Posts in Guest Contributors

An engaging image, be it a photograph or other graphic, can capture the reader’s attention and drive interest in an online post. Bloggers, especially, are well aware of the attention grabbing benefits of a great photograph or graphic. In striving to find just the right image, one may well not think twice about the apparent harmless use of a graphic poached from some obscure corner of the internet. Doing so, however, implicates a wide range of intellectual property rights governing the use of images.

Under the Federal Circuit’s reading of Halo, companies can no longer rely solely on reasonable litigation-inspired defenses to prevent a finding of willfulness… The Federal Circuit also found that the district court abused its discretion in failing to issue a permanent injunction. While there is a public interest in safer generators, there is also a public interest in the security of patent rights. The patent owner presented evidence that it had sufficient production abilities to satisfy market demand for the product. Finally, in similar contexts, Congress has expressly indicated that permanent injunctions may issue to prevent infringement of other life-saving goods like pharmaceuticals.

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s obviousness ruling, finding that the Board had improperly shifted burdens onto Magnum, the Patent Owner, in several instances. For example, Petitioner McClinton asserted that a motivation to combine argument made with respect to a first set of prior art references was also applicable to a second set of prior art references, but did not explain why the rationale applied to both sets of references. The Federal Circuit found that the Board improperly “expected [the Patent Owner] to explain, and faulted [the Patent Owner] for allegedly failing to explain” why the motivation to combine argument made by Petitioner based on the first set of prior art references would not be applicable to the second set of prior art references. The Board’s obviousness finding thus constituted an improper shifting of the burden to Magnum, the patentee, to prove that the claimed invention would not have been obvious.

On June 30th, Judge George King of the Central District of California entered the Final Order and Judgment in the matter of Good Morning to You Productions Corp. et al. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. – the “Happy Birthday” class action. Only the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded to the plaintiffs’ attorneys remains, and must be decided for many of the settlement terms to become effective. Nonetheless, it is not too early to consider what, if any, effects this case will have on the field of intellectual property.

We compiled a list of the top patent firms, which are ranked based on the total number of U.S. utility patents that issued in 2015 where the patent firms were listed on the front of the utility patents. We have included only patent firms that have obtained at least 50 utility patents. We made an attempt to correct for typographical errors. We did not eliminate company legal departments from the list.

Somehow a culture of Examiner v. Applicant has evolved. There doesn’t seem to be much in examiner training to pit them against external stakeholders. No evidence there of USPTO-endorsed nefarious agenda! Examiner training directives regarding external stakeholder interaction are in-line with what the stakeholder should reasonably expect. Still, it seems every patent practitioner has a story of examiner absurdity to tell.

Unlike Judge Chen’s breadth-based approach, Judge Hughes appears to adopt the proposal of using the European technical effect ( or “technological arts”) analysis to determine whether a U.S. claim is patent-eligible… The CAFC decides that the above claim indeed is related to an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. This once again approaches the “technical problem” analysis of European law, which at least has the advantage of possessing something of a legal principle about it, as opposed to being a tautology.

The unadvertised feature is that the Pre-Appeal Conference board is assembled by an administrative assistant in the technology center, but the P3 board is assembled by the SPE. This is a critical difference. With the P3 program, the Office is trying to address an internally perceived problem that they believe they have with the Pre-Appeal Conference, which is the technical knowledge of the third member of the board. The third member of the Pre-Appeal Conference is the first available examiner from any technology center and with any type of technical background. This person is essentially selected at random, and often has no technical competence in the area. With the P3 program, the third person is picked by the SPE. This gives the SPE the ability to stack the deck in their favor, intentionally or not.

To maximize the return on investment from a patent portfolio, patent owners must determine which is more lucrative: sales or licensing. In general, patent licensing promises the highest total return on monetizing an IP portfolio because the IP owner can license the same asset or (a single patent or portfolio) to a number of different licensees. On the other hand, it may take three to five years to realize significant revenue from licensing. Additionally, licensing comes with a host of potential risks including litigation, invalidity arguments, and more. More and more frequently patent sales/transfers are part of licensing settlements to ensure there is more of a ‘win/win’ result for negotiating parties.

Patent reform is a subject that most Americans are unfamiliar with. Additionally, significant lobbying efforts and financial resources dedicated by large corporations have confused the subject further. Nevertheless, patent reform is a critical issue for our country. Will the U.S. patent system continue to be the fuel that fires genius, to paraphrase President Abraham Lincoln, or will the U.S. patent system continue to throw cold water on the spark of innovative entrepreneurism in America? I’d like to know, and the American public deserves to know, if the candidates are aware of just how cumbersome, one-sided and unfair the U.S. patent system has become.

In two cases written by Judge Chen (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 2013-1505 (Chen, Wallach, Meyer (dissent) and Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc., v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2015-1763 (Newman, O’Malley, Chen)) the patents were found to be patent-eligible principally because analysis typically regarded as being under Mayo step 2 demonstrated that the claims added “something more” to the abstract ideas than merely well-understood and conventional steps. In effect, Judge Chen’s opinions focus on whether the narrowness of the claim is adequate. If it is, the claim is not abstract. How narrow is “narrow enough” is, like “abstract”, not defined, but this approach bears a closer resemblance to the original limiting principle of the abstract idea doctrine – preemption – than many recent decisions.

This case concerns Star Athletica’s alleged infringement of Varsity Brands’ purported copyrights in the design of certain cheerleading uniforms. Under the Copyright Act, because clothing possesses an intrinsic utilitarian function (covering the body, providing warmth and protection from the elements, etc.), clothing designs historically have not been protected by copyright unless the claimed design is physically or conceptually separable from the garment’s utilitarian features. The district court found in favor of defendant Star Athletica, concluding that the design elements in Varsity Brands’ cheerleading uniforms were not separable from the uniform’s function. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, and in doing so, devised a new test for assessing the copyrightability of a design of a useful article.

For non-residents, getting an invention to market in Japan is no small task. Filing patents there can pose significant challenges. More than cultural and language barriers, unique Japanese filing requirements and an unforgiving post-grant landscape could undo even the best and brightest market opportunities. Avoid the hassle and heartburn with these seven things that will help prepare you for filing in Japan.

Two recent Federal Circuit opinions provide some answers to the issues presented by complaints alleging non-compliance with the BPCIA. In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that an aBLA filer’s participation in the patent dance is not mandatory under the BPCIA. 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Where an aBLA filer elects to forego the patent dance by failing to provide the aBLA and the biosimilar manufacturing information to the RPS, the only remedy available to the RPS lies in a declaratory judgment action for patent infringement, as expressly contemplated by § 262(1)(9)(C). In addition, the court concluded that an aBLA filer who did not engage in the patent dance was required to provide a notice of commercial marketing and that such notice could be effectively given only after the FDA had approved the aBLA. The court’s ruling left open the question whether an aBLA filer who participated in the patent dance was required to provide a notice of commercial manufacturing. This decision is on appeal to the Supreme Court, which has yet to decide whether it will hear the issue.

Where a company has a complicated ownership structure – perhaps hundreds or even thousands of legal entities ultimately under a single parent company – the trademark practitioner may colloquially refer to all of these entities collectively as “the client.” But when determining ownership of the trademarks within that corporate structure by the client, careful consideration should be given to exactly which legal entity owns or will own the new mark, especially if the owner is not to be the parent entity within the company’s organizational structure. While the business will naturally have its own thoughts as to which entity should own the mark, the practitioner’s job includes ensuring that decision is formed consistent with the strictures imposed by trademark law.