inductee, Co-inventor of the Post It Notes. On Friday, November 5, 2010, the lunch speaker will be David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Pundits I have heard talk about the economy suggest that there is anywhere from $1 trillion to $3 trillion sitting in business bank accounts just waiting for a signal. As that money starts to go online jobs will be created, the economy will look up and consumer confidence will start to rise, all of which are critical to signal a new economic re-invigoration. I sense that 2011 will be a better year than what most are predicting because I see signs that the economy is ready to explode, waiting for good news and reason to no longer fear the unknown.

This strategy is tried and true, and any company with a serious patent portfolio and an eye toward enforcing that portfolio through licensing or litigation has followed this strategy. What you do is look at what your competitors are doing, or what that big target prospective licensee is doing, and you write a claim that exactly covers what they are doing. Then you add that specific claim to your continuation. As long as your original disclosure supports that claim you are entitled to add the claim. So if you are a serious inventor, a would-be patent troll or a business of any size with designs on licensing or litigating, you absolutely cannot cut corners at the time of filing the first, foundational patent application. You want the kitchen sink in that first patent application because if the path proves commercially viable you will want to milk the disclosure for many patents, and you will want to be able to argue convincingly that whatever claims you add later are actually covered by your initial patent application.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) have agreed to work toward the formation of a joint patent classification system. Unlike other major patent document classification systems, the U.S. patent classification system is not based on the International Patent Classification (IPC) system because it predates the IPC. One of the goals of the partnership is to align the U.S. and the EPO classification systems with the IPC, which is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency of the United Nations. The jointly developed classification system will be more detailed than the IPC to improve patent searching. As a result, the two offices would move closer to eliminating the unnecessary duplication of work between the two offices, thus promoting more efficient examinations, while also enhancing patent examination quality.

Friday afternoon I attended the second day of the AIPLA annual meeting. I got to the Marriott Wardman Park hotel at 9:00 am and was there until after 11:00 pm, for a full day of activities. I met so many interesting people while there, including the current Chief Judge Randall Rader for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,…