Posts in Government

As a major developer of electronics, Sony Corporation often files patent applications and is awarded patents from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. This week at IPWatchdog’s series Companies We Follow, we take a closer look at some interesting patent documents assigned to Sony which the USPTO has released this month.

A few of the patent applications we profile here offer better methods of providing professional software services to electronic device users. One patent application improves the ability for amateur videographers to render 3D graphics while editing video. Another application would protect a new system of user camera settings that analyzes prior photos to determine user preferences for lighting and more.

Other applications we feature here would protect some very interesting improvements to electronic devices. For example, one application we look at would protect a remote control that can also help a user interact with their home’s telephone system. One final patent application we feature makes it easier for smart phone users to take pictures without their hands getting in the way of the display screen. We also look at one patent that allows users to build personal libraries of DRM-protected digital content that are accessible across multiple devices.

Widely divergent views have formed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398, slip. op. (U.S. Jun. 13, 2013). Some commentators have reacted with dire predictions for the biotech industry, suggesting that the Court’s holding has unduly narrowed patent protection traditionally granted to DNA technology and has disincentivized researchers in the field, particularly those from small start-ups. Other commentators suggest that the Supreme Court’s decision in Myriad will actually benefit genetic research, particularly researchers at the start-up level. The authors of this post tend to agree with this latter view.

Considered by many as the most comprehensive revision to the United States patent system in over 50 years, the America Invents Act (“AIA”) represents progressive legislative reform intended to align U.S. patent policy with global precepts, i.e., systems which reward the “first-to-file” a patent application. Many AIA provisions modify or completely change the former first-to-invent (“pre-AIA”) U.S. patent system, with the most immediate and conspicuous AIA component?the establishment of a filing-based regime as of March 16, 2013?serving as the hallmark and mark of U.S. patent reform.

Nonetheless, having only enjoyed 3-months of the AIA in its entirety, it is still too early to appreciate the de facto impact of this nascent legislation. The AIA has nevertheless ushered in transitional strictures that have uniquely placed research institutions in an ostensible patent?policy “reformation” with respect to technology evaluation and knowledge translation. While the pervasive nature of this new patent regime imparts an array of university-based concerns, the following Top 5 considerations are intended to reengage university professionals and employees with patent reform concepts and concerns during the initial “aftermath” of the AIA.

As a multinational corporation, Siemens AG is a frequent applicant at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. This week’s Companies We Follow series takes a look at Siemens’ recent applications and patent awards in the fields of consumer and medical electronics. One application we feature involves a safer system of extinguishing fires within a machine dryer. Another application describes a home heat pump that would conserve thermal energy from appliance wastewater. Siemens’ medical subsidiary, Siemens Medical Solutions, has also been awarded a USPTO patent to protect a system of fixing misalignments in angiograms.

Other documents we look at feature improvements to electrical systems. Another application improves smart metering systems that have resulted in improper appliance functioning for dishwashers and washing machines. Lastly, we look at a Siemens patent that improves systems of protecting wind turbine components from lightning strikes.

Ever since March 19, 2013, I have been feeling slightly uncomfortable asking one question to some of my new clients. What is that question you ask? It is: “What was your household income in the preceding calendar year?” So, why am I asking a question that makes this Registered Patent Attorney sound more like a Certified Public Accountant? Answer: The AIA.

By holding that Myriad’s claimed cDNA was patent-eligible, Thomas’ opinion reaffirms the major holding in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that claimed subject matter which truly only the “hand of man” can make (not simply snipped out of “mother nature”) will make it to the patent-eligibility zone. (Whether that same cDNA makes it to patentability zone under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and especially under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is another and far more important story.) I would also be careful in reading too much into Thomas’ statement (which is also dicta) about “very short series of DNA which may have no intervening introns to remove in creating the cDNA” might be patent-ineligible. By definition, cDNA (i.e., complementary DNA) is a DNA molecule which is created from mRNA (i.e., messenger RNA) and therefore lacking the introns in the DNA of the genome. Thomas (or his clerks) may not have realized that what they were talking about isn’t what would be defined (at least by a molecular biologist) as cDNA. So the impact of that statement should have minimal, if any impact.

The latest incarnation of the SHIELD Act was introduced on February 27, 2013, and changes direction as if the first iteration were waived off in disgust before it could even lower its gears. SHIELD Act 2, scuttles the “reasonable likelihood of succeeding” idea floated and introduces a new tool aimed at walling off the troll: a bond requirement. If the plaintiff is not an original inventor or assignee, did not make a substantial investment in practicing the invention, or is not a university, that troll must post a bond. Like SHIELD Act 1, SHIELD Act 2 does not require the troll to fire the first shot. Interestingly, under SHIELD Act 2, Facebook would have had to post a bond in its battle against Yahoo! and theoretically an involuntary but necessary party joined as a plaintiff could be required to post bond.

“Patty Sue Just Won’t Go Away.” So went a 2002 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, one of a many articles spanning several years about Patricia McColm, a vexatious litigant blacklisted since 1994. She was the Most Vexatious Pleader of the vexatious litigants. If she were a patent attorney, frightened examiners would give her a 100% allowance rate without amendments. If the anti-joinder provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) applied to Patricia McColm, she would have her own clerk’s office. One draws similarities between the problems presented by firms such as Intellectual Ventures, Acacia, and Lodsys and those presented by Ms. McColm, and a flurry of proposals were recently introduced in Congress.

USPTO to Examiners: “As of today, naturally occurring nucleic acids are not patent eligible merely because they have been isolated. Examiners should now reject product claims drawn solely to naturally occurring nucleic acids or fragments thereof, whether isolated or not, as being ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

Under what authority does the PTAB ignore specifically recited structure? The authority that the PTAB seems to be relying on to ignore claim terms is unclear and not explained in the opinion in any satisfactory way. It does, however, seem that the fact that the invention can be implemented in any type of computer system or processing environment lead the PTAB to treat the method as one that could be performed on a “general purpose computer,” rather than a specific purpose computer. Thus, the PTAB picks up on the arbitrary and erroneous distinctions between general purpose computer and specific purpose computer without as much as a thought and wholly without factual explanation.

Interest in design patents is increasing, in part, because they can be obtained relatively inexpensively and quickly. Dennis Crouch recently reported that from 2010-2012 the majority of design patents issue within 12-months of their filing date (see “Design Patents Are Still Relatively Quick” by Dennis Crouch, Patently-O, January 21, 2012,. In addition, most design patents issue without amendment and with little or no file wrapper estoppel, potentially leading to a “cleaner” patent with potentially fewer issues to be raised in litigation that could negatively affect the scope of the patent. The number of design patent filings has increased approximately 20% since 2009 (Robert Olszewski, “State of the Technology Center,” USPTO Design Day 2013), and, with this increase it is reasonable to expect an increase in design patent enforcement

As a constant developer of new technologies, Microsoft is seen often as an assignee on a great many U.S. Patent & Trademark Office patents and applications every week. This week on Companies We Follow, IPWatchdog is taking a look at this corporation’s more intriguing patents as of late, including many of those that will affect consumer media use.

A few of the patent applications profiled here detail specific improvements to consumer entertainment, especially where movies are concerned. One application would protect a system of rendering video elements as separate from browser elements for easier user customization. Another application describes a more intuitive system of digital recording for live events. A third application in this area improves movie recommendation systems by taking contextual factors into account.

Marketing and advertising interests for businesses are also showcased in a few official documents. One patent we’re including here protects a method of creating an individual consumer profile based on web events, like visiting a webpage. Microsoft has also filed a patent application for a system of monetizing video recommendation portals for business advertising.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is often publishing applications and awarding patents to Boeing for their technological developments for aircraft. This week on IPWatchdog’s Companies We Follow series, we take a look at some of Boeing’s most intriguing recent patents and applications. Two patent applications would protect safer on-board plane mechanisms for jam-proof mechanical wing assemblies and leak-proof cryogenic fuel tanks.

Other applications showcase Boeing’s focus on passenger safety. One application released recently describes Boeing’s development of an air filtering system that is responsive to the presence of airborne contagions. Another application describes a sensor system that can provide accurate readings of runway conditions, scanning for potholes or other surface degradation.

One patent awarded to Boeing, and featured here, protects a scanning system, likely for military purposes, which can provide more accurate detection of an object of interest within a geographic area.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosted a meeting of the heads of the world’s five largest intellectual property offices in Cupertino, California.  Known as the IP5, members include the USPTO, the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), and the State Intellectual Property Office…

The pilot between KIPO and the USPTO marks a major first step towards KIPO classifying its patent collection using the CPC. For the pilot, KIPO will apply the CPC classification to patent documents in particular technologies, namely, technologies for which filings have been especially active at KIPO. KIPO will work together with the USPTO to identify these technologies.