A conflict exists between the incentive to invent and the breadth of patent-eligible subject matter. It has become difficult to recognize the line between patentable subject matter and non-patentable products of nature. The Supreme Court has made conflicting statements regarding that line in its rulings in Funk Bros. and Myriad Genetics. It is time for the Supreme Court to resolve the inconsistencies in their rulings on 35 U.S.C. § 101… This case is an ideal vehicle for providing the clarification the patent and investment community require.  At issue is how to determine whether something is a product of nature under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

As was the case with Justice Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh has a history of being skeptical toward the growth of the Administrative State, which means the growth of agency power is not something he has shown a predisposition to being in favor of in his decisions. Given the outsized importance of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) within the patent industry, and the fact that the Supreme Court has already twice mentioned “shenanigans” in PTAB procedures, another conservative Justice inclined to be skeptical about the growth of administrative power may ultimately set the stage for review of some of the more egregious PTAB violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, such as but not limited to a severe and substantial lack of judicial independence among the Administrative Patent Judges that make up the PTAB (i.e., the Office admittedly engaging in panel stacking to guarantee favored outcomes in inter partes challenges, the fact that dissents are not allowed unless approved by supervisors, and supervisors deliberating with subordinates on cases they were not assigned to handle).

Tech giant Google had conducted its first-ever sale of patent assets in the U.S. brokered patent market. Data collected and provided to Bloomberg from the Richardson Oliver Law Group shows that Google had sold 207 assets, including 138 U.S. patents, in a single deal this year. The U.S. patents sold by Google covered lithium-ion battery-related technologies, which Google had first acquired in 2012 from its acquisition of the Motorola Mobility portfolio.

One might naturally expect that, if a rejection under § 101 appealed from the PTAB failed to address all the claim limitations and had zero supporting evidence to determine whether something was abstract or well-understood, routine and conventional, the case would be a slam-dunk at the Federal Circuit.  After all, according to Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, the Federal Circuit would be “powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis.” Unfortunately though, nothing could be farther from the truth as is demonstrated by the Federal Circuit’s recent decision of In re Villena, Appeal No. 2017-2069 (August 29, 2018) where, as is proved by the joint appendix, the examiner failed to address each and every claim limitation separately, to address the claim limitations as a whole, ordered combination, and to provide any evidence whatsoever to support his factual assertions.

Thursday, September 6th, marks the 24th anniversary of the issue of a seminal patent in the field of MIMO wireless communications. Its inventor, Dr. Arogyaswami Paulraj, is a member of the 2018 class of inductees into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Today, we return to our Evolution of Technology series to explore the story of how this inventor took advantage of his own academic skills to come to the United States and pioneer this major advance in wireless communications.

Just days prior to our interview an announcement was made that PTAB Chief Judge David Ruschke would be stepping down and assuming new responsibilities. “At the PTAB, we will have new leadership. For now, come September 2nd, the acting chief will be Scott Boalick, and the acting deputy chief will be Jackie Bonilla,” Director Iancu said. “We’re going to post the position, the vacancy. I want to encourage everybody out there, both inside the PTO and from the outside, who is interested, and thinks will do an excellent job, to apply. We are at the beginning of the process for finding new leadership at the PTAB.”

Filming and photographing in public venues – parks, streets, subway stations – for ads, TV spots and social media videos can produce exciting, creative results for advertising campaigns, but companies advertising should be careful when using shots featuring graffiti in the background. It may be protected by copyright law. Even if the graffiti has not been lawfully created, but rather produced in an act of vandalism or trespass, the artist could raise a copyright infringement claim that could lead to a lawsuit.

The focus of this interview was OED generally, but more specifically why they Office felt it was necessary to begin charging annual dues to practitioners and what those funds would be used for. I indicated leading up to the interview that I would specifically like to discuss the issue of unauthorized practice of law, explaining that I personally was not philosophically opposed to dues but that as a registered patent practitioner myself I would like to see OED do more than just reciprocal discipline, which appears to be the overwhelming portion of their work, at least if you look at the OED Reading Room of published decisions. Director Covey came with statistics and followed up after the interview with the chart included below. While it may appear OED focuses overwhelmingly on reciprocal discipline, that is a tiny fraction of what they do.

The issue faced by the EU High Court was whether shape and color of Louboutin’s mark could be separated under the circumstances; i.e., whether color applied to the sole of a high-heeled shoe is essentially a “shape” mark within the meaning of the EU trademark law. The EU High Court found in favor of Louboutin, pointing out that Louboutin did not seek to protect a particular shape, but the application of a color to a specific part of a high heeled shoe. 

George Santayana is attributed with the aphorism: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This is modern § 101 in a nutshell. Every horror we in the patent community are now experiencing under Alice/Mayo isn’t new, but a repeat of a drama played out long ago… Every great horror story has a monster… In the patent world, the monster is “invention.”

How ironic is it that the infringer lobby – the very people trying to weaken the patent system and who ignore the patent rights of others through a free riding scheme of efficient infringement – are the ones who are seeing their monopoly power consolidated. By ignoring the property of true innovators the infringer lobby has grown in size, power, strength and influence.  Profits are soaring in Silicon Valley, yet they claim patent trolls are killing high tech. That claim is simply not credible. Stop and think about that for even half a second in an objective way and the claims don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny. In 2017, Apple had nearly $50 billion in net income, Microsoft has over $20 billion in net income, Facebook over $15 billion, Goggle approximately $13 billion. If patent trolls are killing, or even attempting to kill the tech elite of Silicon Valley we all ought to be able to agree they are doing a very poor job.

Organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are semiconductor films composed of an organic compound having electroluminescent properties which utilize an electrical current to emit light. The technology has wide applications and has been incorporated into digital displays for mobile phones, automotive dashboards and television screens. OLEDs can be constructed to be thinner and lighter than liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and also provide…

Cobra Products filed a lawsuit for patent infringement. G.T. Water then filed for a re-examination of my patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to invalidate my patent claims. My licensing agreement with Cobra and BrassCraft was to share equally in the cost of defending my patent. However, Cobra Products elected not to help me in the defense of my patent at the USPTO. I was forced to bear the total cost of that alone. After seven years of validity proceedings, which have cost more than $250,000, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has invalidated all 12 of my claims covering the Zip-It. How can the USPTO issue a patent with 12 claims and then use the PTAB to neuter my patent? Since this has been going back and forth with the court system, there are now numerous other entities which have engaged in copying and infringing my patented invention.

In October 2016, the creators of the classic mockumentary film This Is Spinal Tap filed suit against a group of defendants including the French mass media conglomerate Vivendi S.A. alleging that Vivendi engaged in anticompetitive business activities to defraud the Spinal Tap creators of profits earned from the movie. On August 28th of this year, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California allowed the case to move forward by denying a motion filed by defendants to dismiss the case based on the economic loss rule, a rule that otherwise operates to require recovery of damages under contract rather than for an action for fraud. Judge Gee also determined that copyright reversion claims presented a sufficiently ripe controversy for consideration by the court. 

In its decision, the Federal Circuit noted that the PTAB is entitled to strike arguments improperly raised in a reply brief under 37 CFR § 42.23(b). However, the appellate court disagreed that Ericsson raised a new theory in its reply brief and thus the Board erred in not considering those portions of the reply brief. “The Board’s error was parsing Ericsson’s arguments on reply with too fine of a filter,” the Federal Circuit found. Ericsson’s petition for IPR described how a person with ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the concept of interleaving. The CAFC further found that the PTAB’s error was exacerbated by the fact that the new claim constructions proposed by Intellectual Ventures after institution gave rise to the significance of interleaving in the proceeding. In light of this, the Federal Circuit found that Ericsson deserved an opportunity to respond to the new construction.