Posts in IP News

The first “new” Office within the USPTO is the Office of the Chief Communications Officer, which is formerly the Office of Public Affairs within the Under Secretary’s Office. The second “new” Office is the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity, which was formerly the Office of Civil Rights within the Office of the Chief Administrative Offices. These two “new” Offices now report directly to the Under Secretary and Director and are represented on the Agency’s Executive Committee.

In part 1 of my interview with Mark Lemley we discussed whether the Supreme Court will take the i4i v. Microsoft case and address the presumption of validity, as well as what implications such a ruling would have on the value of previously acquired property rights. In part 2 of the interview, which appears below, we move past the presumption of validity to several other patent matters, including reverse pharma payments and In re Ciproflaxacin, the Stanford Patent Prize, patent misuse, patent trolls and the usual fun questions with a heavy emphasis on science fiction.

The trouble with explaining what prior art is stems from the fact that everyone already thinks they know what it is. Conceptually we do not want to issue patents for inventions that are not considered new, which seems fair enough. The trouble is defining what is “new.” For now, let’s just say that prior art must be a reference of some type (i.e., a patent or a printed publication) or some type of knowledge or event (i.e., public knowledge, public use or a sale of a product) that demonstrates that the invention in question is not new.

Now comes the curve ball you have probably been expecting. Not all references, knowledge or events that can demonstrate that an invention is “old” or already known can be used by examiners or during litigation against an invention.

On September 3, 2010, IHOP IP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the owner of various IHOP registered trademarks in the United States, sued the International House of Prayer alleging various trademark infringement theories. The plaintiff IHOP brings two causes of action against the defendant. The first being the claim that the defendant through the use of various IHOP marks is engaging in dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). The second claim is straight trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114. Notably, the plaintiff IHOP did not bring a cause of action alleging likelihood of confusion, which is typically a ubiquitous cause of action in these types of cases.

In May 2009, Genzyme Corporation acquired the worldwide rights to a potential breakthrough treatment for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) along with three marketed oncology products from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. In February, the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and AstraZeneca forged a new collaborative research agreement, featuring a significant licensing component, that makes use of their respective talents and resources to generate new Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) drug candidates for the clinical development pipeline.

On Friday, September 17, 2010, I had the opportunity to chat with Professor Mark Lemley, who is the William H. Neukom Professor at Stanford Law School and partner in the San Francisco law firm Durie Tangri LLP. Lemley is well known both in the academic community and the practice community. In fact, he is one of only a select few that have managed to simultaneously have a stellar career both in academia and in private practice. I chat with Lemley via e-mail from time to time on various matters, and we have talked about an interview for some time. Then a draft of a amicus brief Lemly filed today with the United States Supreme Court arrived in my inbox and I knew this was the issue that would make for an excellent interview. Lemley is leading the charge of law professors who are asking the Supreme Court to review i4i v. Microsoft and address the presumption of validity enjoyed by an issued patent, pegging the presumption to those references considered by the patent examiner during prosecution.

Saying that Congress controls the Patent Office is something of a misstatement really. It would be far more accurate to say that Congress starves the Patent Office and is constantly demanding more and more with less and less. At a time when $1 trillion is spent like Monopoly money to put Trump like towers on Boardwalk and Park Place it is not only irresponsible, but down right embarrassing that our political leaders in Washington are starving our innovation agency while they hit the campaign trail with all the required high-tech, innovation and job growth platitudes that the evening news demands in 15 second intervals. There is plenty of blame to go around with respect to how we got into this state, but does anyone think we can realistically get out of this mess without thoughtful Congressional assistance? Then the real nightmare question becomes: Does anyone really think we will ever get thoughtful Congressional assistance?

In this edition of News, Notes & Announcements, the USPTO announces it has signed an agreement with the Russian Patent Office to act as an International Searching Authority; the USPTO announces expansion of the Patent Prosecution Highway; PLI’s Patent Litigation 2010 starts next week and will travel across the US with stops in Virigina, Atlanta, Chicago and New York; BIO is hosting a Technology Transfer Symposium next week in San Francisco; Howard University will hold an IP Empowerment Summit on November 5, 2010, aimed at trying to help indigent inventors — USPTO Director David Kappos will participate; and BlackWeb Technologies sues two computer giants — IBM and HP — on patents covering methods for transmitting information between a remote network and a local computer.

Abandons per action can be interpreted as a level of speculation in applications. Applications that have high abandon rates are highly speculative. Most of the inventions described in these applications ultimately have little value and the applications are abandoned quickly. If a portfolio of speculative applications as a whole, however, has value, then that value is concentrated in a few “breakthrough” applications. For some investors, this is a very desirable characteristic and they may wish to seek out portfolios with high abandon ratios.

The State of Washington has just entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with LegalZoom relating to charges that LegalZoom is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The Attorney General of the State of Washington initiated an investigation into the business practices of LegalZoom, who offers certain legal forms over the Internet to consumers throughout the United States and including the State of Washington. As a result of this investigation LegalZoom offered and the Attorney General accepted an Assurance of Discontinuance. The Assurance of Discontinuance is not considered a finding of fact or admission of any violation or the commission of any particular act, but the failure to comply with the Assurance of Discontinuance would constitute prima facie evidence of such violations. Notwithstanding the unauthorized practice of law charges, LegalZoom was also investigated for turning over sensitive, privately identifying personal and financial information to third parties.

Several weeks ago TiVo filed its brief in the matter of Tivo, Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., which will be heard en banc by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Tuesday, November 9, 2010. The dispute between TiVo and EchoStar dates back to 2004 when TiVo sued EchoStar in the United States District Court for the…

The fashion industry claims it loses millions of dollars in revenue every year because of copycats buying one very expensive handbag or shoe or other item, deconstructing it, farming it out (usually to some factory in Asia), and making copies of it to be sold for a fraction of the price. There is now proposed legislation attempting to address and put a dent in the very lucrative knock-off market. Enter the “Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act” (S.3728), courtesy of Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Now, imitation is the no longer the sincerest form of flattery, it’s the basis for a lawsuit. Swell. Sen. Schumer is proposing to amend Chapter 13 of the Copyright Statute- Protection of Original Designs. (See the text of his proposed amendment) Fortunately, dear readers, I’m here to make sense of this, or at least give it a hero’s try. It is copyright, after all, and I can only do so much.

On Monday, September 22, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced via Federal Register Notice that the Office is considering pro-business strategies for incentivizing the development and widespread distribution of technologies that address humanitarian needs. One proposal being considered is a fast-track ex parte reexamination voucher pilot program to create incentives for technologies and licensing behavior that address humanitarian needs. Under the proposed pilot program, patent holders who make their technology available for humanitarian purposes would be eligible for a voucher entitling them to an accelerated re-examination of a patent. Given that patents under reexamination are often the most commercially significant patents, it is believed that a fast-track reexamination, which would allow patent owners to more readily and less expensively affirm the validity of their patents, could provide a valuable incentive for entities to pursue humanitarian technologies or licensing.

The Association of Patent Law Firms (APLF) will present its 2010 Annual Meeting in Chicago from September 29 to October 1 at the Hyatt Regency. The event will bring together lawyers and professionals whose practices are dedicated to patent, trademark and copyright law. Renee C. Quinn, of IPWatchdog, Inc., will be one of the speakers on the program this year, discussing Social Networking for the IP Lawyer on Friday, October 1, 2010. In addition to discussing the Social Networking phenomenon, the APLF Annual Meeting program will addresses contemporary IP law firm management issues in addition to current substantive IP topics. IP experts from Whirlpool, INVISTA and Clorox will share their IP experiences and issues and how they relate to recent IP developments.

This idea of revenue in exceeding revenue out is really not one that is in and of itself patentable though. Families and small businesses live with that reality every day of every week of every month of every year. So there will likely need to be some kind of a hook in whatever claims we write to make sure that we distinguish over the common sense prior art established by hard-working individuals who are the backbone of this Nation and who know that you simply cannot continue to spend more than you bring in. As our President is fond of saying — when you are in a hole you need to put down the shovel. That is common sense for individuals, families and small businesses, but seemingly incomprehensible when it comes to government — and that will be the patentability hook no doubt.