Posts in Inventors Information

PERA is no doubt an ambitious bill. In terms of its design, the proposed legislation attempts to deal with each of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice, Mayo and Myriad, plus all of their progeny applications thereafter engendered by the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), all the way down to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examining corp. In a nutshell, the bill, if passed, would return us to a time when Bilski was the law of the land, which will no doubt be welcomed by many innovators.

The single best tool available to increase patent value and decrease patent costs is not directed to application drafting or patent prosecution or law firm selection. Instead, it occurs much earlier in the process. The best tool is meeting with inventors. When I was outside counsel and I received a new application to draft, the very first thing I did was set up a meeting with the inventors. As in-house counsel, when I receive a new invention submission, I do the same. It does not matter if the invention is simple, non-enabling, or incomplete. It does not matter if the inventor is familiar, experienced, or knowledgeable. It does not matter if we meet in person, by phone, or by video. For every invention, we meet.

On day two of IPWatchdog LIVE, J. John Lee, Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, told those who are skeptical of the chances for Senators’ Tillis and Coons’ Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) to move forward that a House version of the bill is likely to be introduced in the near future. Lee, who is principal advisor on IP issues and helms the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, was speaking on a panel titled “Politics, Policy and Legislation at the Intersection of Intellectual Property,” which also featured David Jones of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance; Joe Matal of Haynes Boone, LLP and former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Acting Director and Acting Solicitor; and Eli Mazour of Harrity & Harrity.

Breakthrough discoveries often receive the spotlight and intellectual property (IP) protection. Unfortunately, lesser, yet nonetheless valuable, contributions often go unrecognized and unprotected. Determining when to contact your institution’s Technology Transfer Office in order for them to assess research projects for IP protection is vital. Reaching out to Tech Transfer early and often will help researchers protect their accomplishments and receive the recognition they deserve.

The Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) has released a report that gauges the level of intellectual property (IP) engagement at the largest U.S. university entrepreneurship and innovation (E&I) programs. The nonprofit organization found that E&I programs at U.S. universities are increasingly incorporating IP into students’ business education. The report’s goal was in part to evaluate whether the observed increase in entrepreneurship in the United States is improving engagement with or is a result of intellectual property. CIPU wrote, “understanding the level of IP engagement among students enrolled at these schools provides insight into ways to increase support for the nation’s would be entrepreneurs.”

Confusion and misunderstanding among some independent inventors might slow or stall progress of the excellent eligibility reform bill recently introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC). Titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), the legislation would overturn Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions that scrambled settled law, excluding many worthy classes of inventions, such as medical diagnostic methods and advanced computer applications.

HIP, Inc. recently filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to review a May 2023 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision holding an inventor’s contribution to a patent for methods of pre-cooking bacon and meat pieces did not satisfy the joint inventorship test because the contribution was “insignificant in quality.”

It is time to set the record straight. For reasons I don’t understand, many inventors are just not being truthful about the provisions of patent reform bills now pending in Congress. In fact, some in the independent inventor community are attempting to rally support to kill the overwhelmingly pro-patent, pro-innovation, patent eligibility bill now pending. This is an enormous mistake that will have tragic consequences unless those who have the most to lose become willing to accept a win, even if that win does not provide them with 100% of what they want.

Careless naming of inventors on a patent application can create confusion and add complexity to an already intricate process. The recent case of Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Prod., Inc. is a great example where failure to properly list a co-inventor resulted in the only named inventor losing their patent rights…. To avoid a case similar to Blue Gentian v. Tristar, identify all inventors carefully and have them sign an assignment agreement, which transfers their rights to a single entity, such as an individual or the company that’s going to exploit the patent.

The past year has provided decades’ worth of developments across law and policy in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. If 2022 was the breakthrough year for accessible AI, then 2023 can so far be deemed as the first year of likely many more to come in the era of an AI inquisition. “After years of somewhat academic discourse,” reflects Dr. Ryan Abbott, “AI and copyright law have finally burst into the public consciousness—from contributing to the writer’s strike to a wave of high-profile cases alleging copyright infringement from machine learning to global public hearings on the protectability of AI-generated works.” Both the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are in active litigation over the eligibility of generative AI outputs for statutory protection. Additionally, both offices have held numerous webinars and listening sessions and conducted other methods of collecting feedback from the public as they work through policy considerations surrounding AI.

A little over halfway through 2023, and nearing the end of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) fiscal year, we can take stock of an administrative body that is settling into a decade of precedent while big changes still loom. Unlike prior years, where policy changes resulted in statistical swings for institution rates, outcomes, amendment practice, and the like, this year has been more of an extension of previous trends (though institution rates are still creeping higher).

Recently, it has come to my attention that a system that utilizes a camera to capture images and software to run facial recognition is being rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as an abstract idea. Why? Well, it unfortunately seems that the reason is simply because the purpose of this very tangible, working system is to identify people and charge them a fare. Because money is overtly involved, for reasons that make no rational sense, this is being deemed a business method, despite the facial recognition technology—and even though this is a clean, streamlined approach for conducting commerce.

The PREVAIL Act addresses current rules that enable gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by huge corporations against small inventors, startups and other patent owners, and that increase invalidation rates. It introduces standing requirements, establishes a clear and convincing evidence standard to invalidate a patent, ensures a code of conduct is put in place for administrative patent judges (APJs), and more. While these changes are well-intended, due to the PTAB’s perverse incentive structure, the PREVAIL Act will only be marginally effective, and may have no real effect at all.

On August 2, inventor advocacy group US Inventor held a webinar on provisions of the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act that are intended to curb abuses impacting small business patent owners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While most panelists on the virtual call acknowledged that the PREVAIL Act wouldn’t solve every problem threatening the U.S. innovation ecosystem’s most vulnerable members, there was widespread agreement that the bill would have beneficial impacts if enacted. The webinar was US Inventor’s second on the PREVAIL Act following a virtual call last week with law professor Adam Mossoff and C4IP General Counsel Jamie Simpson.

One of the many amici who have filed briefs in a Supreme Court case asking the Court to overrule its precedent in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. told the justices last week that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is abusing the so-called Chevron doctrine “to bypass the procedures that ensure that the agency considers the public interest.” The “Chevron doctrine” says courts should defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation of the statutes delegated to them. In the 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a court “may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by [the agency charged with administering the statute],” where the statute is ambiguous.