Posts in Patents

I have often thought of the patent process as being like the car wash near my house – where you pull up to the entrance, to the point where an attendant shouts “neutral!”, and your car is then magically pulled through a defined series of stations until it comes out clean at the other end. The key difference being – the car wash takes five minutes, costs six bucks, and requires no effort. Not so with patents. In a way, the patent system can be seen as a far more rigorous 20-year car wash – beginning from the moment you pull into the patent office by filing your first application, thereby obtaining that all important Filing Date. You are then led along an arduous path of decisions, deadlines, and stages – all with corresponding costs. No matter when and where you might actually obtain a patent along that path, assuming you do at all, you are out the door (i.e., those patents will expire) generally 20 years to the day after you first heard “neutral!”.

Patent applications filed at the European Patent Office (EPO) rose 4% to 181,406 in 2019, driven by substantial increases from Chinese, Korean and U.S. applicants, according to a report published by the Office yesterday. The United States was the number one country of residence of applicants, with 46,201 applications—a rise of 5.5%. This accounted for 25% of all European patent applications. The U.S. was followed by Germany and Japan. Applications from the People’s Republic of China increased by 29.2% to 12,247 putting the country in fourth place, while those from the Republic of Korea grew by 14.1%.

Earlier this week, Chrimar Systems, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Chrimar is asking the nation’s highest court to answer the question of whether the Federal Circuit may: 1. apply a finality standard for patent cases that conflicts with the standard applied by the Supreme Court and all other circuit courts in non-patent cases, and 2. whether a final judgment of liability and damages that has been affirmed on appeal may be reversed based on the decision of an administrative agency.

Almost a third of the recently signed $8.3 billion bill to fund the United States response to the coronavirus outbreak is devoted directly to vaccine research and development. And while the realities of drug development and FDA approval mean it is unlikely any vaccine will be available before next year, the government has numerous tools at its disposal in seeking to reduce the strain on the nation’s health care system. As many as nine different pharmaceutical companies worldwide are rushing to develop a safe and effective vaccine. Some are using traditional vaccine methods, including testing previously developed vaccines for other viruses. Others are using new technology to address the outbreak. The rush to find and deploy a coronavirus vaccine raises several interesting legal and regulatory issues, including balancing speed with efficacy, understanding ownership, and vaccine costs.

Every week, Unified Patents compiles all Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district court filings, lists them, and releases them daily to subscribers. Each Wednesday, IP Watchdog will post the list, with a handful of interesting cases highlighted with context. To see the docket, filings, and learn more about the case, click on the links provided below. Litigation financing or patent aggregator parent data is provided where known and confirmable. The results appear in chronological order, below.

The recent White House meeting with leaders from American pharmaceutical companies sought their help in solving the coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China and is currently gripping the globe. The meeting was part of the U.S. government marshaling our nation’s private and public medical research and development (R&D) resources in a race to create therapeutics, vaccines, diagnostic tools and cures. The Wall Street Journal has noted that “a core U.S. strength is the breadth of its private medical resources. That’s on display now as the government is calling on private actors to buttress the federal response.” Ironically, the same U.S. government urging the same private industry whose intellectual property rights enable it to develop medical miracles to help is targeting American pharmaceutical firms with a number of IP-killing policy proposals. One such bad idea comes from the Food & Drug Administration in a rulemaking titled “Importation of Prescription Drugs Proposed Rule (Docket No. FDA-2019-N-5711).”

There was a sharp decline in the number of inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed last year; in 2019, a total of 1,271 IPR petitions were filed, compared to 1,607 IPR petitions in 2018. This represents a decline of 21%. Patent litigation has been falling from its peaks in 2015 and, as IPR filings closely follow the U.S. district court trends, with a lag of 12 to 18 months, this decline in IPRs was expected. Taking a closer look at the most active IPR firms, the following firms lost or gained significant market share as the broader IPR market declined in 2019. While there are different ways to look at this, we chose to compare the absolute change instead of the percentage of change, as smaller players with, for example, a single case in 2018, can grow 100% by adding one new case in 2019. We also looked at the total IPR activity for the firms as they represented either the petitioners and patent owners in 2018 or 2019.

As IPWatchdog reported last week, on March 2, in what can only be characterized as the most significant crackdown against patent evasion in a generation, TiVo Corporation won a groundbreaking U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling against Comcast. The Court’s opinion provides a noteworthy precedent that will spell trouble for the future of Comcast’s business practices, particularly for the company’s upcoming cases with the ITC. More significantly, however, it will protect the authority of the ITC to police similarly profiled instances of patent trolling in the future, which will make the opinion go down in history as one of the most substantial victories for the strength and sanctity of patent evasion in the 21st century

Much has been written on women’s disproportionate numbers as scientists trained in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), as well the under-representation of women as inventors of record on USPTO patents. These statistics relate to women’s role in scientific development and inventorship, or in other words: in the creation of intellectual property (IP). Having said that, the reasons why women don’t get funded have little to do with IP, and much to do with the institutional structure of the venture capital (VC) ecosystem, as well as the corporate representation (or lack thereof) of women in senior management and board positions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana finding CleanTech’s patents-in-suit unenforceable for inequitable conduct for making a pre-critical-date offer for sale.  The patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,858 (“the ’858 patent”), 8,008,516 (“the ’516 patent”), 8,008,517 (“the ’517 patent”), and 8,283,484 (“the ’484 patent”), are directed to methods of recovering oil from a dry mill ethanol plant’s byproduct, i.e. “thin stillage.” 

To say that the world’s been deeply shaken by the coronavirus (and the disease it causes, known as COVID-19) is no exaggeration. Our stock market has plunged, world trade is disrupted and people around the globe are fearful about confronting a disease that’s erupted out of the blue. Eyes are turning to the United States of America for a solution. There’s a good reason for that: we are far and away the best at developing new therapies to combat the scourge of disease. In all likelihood, a vaccine for the coronarivus will come out of a partnership between our National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the private sector. We have tried and true mechanisms for facilitating these arrangements, which NIH has effectively employed in the past. Our political leaders are well advised to leave them alone. Adding more unpredictability at this stage of the game, such as imposing “reasonable pricing” provisions on a vaccine that doesn’t exist, only adds more uncertainty to the equation. And there’s plenty of that already.

A flash of genius hits like lightning. It shocks you into a superior state of understanding and your entire body buzzes. My flash struck in the summer of 2000, while I was asleep. Then, a New York Times article came out in October 2006 with a picture of the 20-something wunderkind who apparently “experienced an epiphany…an idea that would be worth billions and billions of dollars.”  Standing next to him was my former boss who thought my invention was “brilliant.”

From the time my patent was granted to the time it expires, a company that stole my invention from my hands will have generated over $1 trillion dollars using it. When faced with a patent infringement lawsuit, they weaponized the America Invents Act (AIA), which they lobbied into law, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) validated their theft.

The UK Government has confirmed that the country will not be part of the planned Unified Patent Court (UPC). The decision was revealed in a statement sent by a government spokesperson to IAM Magazine on February 27, after it had been hinted at in an electronic mailing distributed by a trade association and shared on social media. This represents a reversal of policy, since the UK ratified the UPC Agreement in April 2018. Ironically, the minister who signed the ratification was the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson. He is now the Prime Minister. However, the change was expected after the government published its approach to negotiations on the future relationship with the EU earlier on February 27. This document explicitly ruled out “any jurisdiction” for the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the UK.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld an International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling granting a limited exclusion order that bars importation of X1 set-top boxes by Comcast, including importation by ARRIS and Technicolor on behalf of Comcast. Although the patents at issue have both expired, the Court refused Comcast’s motion to dismiss, finding that there were “sufficient collateral consequences to negate mootness.”

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 makes clear that a qualified expert may testify if he or she could help a trier of fact understand evidence and facts at issue. Fairness and reliability are the lineaments of Rule 702 and other rules governing expert discovery. Simply put, each party is given the opportunity to present expert testimony, and to challenge that of the opposing party. As gatekeepers of expert testimony, judges are careful not to give one party an unfair advantage over another regardless of the type of expert presented. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently found that the District Court for the Northern District of Florida abused its discretion by allowing unqualified expert testimony concerning the invalidity of a patent. HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, Case No. 19-1649 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2020) (Moore, J) involved the infringement of patents related to an oxygen supply management apparatus for glass blowing.