Posts in Guest Contributors

We set out to study the life cycle of appeals by conducting a stage-by-stage analysis to identify what fraction of applications were exiting the appeal cycle and how. Specifically, we obtained data (using LexisNexis® PatentAdvisorSM) corresponding to each appeal brief filed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011. The data identified the stage at which the appeal exited the appeal process and the next significant event after exiting the appeal process. This assessment thus provides information pertinent to assessing what delays, costs and decision outcomes are truly associated with appeals… Examiners frequently terminate an appeal cycle expediently with an office action (often leading to an allowance) or an allowance, in which case the delay and a portion of the expense is avoided.

As we await the next Update from the Patent Office on subject matter eligibility, it may be worthwhile to consider further the role of examples given in the past by the PTO. The Patent Office’s July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility. Although examples of this sort can be helpful and are appreciated, they are not enough! In the Internet and computer arts, the existing examples offer limited use. The PTO has released only a few examples in the computer fields still, and in general they express fairly obvious points, such as the point that improvements to the computer itself remain eligible.

Patents, for a long while, have been an integral part of business development strategy. Companies like ARM and Qualcomm, for example, have built their business around patents which constitute a major part of their revenue. And the quality of their patents, for sure, is playing a key role in it.

Halo sued Comptoir for infringing a large number of U.S. design patents, copyrights, and one common-law trademark relating to a number of Halo’s furniture designs. Both companies manufacture and sell furniture. Comptoir is a Canadian company that manufactures furniture in China, Vietnam, and India, and then imports that furniture into the United States for sale. Comptoir moved to dismiss the suit on forum non conveniens grounds, alleging that the Federal Court of Canada would be the appropriate forum for the dispute.

On March 10, 2016 the Federal Circuit sent two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) reexaminations back to the Patent Office. In proceedings initiated by IBM and SAS Institute Inc., the PTAB rejected claims for analyzing investment data in two patents owned by InvestPic LLC. The Board’s ruling turned upon two claim terms: (1) a “bias parameter” that determines a degree of randomness in sample selection in a resampling process”; and (2) “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments.”

Bamberg’s specification stated that plastics must not melt at ironing temperatures (up to above 220 degrees Celsius) because the effects would be undesired. Bamberg argued that while this was in the specification, the written description requirement was satisfied because one skilled in the art would understand that one could have a layer that melted above and below 220 degrees Celsius, but both may not be desired. The Court held there was insufficient evidence on the record to support the conclusion that Bamberg possessed a white layer that melted below 220 degrees Celsius because it specifically distinguished this as an undesired result.

Collectors love eBay because it allows them access to items them may never otherwise be able to purchase. Bargain hunters love eBay for the ability to buy items at a much lower cost than normal retail. But, sometimes costs are lower because the goods infringe on someone’s intellectual property. Section 512(c) of the DMCA provides a safe harbor from liability for “online service providers” (OSP), like eBay, as long as the OSP: (1) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; (2) is not directly or circumstantially aware of the presence of infringing material; and (3) promptly takes steps to remove purported infringing material upon receiving notice from copyright owners. To streamline this process, eBay created the Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) program. It allows intellectual property rights owners to request that eBay remove listings that infringe on their intellectual property rights, including copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

The challenge when you are filing a patent application is you don’t know if the invention will become the next billion dollar drug. As you can imagine, if a patent which is relying on a provisional patent application does serve as the basis for a successful product, the provisional application will then be closely reviewed. In other words if you a claiming priority to the provisional patent application and the the provisional was submitted without much due diligence then you are in a bit of trouble!

The IPO recently filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. supporting a flexible approach to awarding attorneys’ fees. Oral argument is currently scheduled for April 25, 2016. This case presents an important opportunity for the Supreme Court—consistent with its holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 (1994)—to resolve a circuit split regarding how to weigh equitable factors in awarding attorneys’ fees in copyright cases. Attorneys’ fees should be based on a review of all equitable factors and not a product of a formulaic approach that disproportionately weighs certain factors more than others.

The Federal Circuit held, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), that it does not have jurisdiction to review an institution decision, because a “determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” The PTAB’s decision on the redundancy of Harmonic’s asserted grounds for review constituted a portion of the Institution Decision and was therefore unappealable, absent some other appealable question.

Following a five-day trial, the jury found the asserted claims valid and infringed, and awarded Eon $18,800,000. In determining only that the terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, the district court left the ultimate question of claim scope unanswered, and improperly left it for the jury to decide. Instead of remanding, the Court independently found that, when read in their appropriate context, the terms “portable” and “mobile” could not be construed as covering the accused products at issue. The jury’s infringement finding was reversed.

Technology integrated with health tools is a becoming a very popular trend within the healthcare industry and is increasingly being used on a more regular basis. Many of the wearable devices are providing a plethora of health data that can be used to inform both personal and clinical decisions for consumers utilize the growing roster of available tools. These popular do-dads range from fitness trackers to wearable heart rate monitors. Many are saying these devices will change the way we live and interact with technology from a physical perspective.

Over the course of several amendments, Disney granted increasing rights to Candella, by which Disney specifically intended to give Candella standing to sue for patent infringement. The court held that the rights retained by Disney were not “substantial rights” sufficient to deprive Candella of standing, because Disney did not retain a right to exclude. Disney merely had a financial interest in any enforcement efforts by Candella. Thus, Candella did not have to join Disney to maintain the lawsuit.

The Court affirmed the Board’s finding that one Figure and certain passages in the description of the reference disclosed a limited number of elements and suggested combining them in a manner that anticipated the system claimed by Blue Calypso. Thus, “a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.” This was an anticipation, without resort to obviousness, because the reference sufficiently disclosed making the combination, though not expressed a single embodiment or example.

The AIA and its legislative history do not provide clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended ultra vires agency action by the PTO in holding claims unpatentable to be exempt from judicial review on appeal from a final written decision in an IPR. The Supreme Court should make clear that if the PTO holds claims unpatentable on grounds not set forth in the petition, then that ultra vires conduct is subject to judicial review, not exempt from it.