Posts in Guest Contributors

I represent MCM Portfolio LLC, which is seeking Supreme Court review of a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholding the constitutionality of the inter partes review (IPR) procedures created by the America Invents Act (AIA). The petition is available here. Amicus briefs in support of the petition are being filed May 31. We argue that IPR violates Article III of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power in the federal courts, and also the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a right to a jury in civil litigation.

Legislative history is, of course, the compilation of the legislative process’ source documents—committee reports, hearing transcripts, bills and floor debate—to understand the Congressional intent behind a law. Such a use is controversial, with no less than the late Justice Antonin Scalia being a leading critic of the practice while Justice Stephen Breyer is one of its most notable proponents. However, lawyers and judges continue to employ legislative history, in some fashion, and will likely turn to it to understand and interpret a law of this magnitude. This article surveys the more significant legislative history documents available for the DTSA.

The district court held that the patent was not invalid because those communications did not constitute an offer for sale that would trigger the on-sale bar. Watson appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the communications did constitute an offer to sell. Applying basic tenets of contract law, the Court held that an offer must be complete, such that acceptance creates a binding contract. Merck’s communications were a complete offer because they were solicited and contained prices, terms of payment, and terms of delivery.

The Federal Circuit held that it is not the case that a patent must spell out a claim element’s function, way, and result, for the doctrine of equivalents to apply. It looked to what the claim element’s function in the claimed composition is to one of skill in the art, which it held may be determined by looking at extrinsic evidence. The Court found no error in the district court’s finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In applying the two part test (constructing a hypothetical claim that covers the accused device and comparing that claim to the prior art), the district court correctly determined that the hypothetical claim properly included the disputed excipients, i.e. Glenmark’s excipient.

Where the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality, they are not abstract under the first step of Alice, and thus no step-two analysis is necessary. Here, the Federal Circuit found that Enfish’s self-referential table was directed to a specific improvement in computer capabilities, unlike Alice, where the claimed technology only added a computer to a traditional business practice. For this reason, the Court held that Enfish’s claims were not abstract under the first step of Alice, and therefore did not warrant the application of step two.

Many defendants to patent troll suits have never heard of the patent owner or its patent(s), and will have never received notice of infringement until service of the lawsuit. Typically patent trolls have no product to mark, since they are non-manufacturing entities. In that situation, the patent troll must take reasonable steps to ensure that its licensees mark their licensed products – if it has licensees. If a patent troll plaintiff has not required its licensees to mark, the defendant may be able to defeat past damage claims without spending thousands in legal fees mounting a defense on the merits to an infringement claim. This, at the very least, minimizes potential exposure to a patent infringement defendant.

Inside the business of patent law, small inventors are known as ”walking malpractice suits.” Patent attorneys are taught to never give business advice. Instead, they merely explain all the options and make the client choose. Then the attorney is not on the hook… Patent attorneys are expert at writing good patents and getting them through the USPTO… The company has the responsibility to make sure that the patents meet its business goals–not the patent attorney.

Health and government officials around the world are scrambling to find a way to prevent or cure the growing spread of the Zika virus. Could the introduction of genetically modified mosquitos help to reduce the spread of the virus, or does it sound like this will just cause more problems than it solves? What could possibly go wrong with the introduction of genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment?

Dear Patent Attorney, Please stop filing extremely short, overly broad patent claims. I recently conducted a study to measure the effectiveness of various prosecution strategies. The study covered over a hundred thousand patent assets pursued by software companies, and for this sample, I found that filing extremely short, overly broad patent claims is a bad strategy in just about every way imaginable.

User fees fund our patent system. The patent system turns ideas into assets. Those assets are used to secure financing and gain access to markets. Financing and market access fuel the rise of new industries, businesses, and jobs. Regrettably, however, those user fees are frequently diverted to fund other, unrelated government agencies and programs, which amounts to a tax on innovation.

On May 6, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released new life science examples on subject matter eligibility (Examples 28-32, consecutively numbered after the previously released USPTO examples). Examples 28 and 30 illustrate the application of the “markedly different” and “significantly more” analysis to nature-based products. Examples 29 and 31 illustrate the USPTO approach to the eligibility analysis of diagnostic claims, which has been much anticipated. Finally, Examples 32 and 33 illustrate the use of a streamlined eligibility analysis. At first glance, the new life science examples, which identify most of the presented hypothetical claims as patent-eligible, provide several teaching points for achieving patent-eligibility in commonly encountered situations in the life sciences area.

Inventors and investors demand a system that affords predictable and durable intellectual property rights in a timely manner. If the system that we implement for granting patent rights does not meet those criteria, inventors will not make use of the system, the public store of knowledge will suffer, and investment in innovative and entrepreneurial domestic enterprises will diminish. Perhaps more importantly, if those rights are not found here, the procurement of intellectual property rights and associated investment and commercialization will move to foreign lands. The result will be lower domestic economic output, fewer jobs, and a decline in American innovation.

Improving access to needed medicines for those suffering the ravages of disease in developing countries is a serious issue. There are many factors contributing to the problem including poor transportation systems, lack of available health care and education, endemic poverty, trade barriers, systematic corruption and, of course, the cost of drugs. Yet the U.N. Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines is focusing on the patent system as the source of the problem. The report is due next month. The Panel is to “address the policy incoherence between intellectual property laws and access to medicines.”

When a standard faces competition, it is essential to be the first on the market with products and to establish the highest market share. The network effect will make it increasingly difficult for competing standards to get a foothold. Two competing standards will, therefore, be under pressure to gain market share in the early stages of adoption by getting to market first, with superior performance, and with the lowest price. In view of the network effect, getting to market first is usually the highest priority. But in the early stages of adoption, being a little bit later with superior performance is still viable.

The Court noted that decisions related to compliance with the Board’s procedures are reviewed for abuse of discretion. As far as the “reasonable expectation of success” requirement, the Court noted that the Board improperly looked to whether one would reasonably expect the references to operate as those references intended once combined. The Court held that this was the incorrect standard, and instead one must have the motivation to combine with the expectation of achieving what is claimed in the patent-at-issue. The Court held, however, that while the Board conflated the reasonable expectation of success standard and motivation to combine, it nonetheless made sufficient factual findings to support its judgment that the claims at issue were not invalid.