Posts in Guest Contributors

In the second IPR, NuVasive never received an opportunity to respond to contentions citing the Michelson Patent. First, arguments in the first IPR did not carry over to the second IPR. Second, it was not until Medtronic’s reply that NuVasive received notice of Michelson, and then was denied an opportunity respond. NuVasive’s ability to enter observations regarding cross-examination of an expert who opined on Michelson was not an adequate opportunity to respond. The “observations are not a vehicle for submitting new evidence, including new expert declarations, by the patent owner,” and “indeed, the permitted content and format of observations are tightly circumscribed.”

Neste filed a petition for inter partes review of REG’s U.S. Patent No. 8,231,804 (‘804 patent) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ultimately found all of the challenged claims anticipated by either of two references. REG appealed, citing exhibits allegedly demonstrating a date of invention earlier than the prior art. Anticipation can be found where prior art discloses the claimed range in a different unit of measure that can be converted using reasonable and reliable methods. Prior invention is fact-intensive and must take into account all of the relevant evidence. Exhibits offered to show the fact of a communication, and not the truth of the communication’s contents, are not excludable as hearsay.

Today, on the eve of the discovery of Puerto Rico in 1493 by the Spaniards, we will take a look at U.S. patents issued to citizens of Porto Rico, as it is formerly known as and sometimes called… In the period in question, there were 38 patents issued to residents of ‘Porto Rico’, although they were not all ‘Citizens’ of PR. For example, the first issued ‘after the change’ was Patent No. 689,671 to Felix Perez Hermida, who was a Citizen of Cuba residing in PR. Patent No. 763,269 was issued to US Navy Lt. Mark St. Clair Ellis, who listed his address as the USS Bancroft, then stationed in San Juana. Patent No. 903,587 went to Luis León, identified as a subject of the King of Spain, and the first PR Design patent, D49,992, was issued to Mr. Giusti, a citizen of France.

The popular story goes that Alexander Graham Bell and the second man to file USPTO paperwork related to invention of the telephone, Elisha Gray, did so on the same day, Feb. 14, 1876, when time of day of receipt was not recorded. The exact order in which their paperwork was received that day by the chief patent examiner and how remains in dispute even now, according to the prologue of The Telephone Patent Conspiracy of 1876. Over time, historians seem to have sided with Bell, and Gray has more or less faded into a footnote of history.

Even with its relatively small population, Canada is the largest export market for the US, with about 200 billion dollars worth of exports each year. Exporting to Canada from the US is a well-known process, and an inventor or company wishing to do so will have no difficulty in finding a company that can handle all the required paperwork and logistics. Even if one does not wish to export to Canada, licensing or sale of a patent is always a possibility. I have many clients whose business model revolves around finding products that sell well in the US and which are likely to sell well in Canada, having these products manufactured in China, and selling them in Canada. I often get asked to confirm that one of these products is not protected by a patent in Canada. If there is no Canadian patent, my clients are able to profit from the US inventor’s ingenuity.

Modeled after the Hatch-Waxman Act, the BPCIA seeks not only to encourage competition in the field of biologics but also to promote innovation by, among other things, providing twelve years of market exclusivity to pioneer biologics… Like the Hatch-Waxman Act, the BPCIA also sets out a process for identifying disputes over patent infringement and managing any ensuing litigation once an applicant seeks a biosimilar license… To streamline the first wave of litigation, the BPCIA mandates that following the biosimilar applicant’s receipt of the RPS’s detailed statement on infringement, the parties negotiate in good faith to select patents for litigation from the lists initially provided by the RPS and the biosimilar applicant. [§ 262(l)(4)].

It’s a fundamental principal of economics that the secure ownership of personal property is essential for prosperity. Walk through any public park and see how seldomly people bother to pick up trash thrown so thoughtlessly about by a few. But if someone throws trash on your lawn, it will quickly be made clear that this nonsense better stop, including calling the police if necessary. But what happens when the police won’t protect the rights of homeowners? Neighborhoods deteriorate, crime flourishes and investors move their money to other markets. That’s what’s happening to patent owners as “effective infringement” becomes an accepted business practice. However, we’ve been down this road before and have a good roadmap of the way out.

The review of current corporate patent submission policies reveals clear inconsistencies. While some technology firms have standards that result in clear paths for third party inventors to knock on corporate front doors with patent submissions, others have standards to effectively block submissions of patents, block third party communications, and slam corporate doors in the face of outside inventors. The lack of submission standards are somewhat unique as compared to other types of IP submissions, and often unique and inconsistent within specific technology industries themselves. This lack of standardization across similar firms adds to the notion that patent submission policies have thus far been insufficiently analyzed and have perhaps evolved inefficiently. They are also in stark contrast to the strong open patent submission policies technology-driven 19th century firms utilized.

LinkedIn recently filed suit in the Northern District of California against Doe Defendants for allegedly “scraping” data about its users from its website through fake profiles and software bots. LinkedIn alleges that the data scraping that was performed using fake profiles and bots was in violation of its user agreement, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, among other things.

High value information—identified as trade secrets, IP mappings, product designs, financial data, confidential business information and similar files and documents—require an extra level of protection because of their value to cybercriminals and malicious insiders. The last thing an organization wants to do is make the theft of high value information easier by leaving vulnerability gaps in security practices. A malicious actor will exploit those each and every time.

Stifling innovation and curtailing investments are the effects of the AIA from what I see and hear. This is infuriating! It is disincentivizing inventors, innovators and investors! Before last year I have never been an activist or protested anything publically. The AIA issue has change that for me… We are standing to protect the rights of Americans to profit from their ideas. The patent system has been broken and rigged to suit corporations. Stealing IP is cheaper than developing it…

Congressman Pence worked mostly on patent reform bills via the Republican Study Committee, a well-known group of House Republicans focused on inserting conservative views into public policy including respect for the Constitution and private property rights… During the time Pence served as Governor of Indiana, Purdue University soared to a record numbers of new patents, record numbers of technology licenses and record numbers of start ups based on Purdue University innovations… In July, Governor Pence signed an Executive Order establishing the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as the entity that will coordinate all efforts on behalf of the State of Indiana to accelerate innovation and entrepreneurship. Perhaps most interesting, the Order specifically acknowledges that increased innovation helps make communities more vibrant and spurs economic growth, higher wages and job creation.

Of course, the implication being if you are not in favor of a never ending revision of U.S. patent laws then you are somehow an ignorant rube not paying attention to the overwhelming consensus in the industry that vast new patent reform measures are desperately necessary to save America from the evils of innovators hell bent on innovating… Trump not having a clear, well-defined position on a patent reform agenda just means he is paying attention.

Earlier this year, President Obama signed into law the new federal “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.” It arms with substantial new weaponry those whose trade secrets have been taken. What has been less heralded, but might just affect you more directly, are new requirements that might lead you to revise your standard confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements.

In July, Kilpatrick Townsend and Ponemon Institute released their findings from The Cybersecurity Risk to Knowledge Assets study, which confirmed most companies’ worst fears — their intellectual property is at risk every day, and theft is rampant. The 600 survey respondents also disclosed that most companies are unsophisticated when it comes to identifying their key intellectual property (particularly trade secrets) and protecting that adequately. And, most surprisingly, the expected costs associated with loss of these important assets was estimated by nearly seven out of ten respondents to total more than $100 million.