Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

I would also like to take issue with Judge Dyk’s statement that it would simply be easier, and better, to say that anything in the preamble is limiting. Yes, that would certainly be easier and probably a better approach than the nebulous standard presently in place, but I doubt that would be to the Supreme Court’s liking given they seem to detest bright line rules, even when they make sense. I also protest such an approach because that has, as far as I can tell, never been the law, or at least not at any time during my practice career. So regardless of whether it is a better test it absolutely should not be applied retroactively to affect those rights obtained under the belief that what is in the preamble is not limiting.

While success in Phase I is critical, there are substantial hurdles to overcome yet before this vaccine could reach the market. Nevertheless, such a promising cancer vaccine ought to be heralded by everyone, right? Think again! Inovio actually has the audacity to have patents on its ground breaking innovation, which will lead the anti-patent non-thinkers to be more concerned with blowing up the patent system than rooting on Inovio and others as they attempt to eradicate cancer. Absolutely ridiculous if you ask me!

Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Goeddel v. Sugano, which might be one of a dying breed should patent reform actually pass. The case dealt with an appeal from an interference proceeding where the Board awarded priority based on a Japanese application. The Federal Circuit, per Judge Newman, explained that it was inappropriate to say that the Japanese application demonstrated a constructive reduction to practice because the application merely would allow the skilled reader to “envision” the invention covered in the interference count. If patent reform passes (and yes that could really happen) cases like Goeddel would become a thing of the past, although priority determinations like this one in Goeddel will certainly not go away.

In this second installment of my interview with current AIPLA Executive Director and former USPTO Director, Q. Todd Dickinson, we start out discussing pendency at the Patent Office. Dickinson tells me about the incentives he used to keep patent examiners as they matured into the level of experience where they are ready to really roll up their sleeves and become the work-horses that Office needs. We talk about the AIPLA position on the proposed Three Track Proposal now pending at the USPTO. We then moved into a very interesting discussion of patent reform, and a bombshell is dropped, at least in my opinion. I was surprised to hear Dickinson say that he does not think patent reform is dead for THIS legislative cycle. He says: “The clock’s running and, the plays have to be run a little faster,” but that he “can see a path forward once the Congress returns.” He goes on to point out that the American Inventors Protection Act was attached to an appropriations bill. Looking at what Congress has on its plate upon returning it looks like there are a lot of appropriations bills. Curious indeed!

In this edition of News, Notes & Announcements, patent attorneys asked to participate in an inequitable conduct study, BIO seeks session proposals for 2011 Convention, Huffington Post and other popular press starting to report that patent backlog is costing jobs, the Second Circuit refuses en banc rehearing in reverse patent payments case and PLI sponsoring yours truly on a speaking tour.

Those who don’t believe innovation leads to job creation have their heads firmly implanted in the sand and simply must choose to ignore history, which proves otherwise. It is flat out irresponsible to suggest that speeding up the process at the USPTO would be anything other than one darn good idea, and practically essential to the resurgence of the US economy. The authors and the Wall Street Journal should be ashamed of themselves. We all should expect more from one of the Nation’s papers of record.

Software is now and will remain patentable in the United States. Software patents have been vilified by many, but they have been granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and upheld in federal courts across the United States. The much anticipated Bilski v. Kappos decision at the Supreme Court did nothing to slow down the patentability of software, and in fact even the original Federal Circuit decision wound up, as applied by the USPTO, to make it more likely that adequately written software patent applications would be granted and transformed into issued patents. What has changed over the last several years, however, is the amount of detail that must go into a software patent application in order to satisfy the adequate description requirements under US patent law. So don’t listen to anyone who tells you software cannot be patents in the United States; it certainly can, but it isn’t quite as easy as it used to be.

The Visualization Center shows graphics that look much like a speedometer, which is where the Patents Dashboard moniker comes from, but the data is also available for those who want to see the numbers and figures used to create the easy to understand graphics. It is not pretty to see that the average pendency to a case where a Board decision is necessary is 76.1 months, and the average pendency of a case where one or more RCEs are filed is 60.7 months. This is unacceptable and hopefully leaders in Congress are paying attention! They have been mislead for many years. So the numbers are in some cases going to be terrifying, but ignoring the truth simply will not lead to the change and efficiencies needed.

As you will read in Part 1 of the interview (see below) Dickinson was not only the first Director of the USPTO, but he was the last Commissioner. The American Inventors Protection Act shuffled the titles around for seemingly unknown reasons, and since the AIPA went into effect while Dickinson was at the helm of the USPTO he is guaranteed a place in patent history, or at least patent trivia. In Part 1, I also asked him about how he managed to bring down average pendency during his tenure, which was the only time over the last 20+ years that has happened. We also discussed how he managed to get on the short list for the Director/Commissioner job, the confirmation process, the craziest question he received during confirmation, vanishing IP boutiques and RCEs. Part 2 is largely devoted to patent reform, which will be extremely interesting, I promise!

Putting aside my disdain for the Supreme Court stepping into patent matters of any kind, what does seem clear is that the Supreme Court wants to pretend that patents are the same as any other area of law and the same processes and procedures pertaining to other areas of law apply equally to the patent world. See eBay v. MercExchange and Zurko v. Dickinson for but two examples. The Supreme Court also loves case by case approaches without hard and fast rules that can actually be objectively and even-handedly applied. See KSR v. Teleflex and Bilski v. Kappos for but two examples. So strictly adhering to this clear trend it would suggest that the Supreme Court would be quite open to giving district court judges broad latitude to enforce their own Orders when appropriate. This would allow the district courts discretion to handle different cases differently, so that would cover the case by case approach, and it would seem to be in keeping with theories of judicial economy, which are typically left to the district court to handle, particularly when procedure, process and management of the docket are at issue.

I am skeptical about the prospects for invalidating patents on drugs, particularly important or blockbuster drugs. I also question whether anti-patent do-gooders in the biotech and pharma space are really causing more harm than good through attempts to bust patents on blockbuster drugs. According to their own press release, PUBPAT acknowledges that the tablet is heat stable and does not need to be refrigerated like prior versions of the drug. They seemingly make the argument, although not directly, that because this makes it much more convenient for patients it is unfair to charge prices sufficient to recoup R&D and a premium to make the speculative R&D reasonably profitable for investors. Of course, the fact that the drug in question is extremely convenient for patients is not a reason to invalid the claims, and in fact is likely a compelling reason why in this instance the patent claims cover a truly novel and nonobvious innovation.

I don’t know why Microsoft didn’t present all the prior art in the Texas case sooner, and I can’t explain why they might have wanted to wait until after asking the Supreme Court to take the appeal before filing the most recent reexamination request. One thing is for certain though: Microsoft would be in a much better position at this point if it had filed the request a year ago. Had they filed the request sooner they might already be at advisory action stage now, which could have provided a stronger case for refusing to enjoin the defendant as was the case in Flexiteek Americas.

I continually preach to inventors the need to follow what I call a “business responsible” approach, which is really just my way of counseling inventors to remember that the goal is to not only invent but to hopefully make some money. Truthfully, the goal is to make more money than what has been invested, which is how the United States Congress defined “success” in the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. Odds of being successful with one of your inventions increase dramatically if you engage in some simple steps to ensure you are not investing time and money on an invention that has little promise.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has provided an update to its Examination Guidelines concerning the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of precedential decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued since the 2007 decision by the United States Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The Updated Guidelines were published today in the Federal Register, and in response to the requests of many stakeholders the USPTO has included additional examples to help elucidate the ever-evolving law of obviousness. These guidelines are intended primarily to be used by Office personnel in conjunction with the guidance in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. The effective date of the these new Guidelines is September 1, 2010, but members of the public are invited to provide comments on the 2010 KSR Guidelines Update. The Office is especially interested in receiving suggestions of recent decisional law in the field of obviousness that would have particular value as teaching tools.

After you savor that wonderful “Moment of Discovery” and you have finished daydreaming about striking it rich, you really do need to move forward to take a cold hard honest look at your new product. At this point you don’t have to go into excruciating detail, just a quick overview to make sure it is worth pursuing. The questions generated will form the basis of your development process. A full Proof of Concept Analysis consists of three equally important parts: Business Analysis, Ownership Analysis and Product Analysis. Let’s take a look at each part individually.