Posts in IP News

What would you change about your prosecution strategy if you knew more about your assigned examiner’s behavior and could identify cases that require extra care and a thoughtfully crafted prosecution strategy?

The patent boom China has been experiencing is easy to explain. China as a country has been unwavering in its support for domestic patent production in recent years. Indeed, the Chinese government has been actively encouraging not only increased innovation that makes it more likely there will be patentable innovations, but that government has been aggressively incentivizing increased patent filings. Incentives include subsidizing patent filing fees, providing rewards for patent filings, and tax credits that are tied to patent output. In many ways, China’s innovation economy is a near photo-negative of the current iteration of the U.S. patent system.

“We are focused on delivering reliable and predictable IP rights,” Director Iancu told the Inventor Group Presidents gathered at the Patent Office as he addressed them to start the day this morning. “I have called for a new dialog in intellectual property. A dialogue focused on the brilliance of the inventors, the excitement of invention and the incredible benefits they bring to our economy… to our history.”

Texas-based patent owner PACid Technologies filed a complaint alleging patent infringement committed by South Korean consumer electronics giant Samsung (KRX:005930). The case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, focuses on authentication protocols utilized by Samsung devices which allegedly infringe upon a pair of patents owned by PACid.

In Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Iancu, Knowles appealed the inter partes reexamination decision of the Board, which affirmed an examiner’s finding that certain claims were anticipated while other claims would have been obvious over various prior art references. The third-party requester declined to defend the judgment in its favor. The Director of the USPTO intervened to defend the Board’s decision, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143. On appeal, the Court permitted the Director to intervene and affirmed the Board’s decision… Under current precedent and Article III challenges notwithstanding, in appeals from Board decisions in which the appellee has withdrawn, appellants should be prepared to argue against the Director in lieu of the withdrawn appellee. Further, such appellants should be prepared to rebut additional evidence which may be added to the record by the intervening Director.

Here is what Director Iancu had to say about the Wright Brothers: “At my swearing-in, I remarked that through the doors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office comes our future. And indeed, it does, and it always did. We must celebrate that. From Thomas Edison to the Wright Brothers, from Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer to Steve Jobs, American inventors have fueled the imagination of our people for generations. We are a pioneering people who overcome large obstacles in order to realize our dreams and create prosperity. Inventors help make dreams reality, and American invention changes the world. Indeed, with American patents, humans made light, began to fly, treated disease, and enabled instant communications across the globe from tiny devices in our pockets.”

Facebook users continue to be shocked at the amount and kind of data being collected by the social media platform, including recent reports about call and SMS text messaging data which Facebook has been collecting from Android mobile users. Along with the political heat Zuckerberg continues to take, Facebook itself could be on the hook for a record fine from the Federal Trade Commission if it’s found that the company’s data practices violate terms of a 2011 consent decree between Facebook and the FTC. With all of this focus on Facebook’s data collection practices, we decided to take a look at some of the social media technologies patented by Facebook at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which may give readers a better idea of just how this American social media giant leverages user data.

One of the critical moments in the life of a start-up tech company is landing its first big contract with a giant tech company. That first tech deal is also a daunting process. Take a deep breath. You can negotiate these agreements, as long as you negotiate smartly. Here are five common-sense tips for going forward… Play the long game. Nothing begets more business opportunities than a satisfied customer. Earn their trust. Show them you can deliver what they want. If you can start that process as early as the negotiations on the first contract, you are already ahead of the game.

With the June 9 deadline for national implementation fast approaching, we surveyed colleagues in our other European offices to check the state of play in their jurisdiction. The picture which emerged was mixed. Much progress has been made towards national implementation of the Directive in the UK, Italy, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Hungary. Implementation in these jurisdictions is expected on or around the June 9 deadline. Work is also underway in Poland and Finland, but it’s possible that implementation could slip a few months past the deadline. Slightly further behind are Spain, Belgium, and the Czech Republic. Germany is currently lagging behind as the recent political deadlock surrounding the formation of the new government has delayed the legislative agenda, although a draft bill has been promised for the first half of 2018.

Dystopian novels and science fiction often return to the subject of the loss of personal privacy which is often encouraged by the use of technology enabling constant, omnipresent surveillance. Perhaps the most famous example of this in the science fiction canon of the 20th century is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. First published in 1949, Orwell’s novel conceives of a world where government surveillance is so complete that the vast majority of citizens don’t mind being watched by two-way telescreens in their own apartments. Even the novel’s rebellious protagonist Winston Smith comes around at the end to fall prey to the same cult of personality that allows the government overseer — Big Brother — to remain in power… With concerns over the use of personal data fresh in the mainstream news, we’ll run a series of articles that will take a closer look at U.S. tech giants both in terms of the types of data they track and the purposes for which that data is used.

Manhattan Beach, CA-based entity Desilu Studios, Inc., filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement and other claims against New York City-based television and film production firm CBS Studios. The complaint, filed in the Central District of California, asks the court to declare Desilu Studios the correct owner of trademarks covering the use of the Desilu trademark, first coined by famed TV stars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz.

In a breathtakingly disingenuous passage from the decision, Judge Tucker finds that not all definitions of patent trolls are necessarily pejorative. Are we really to believe Judge Tucker thinks the term “patent troll” is a loving and endearing term spoken with great admiration for inventors who spend tremendous amounts of time, money and energy seeking patents on their inventions? The reality is the term patent troll has been intentionally used in a derisive manner to belittle patent owners and manipulate decision makers on every level for over a decade. Large corporate entities that steal patent property rather than pay fair and reasonable rates to use the property have colluded to convince the public, press, Judiciary and Congress that inventors and patents are evil with a false narrative about patent owners. They use false “facts” that they constantly repeat, but which have been debunked over and over again.

We hear politicos so often proclaim that what America needs is a Twenty-First Century patent system. NO! America most certainly does not need a Twenty-First Century patent system. America needs an Eighteenth-Century patent system. The patent system our founding fathers created recognized the contributions made by everyone in the innovation ecosystem were important and necessary. We had it right once. It is time to get it right again!

Under the status quo, neither the patentee nor the public is able to rely on judicial determination of an issue that might later be taken to the PTAB. Knowles, Dissenting Op. at 10. Should the differences in standards between the courts and the PTO for proving invalidity, which contribute to the status quo in a large measure, be allowed to continue? Or, should the policy objectives of judicial efficiency and repose be given effect to preserve the finality of judgement of a court of last resort? These questions have assumed added significance post-AIA since one of the purposes of AIA was to save time and cost. As for standards, courts give claims their customary meaning and require clear and convincing evidence to prove a patent invalid. On the other hand, the PTO gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and requires a preponderance of evidence to prove invalidity. In her dissent, Judge Newman urged the court to recognize the significant legal and economic consequences of conflict between judicial ruling and agency decision, in which patent life and investment resources are consumed in duplicate litigation with no reliable finality. Id.

Patent owner MOAEC Technologies filed suits alleging claims of patent infringement in the District of Delaware against a series of music entertainment app providers including Spotify, SoundCloud and Deezer. The suits claim that music services offered by all three defendants infringe upon a patent covering a music library collection technology invented by the founder of MOAEC… MOAEC’s suits also include language in an apparent attempt to preempt any patent validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the basic statute governing the patentability of inventions, under the Alice/Mayo framework.