Posts in Patents

This week in Other Barks & Bites: The Federal Circuit issues several precedential decisions, including one reviving the patent claims in VirnetX and another determining that America Invents Act (AIA) validity trials don’t violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause in Celgene. This week in Other Barks & Bites: The Federal Circuit issues several precedential decisions, including one reviving the patent claims in VirnetX and another determining that America Invents Act (AIA) validity trials don’t violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause in Celgene; the USPTO proposes fee increases to patent examination and AIA trials and issues a final rule on e-filing in trademark registrations; Katy Perry is ordered to pay $2.7 million for copyright infringement; free OTA TV service Locast is targeted in a copyright suit filed by Disney and other major broadcasters; Pfizer and Mylan consider creating a global giant in off-patent drugs; the University of California files patent suits against major retailers over LED light bulb technology; and patent applications listing artificial intelligence machine inventor are filed in patent offices across the world.

Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued 39 decisions on inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, instituting 24 IPRs and denying 15. The PTAB instituted one of four IPR petitions filed by Comcast to challenge a single patent owned by Rovi, adding a new chapter to the legal battle between those two parties over unlicensed television technologies. Spotify also saw the institution of one of three IPR petitions challenging user profile and playlist recommendation patents owned by S.I.S.V.E.L.

Over the past decade—and likely for the rest of our lifetimes—China has become a favored venue for patent filings due to its increasing GDP and expansive market. However, U.S. applicants familiar with U.S. patent rules should be careful not to employ the same prosecution strategies as used in the United States when filing Chinese patents, as the rules in the two jurisdictions are materially different. For example, in the United States, it is common to file a string of continuation applications for inventions that are licensing/litigation worthy. In China, there is no corresponding opportunity.

Yesterday, 24 law professors, former Chief Judges of the Federal Circuit and former heads of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sent a letter to Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) and Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Doug Collins (R-GA) aimed at correcting what the letter characterizes as “misapprehensions of law and misleading rhetoric” on the subject of pending patent reform legislation. The letter makes specific reference to statements made by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claiming that the draft legislation to amend Section 101 of the patent law “if enacted would authorize patenting products and laws of nature, abstract ideas, and other general fields of knowledge.” The authors of yesterday’s letter, which included Retired Federal Circuit Chief Judges Randall Rader and Paul Michel and former USPTO Directors Todd Dickinson and David Kappos, called such statements “profoundly mistaken and inaccurate” and laid out in detail the specific inaccuracies. Rather than expanding the scope of 101 to abstract ideas and laws of nature, said the letter, “the proposed amendments preclude ‘implicit or judicially created exceptions to subject matter eligibility,’” and do not eliminate existing constitutional and statutory bars.

Earlier this summer, Intel announced that some 8,500 patent assets (i.e., issued patents and pending patent applications) would be auctioned. Approximately 6,000 assets related to 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards, while 1,700 assets relate to wireless implementation of cellular standards. According to initial reports from IAM, Intel was hoping to sell these patents separately from the smartphone modem business, although they were open to the possibility that a prospective buyer might seek to acquire both the patent assets and Intel’s smartphone modem business. Shortly after the Intel patent assets were announced as available for sale, Intel abruptly took the assets off the market in favor of negotiating with a single interested suitor. Very quickly, news broke that the negotiations with that unidentified suitor were quite advanced, suggesting that the Intel auction announcement was nothing more than a negotiating ploy to get the unidentified suitor back to the table and for the suitor to realize that they could lose the patent assets if they did not play their hand correctly and misidentified the leverage involved in the negotiation. It has recently come to light that the unidentified suitor for the Intel patent assets was none other than Apple, just as IAM has predicted in its initial reporting. So, now we know that Apple will buy the majority of Intel’s modem business, including the patent assets, for $1 billion. 

Whenever a company finds itself in the cross-hairs of a cease-and-desist letter or patent infringement lawsuit, a license may not be a viable option. That is often the case when the patent holder is a competitor intent on enforcing a patent against its rivals… The lesson to be taken away is that the efficacy of a design-around is likely to depend on how significant the change is in terms of the claimed invention’s novelty and/or functionality. One should also consider the possibility of incorporating changes that make use of long-standing prior art techniques, methods or elements, especially any that were cited by the patent examiner, in response to which prior art the patentee either amended its claims or distinguished its invention from such prior art during the course of prosecution. 

Global IP Holdings, LLC, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,690,233, achieved a victory with the Federal Circuit vacating a decision of the Board and remanding for the Board to address predictability and criticality of the claim term to determine whether the written description requirement has been satisfied. Although victorious, Global did not achieve everything it wanted. Global had requested the Federal Circuit to simply overrule the Board. Judge Stoll, however, explained that there was not support in the record sufficient to determine whether the “plastic” claim limitation was critical or important. Therefore, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and ordered the Board, on remand, to address predictability and criticality of the claim term in question in order to determine whether the written description requirement has been satisfied.

This March, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorarito take up Peter v. Nantkwest Inc., on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case will ask the nation’s highest court to determine whether the phrase “[a]ll expenses of the proceeding” found in 35 U.S.C. § 145, which governs appeals to district court of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions to deny the issue of a patent grant, encompasses personnel expenses incurred by the USPTO, including attorneys’ fees, when its employees defend the agency against Section 145 litigation. On July 22, a series of intellectual property and law associations filed amicusbriefs in the case by and large supporting the position of Nantkwest. This includes the American Bar Association, which argued that the USPTO’s interpretation of the statute would “hamper the equal access to justice and chill the assertion of meritorious claims.” Other Nantkwest amici argued that the government has had the statutory authority to collect ‘expenses of the proceeding’ in patent cases since 1839 but for the 174 years prior to the case against Nantkwest, the USPTO has declined to seek attorney’s fees.

The Brazilian PTO has officially introduced its longed-for strategy to solve the enduring patent backlog problem in Brazil.  The plan is to reduce the patent backlog by at least 80% in the course of the next two years with the use of “standardized office actions” – that is, machine-made technical opinions that will simply point out prior art documents to be addressed by the applicant.  Once the backlog is finally dealt with — likely by 2021— the PTO estimates it will to be able to examine future patent applications within twenty-four (24) months. If the goals of the program are achieved, the Brazilian PTO will be finally able to stand on equal footing with its foreign counterparts in the developed world with regard to the average patent examination time.

In recognition of China’s increasing importance in the global IP landscape, patent applications in China by U.S.-based applicants have steadily increased in recent years. Data compiled by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in its World Intellectual Property Indicators 2017 and 2018 reports show the number of regular patent applications in China filed by U.S.-based applicants increasing by about 14% from 2016 to 2017. Over the same period, the number of U.S. utility patent applications filed by U.S.-based applicants fell by about 0.5%. Whatever the story is behind these numbers, U.S.-based applicants are clearly interested in obtaining patent protection in China, and China is courting that interest. Most U.S.-based applicants will naturally gravitate toward protecting their inventions using China’s so-called “invention” patent. This is China’s counterpart to a U.S. utility patent. But China also has the world’s most active utility model system. In many cases, a U.S. patent application could be filed as either a utility model application or an invention application in China. In recent years, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has been quietly updating its utility model system by increasing the degree to which utility model applications are substantively examined.

The representative of the inventor attempted to point to metadata contained within the inventor’s affidavit as being corroborating evidence showing the critical dates. The problem with this evidence was never made a part of the record, and the only place it was mentioned was in the inventor’s deposition, and it was only mentioned by the inventor. Inventor testimony must be corroborated by some competent independent evidence or testimony. Indeed, an inventor cannot corroborate their own testimony relating to prior conception. Therefore, an inventor deposition is insufficient to corroborate an inventor affidavit relying on what the inventor said in the deposition. 

To the superstitious, July is often considered an unlucky month for weddings. In a nod to such lore, and to the leisurely and whimsical days of summer, this is a satirical “love” letter from a fictitious client to its fictitious outside intellectual property counsel, a domestic or foreign law firm. The firm has been providing IP representation to the client for quite some time. Unbeknownst to the firm, but acutely felt by the client, their relationship is on the rocks. In a final act of desperation, the client penned these words in hopes that the firm will move swiftly to help heal the brokenness.

In the final installment of my interview with three examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO), we wrap up our conversation about their approaches to examining computer implemented inventions, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), and how the EPO system compares with the U.S. patent examination system.

When obviousness of a patent claim is at issue, some experts may opine along these lines: “Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” Whether such is common practice or not, testimony of this sort ought not to be allowed. Such testimony should be objected to and stricken as irrelevant. In cases involving a jury, a motion in limine ought to be used to prevent such testimony from coming before a jury. Experts are fact witnesses that are, like all fact and other witnesses, allowed to testify to what they saw, what they heard, and what they did. Unlike other witnesses, however, expert witnesses are further allowed to express opinions within the fields of their expertise. Experts’ expertise comes from having specialized knowledge, education, training, or experience.

In Part II of my interview with three examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO), we continue the conversation about their advice, pet peeves, and approaches to examining computer implemented inventions, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), and how the EPO system compares with the U.S. patent examination system.