Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

Yet another day has come and gone without the United States Supreme Court issuing a decision in Bilski v. Kappos. According to the SCOTUS blog, Chief Justice Roberts announced that the Court will have its final opinions on Monday, June 28, 2010, and that the Court’s term will close with the exception of remaining Orders in pending cases. This is widely being interpreted as confirmation that Bilski will be issued on Monday, June 28, 2010, which admittedly seems extraordinarily likely, but call me crazy, I have a strange feeling something odd may be boiling behind the scenes.

The latest Apple complaint continues to allege direct infringement of Apple patents, this time four separate patents. The complaint also alleges indirect infringement; specifically contributory infringement and inducement to infringe. The patent asserted by Apple are US Patent No. 7,282,453 (Count I); US Patent No. 7,657,849 (Count II); US Patent No. 6,282,646 (Count III) and US Patent No. 7,380,116 (Count IV). The ‘453 patent and the ‘849 patent were both asserted previously by Apple (see what I have previously referred to as the second complaint filed March 2, 2010). It appears as if they are added here due to recently issued Certificates of Correction. The ‘646 patent and the ‘116 patent were not previously asserted in either of the two complaints filed March 2, 2010 in the District of Delaware.

The legal, business, and scientific communities eagerly await the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bilski v. Kappos and many scholars, business leaders, and legal professionals try their best to anticipate how the Court will rule. Many patent attorneys and patent agents are drafting two sets of claims for their clients and the one they file will depend on how the Supreme Court rules. So, what will be the future of business methods as patent-eligible subject matter? Will the machine-or-transformation test stand? What will be the fate of the Bilski patent? An educated guess is the best that one can hope for in this situation.

It is truly sad that massive anti-patent hysteria can be whipped up simply based on a single sentence in the Abstract of a patent. For crying out loud people, the Abstract is hardly considered to be a part of the patent application and has absolutely nothing to do with the exclusive rights granted. The claims are what defines the exclusive right, nothing else! But we will never get the anti-patent types to ever read a claim because there are just too difficult to understand and there are way too many details in the claim. WAKE UP! That is the point! The more details in the claim the more narrow the rights!

What makes this “no Bilski day” at the Supreme Court particularly interesting and noteworthy is the fact that the Supreme Court did issue a terrorism and First Amendment decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project today, a decision that many if not most would have thought to be harder and more important than the Bilski case. Given that the Supreme Court has issued a decision in what society as a whole will undoubtedly view as a far more important decision than Bilski, and since Bilski has been on the Supreme Court docket since oral arguments back on November 9, 2009, it seems virtually assured that the decision will slip to the final day of the Court’s 2009 term, or it will be held over.

Eventually we are going to have a decision from the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, or we will know that the case will be held over until the next term of the Court, which beings in October 2010. The current Supreme Court term comes to an end on June 28, 2010, so something will soon happen worth discussing. PLI has selected a number of possible dates depending on when the Supreme Court hands down its long awaited decision.

You have an idea, now what? Unless your idea is ridiculously simple, you will probably need to develop it. Almost no ideas come fully formed. They must evolve to approach their final form. Evolution takes place through a process of exploration whereby the inventor plays with the idea and learns. The best method for playing and learning is making a prototype. Making a physical model will often expose overlooked problems and opportunities for improvement. I cannot count the number of times that, in the construction of a prototype, I discovered obvious problems that I had missed. In addition, I discovered many ways to improve upon my idea.

From the standpoint of appropriate judicial process within our system of government the Bilski case is an easy one. If the Court were predisposed to do what they are supposed to do, a stretch I know, they would exercise judicial restraint and actually only decide the case before them. At this point unless the case is held over because no decision can be reached it seems a virtual certainty that the Supreme Court will say more than they should, which will lead them to create problems that they never envisioned. Saying too much and not appreciating the unforeseen (at least to them) consequences just so happens to be a Supreme Court specialty, at least when it comes to patent law.

There is some irony that on the day we mark the 30th anniversary of the decision that launched the modern biotechnology industry we are still awaiting a decision on a patentable subject matter case — Bilski v. Kappos. Bilski has the potential to not only kill business methods, but also the software industry, the biotechnology industry and much of the medical innovation we see growing by leaps and bounds. So for today I toast the Supreme Court decision that launched the biotech industry, created millions of jobs and has lead to innumerable cures and treatments. I just hope that tomorrow (or whenever the Supreme Court issues its Bilski decision) it is not all for naught.

Who among us likes monopolies? Monopolies charge super competitive prices and consumers have no leverage, which leads frequently to inferior goods or services that consumers are forced to accept. This aversion to monopolies has been ingrained in American culture and heritage since the founding of the Nation, and was taken to new extremes during President Theodore Roosevelt’s Administration. While a patent does not confer a monopoly, patents can result in economic power through exclusion of competitors. It is this fundamental aspect of the patent right granted by the government that attracts investors to companies that have acquired patent rights.

Management at the United States Patent and Trademark Office has been working with representatives of the patent examiners union, the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), to better align the performance standards for patent examiners with the USPTO’s goals for increasing quality in patent examination and reducing the backlog of pending patent applications, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos announced today. If adopted, the joint task force’s changes would be the first major revision to the patent examiners’ performance appraisal plan (PAP) since 1986.

In Perquignot v. Solo Cup Co., the stakes were truly mind-boggling: about $10.8 trillion in total. Approximately $5.4 trillion of that bounty would be the federal government’s share which the Federal Circuit characterized as “sufficient to pay back 42% of the country’s total national debt.” High stakes indeed! But unfortunately for the bounty hunter (Pequignot) in Perquignot, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court grant of summary judgment that there was no “deceptive intent” on the part of the patentee (Solo Cup), thus no approximately $5.4 trillion bounty was owed.

Tafas and GSK were recognized with this prestigious award for their successful legal challenge to the claims and continuations rules made final in 2007 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Tafas was first to file his complaint against the USPTO, which was filed the day after the final rules were announced in August 2007. The rules were not to go into effect until November 1, 2007, and for some time it seemed as if Dr. Tafas alone would take on the Patent Office. In October 2007, after previously promising to challenge the rules, GSK filed its complaint. Armed with the benefit of the Patent Office response to the Tafas complaint, GSK was able to assault the rules from another flank and with full knowledge of how the Patent Office postured itself to defend against Tafas. By challenging immediately Dr. Tafas and his attorneys (Steven Moore and James Nealon of Kelly Drye) did an enormous service for the industry and took the fight to the Patent Office. They exposed the Patent Office and in tandem with GSK were able to keep the USPTO on their heels throughout the proceedings.

86 law, economics, public policy and business professors filed an amici curiae brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking the en banc review of the panel decision in In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, which issued on April 29, 2010. Mark A. Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor, Stanford Law School and partner in the San Francisco law firm Durie Tangri LLP, is representing the 86 professors pursuing this matter pro bono as a concerned law professor and not on behalf of any client. When asked for comment he offered that he thinks “the Cipro case may well be the turning point in legal treatment of reverse settlements.”

Last week when I wrote Broken Record, No Bilski for You Today, which was a fun combination of Soup Nazi meets LPs, I dangled the thought that perhaps the Supreme Court would not decide Bilski this term and might hold the case over. I said I refused to speculate at this point, but some of those commenting on that article asked me to engage in the speculation, as did others via e-mail and some that I have encountered in the industry since then. I still think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will hold Bilski over, just because it is an extraordinarily rare occurrence, but with only two more decision days this term (i.e., Monday June 21 and Monday June 28), it seems appropriate to at least ponder the rare occurrence of the Supreme Court holding a case over, which the Court did in Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Education.