Posts in Guest Contributors

My fellow Australian patent attorney Andy Mukherji recently asked the question on this site: Are Australia’s listed IP firms doomed to fail? Doubtless the hyperbole was intentional, but Andy raises a fair point. The Australian IP professions – registered patent and trade marks attorneys (who, for the most part, would be recognized as patent agents rather than attorneys in the US) and IP lawyers – are currently engaged in what might well be regarded as a brave and daring experiment. Prior to 15 April 2013 the regulatory regime in Australia did not even permit patent attorneys to incorporate. Now, less than four years later, not only have many firms chosen to take up the option of incorporation, but Australia now has (to the best of my knowledge) the largest number of publicly-listed IP firms per capita in the world!

As the dearly departed Prince once sang, it could be a sign of the times. Only in this case the reference is about big law firms moving into the intellectual property (IP) space, including acquiring IP boutiques. For example, Polsinelli acquired the Novak Druce IP practice in early 2016. However, when big law firms acquire IP boutiques it does not always—or even usually—work. Because if a big firm acquires a patent prosecution-based boutique it may not make sense because billable hours and rates for patent prosecutors do not compare with those of litigators. It also creates internal conflicts of interest. But the situation could have changed. This time the acquisitions might work because in many respects IP boutiques focus on administrative trial work at the USPTO due to the America Invents Act (AIA), which is more like litigation, and will not create the same conflicts of interest. But not everyone has the same opinion.

In EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., No. 15-1237, 815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict and ordered judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”)—without further proceedings in the district court—on an unarticulated claim construction that was raised by neither party below or on appeal. Specifically, the case presents the issue: “Whether the Federal Circuit erred in ordering entry of judgment as a matter of law on a ground not presented in a Rule 50 motion in the district court, even though the ground presented a purely legal question.”

The DMCA mandated that the Copyright Office establish a registry of designated agents for service of take-down notices. The initial system now appears to have been primitive. … Beginning December 1, 2016, service providers will be able to submit and update the names and contact information for their designated agents for receipt of take-down notices using a new electronic system. What is more, the fee charged for a paper filing, $105, will be reduced to just $6 for an electronic filing, reflecting the reduced claim on Copyright Office resources to input data and maintain a reliable resource.

As more reports come out that patent filings for individuals and small businesses are down and a general recognition that real innovation does not come from large organizations, but rather small ones, it is becoming clearer that changes in our laws have decreased the previous standards that were in place to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” As such, it seems to this author that our current patent laws are unconstitutional, or at the very least are thoroughly and completely frustrating the constitutional purpose for which they were created since our laws are promoting less and not “securing” our discoveries. We need to strengthen our patent laws to have a system that promotes the progress of science and useful arts by efficiently and affordably securing for inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries and innovations.

In my 54 years, I’ve never protested anything. I’ve complained to my friends and family and sometimes to a few unfortunate strangers. So this has been the first time publicly protesting anything for me… Darrell Issa was a cosponsor and a major political driver of this startup killing legislation, which is why inventors are going to his events to educate him and his potential voters. Issa’s race is very close with some polls showing him down by several points. His competitor believes in strong patents. This draws a clear distinction between the candidates and inventors and startups in California’s 49th district want to be represented by someone who will preserve their rights, and their companies.

In reaching its decision, the CAFC ignored the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The claims in dispute are unlike the claims in Alice, which merely applied conventional computer functionality to a financial problem. Here, TDE’s claims are materially the same as Diehr’s claims and solve technological problems in the industry using existing sensors in a novel implementation to improve the drilling process itself… TDE plans on filing its Writ on January 13, 2017 and any amicus will be due no later than 30 days later, i.e. February 10, 2017.

Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1180, is a precedential case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that reverses a judgment on the pleadings that certain asserted software claims directed to gathering network information were patent-ineligible. In so doing, Step One of Alice/Mayo is not clarified at all, because the majority accepted “for argument’s sake” the district court’s view of the disqualifying abstract ideas, and in each instance then explained why the claims seen in their entirety are not disqualified under Step two… The Federal Circuit concluded that the claim is “much closer to those in BASCOM and DDR Holdings than those in Digitech, Content Extraction, and In re TLI Commc’ns. The Court explained that even if it were to agree that claim 1 is directed to an ineligible abstract idea under step one, the claim is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’

The Norwegian fairy tale “Three Billy Goats Gruff” was far ahead of its time and the moral of that story has a very relevant, modern application. In short, the story introduces three goats that want to cross a river to eat some luscious grass. To do so, however, the goats must first cross a bridge; under which lives a fearsome troll, who is so territorial that he eats anyone who dares to cross it. By working together, the goats are able to plot against the troll, and ultimately knock him off of the bridge. After knocking the troll off the bridge, the three goats lived happily ever after. So, if these goats can figure out how to get rid of trolls, why can’t sophisticated companies do the same?

A recent Canadian survey (CRA Survey) has conclusively attributed lowered levels of R&D investment in Canada’s innovation ecosystem to the country’s unique judicial “Promise Doctrine.” The Promise Doctrine is a controversial patent elimination dynamic, judicially imposed during patent enforcement proceedings, often after a patented product has achieved its developmental endpoint, having successfully completed its long and costly commercialization. By its unpredictable applicability, like an unseen open manhole, Canada’s promise doctrine can cancel the benefits of a long journey at its market-ready endpoint… As the Survey suggests, long-lasting damage to Canada’s innovation ecosystem may already have occurred, which is why the Survey bears so heavily on the U.S. patent system’s own endpoint “open manhole”, Inter partes review (IPR). However Canada deals with its promise doctrine woes, we too have much to learn from this Canadian Survey.

The Track One program was instituted on September 23, 2011, as part of the America Invents Act. Known officially as the “Prioritized Patent Examination Program,” the USPTO promises a final disposition within 12 months for applicants who participate in the program and who pay the $4,000 fee for the privilege. To be eligible for participation in the program, an application can have no more than four independent claims and 30 dependent claims and no multiple dependent claims. Per USPTO regulations, applicants can request examination under the Track One program either from the date of original filing or with an RCE. We wanted to find out how beneficial the Track One program was for applicants who entered it at the beginning of prosecution versus at the RCE. The Track One program was ripe for study, which we originally started in 2015. This article is an update on our original findings, with a few new surprises thrown in.

What is the best way to assess the potential value or use of a patent portfolio? Before we examine this, it’s important to clarify that a patent only has value in the context of its place in a portfolio and in how the portfolio is used to support the organization’s business strategy. Let’s look at two examples. A Patent Assertion Entity will evaluate patent value based solely on the potential revenue that will come from a licensing program. On the other hand, an operating company typically places a higher value on patents that provide protection. This can be the ability to defend leadership in a profitable market category or the ability to offer protection as a sole-sourced product’s revenue stream.

Over the last two years, the Australian patent and trade mark attorney profession has seen a number of significant changes. The 2013 amendments to the Patents Act 1990, meant that Australian patent and trade mark attorney firms could incorporate. This led to the consolidation of some of Australia’s biggest patent and trade mark attorney firms. These consolidated firms have subsequently listed on the Australian Stock Exchange to raise capital and have since been on an aggressive acquisition spree to achieve market dominance… In short, there are inherent conflicts of interest when an individual or entity is obliged to act for both clients and shareholders.

When responding to an eDiscovery request, you have likely experienced clients that have on premises email archives. The standard discovery process that the email archive vendors suggested you follow was no doubt to pull up the archive-wide search capability and perform a global search against the archive based on keywords. Once that results-set was available, you could perform some first pass culling and export the results set to external counsel or to a standalone eDiscovery platform for further processing. This procedure makes a great deal of sense… except for the overlooked fact that this process does not take into account the email stubs in the live email system.

In 2013, Cardiocom, LLC (“Cardiocom”), a subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”), sought inter partes review of two patents owned by Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. (“Bosch”). The Cardiocom petitions were denied in January 2014. Medtronic later sought another inter partes review of the same two patents, without naming Cardicom as an interested party… Section 314(d) bars review of questions regarding the application and interpretation of statutes “closely related” to the decision whether to institute an IPR, including reconsideration of the Board’s decision to institute.