In a recent decision, the Eastern District of Texas has clarified the proper role of functionality in claim construction for design patents. By statute, design patents must be directed to “ornamental designs for an article of manufacture.” As a result, courts have struggled with how and when functional aspects of a design should be considered when construing a patent claim.…

In this final installment of my interview with Nick Godici we learn just how close the Patent Office was to sending out 9,000 furlough notices (to all those on the patent side of the building) during the Summer of 2009 as a result of lack of funds. We also discuss the historic patent allowance rate versus the 42% rate the Patent Office got down to during the Q1 of 2009. Godici also humors me by answering the fun questions and we learn that he was the primary examiner on a somewhat famous (or infamous) patent relating to a bird trap and a cat feeder, and he goes off the board with an interesting selection for most famous fictional inventor.

I can’t tell you the reason why companies choose to be targets, but I think I have a compelling idea. Those companies that are the ones who complain about patent trolls are also the ones who continually are on Capitol Hill lobbying for patent reform, which in their mind is really only appropriate when it makes issued patents easy to challenge and much more difficult to get. These are the folks who built their corporate empires on patents, growing from small company to mega-giant company while building an enormous intellectual property portfolio heavily dominated with patents that gave them a competitive advantage. Now that they have their market dominant position they really don’t need the patents so much because they have their market power to insulate them from competition, so they want to make it harder for the next individual inventor, start-up tech business or small business to innovate, protect and grow up the corporate food chain.

The complaint seeks $3.8 billion in damages at a minimum, but no event less than a fair and full reasonable royalty, but also seeks tripled damages as a result of willful infringement, which would bring the total to $11.4 billion at a minimum. While willful infringement is quite hard to prove, if the facts actually are what is alleged it would seem as if the case is exceptional, which could lead to triple damages and attorneys fees as well. So when you add that all together and add pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, the total amount on the line could easily exceed $15 billion. And before you write this off as a patent troll trying to hold up a true innovator, which some of the uninformed in the popular press are doing already, read the rest of the article and take a look at the complaint. If the facts alleged even remotely resemble reality this could turn out to be an epic battle to which we will all want front row seats!

In this interview we talk about how two Presidents that are extremely different on so many fronts, Presidents Reagan and Obama, are pursuing quite similar strategies regarding the Patent Office. We also talk about the importance of good working relations between patent examiners and the patent bar, the enormous backlog of applications at the Patent Office, the Patent Office process for handling decisions and issuing guidance in situations such as the recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos and what it is like to be Commissioner for Patents and the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office.

Truth be told, it would be enough for Congress to just (1) stop siphoning off money from the USPTO through fee diversion; (2) grant the USPTO fee setting authority; and (3) stand out of the way. So my message to Congress would be this: put the pocketbook down, slowly step back and raise your hands over your head so we can see them!

I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Godici, and we managed to get into a wide variety of issues that ranged from his early days as a patent examiner, his patent examination philosophy and approach, the role of the USPTO, the Patent Granting Authority versus the Patent Denial Authority, examiner training, building relationships between patent examiners and the patent bar, the PTO work from home initiative, inequitable conduct, the Bilski decision and what the USPTO is now likely doing to address that, the parallels between the Reagan Administration and the Obama Administration in terms of patent and innovation policy and exactly what it is like to be the Commissioner of Patents and the Director of the Patent Office, and much more. Oh yes, we also talked about his getting a call from Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke last summer and returning to the Patent Office for a few months as a special adviser at the request of the Obama Administration.

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) David Kappos announced today that the USPTO’s draft Strategic Plan for fiscal years (FY) 2010-2015 is posted for public review and comment. The draft 2010-2015 Strategic Plan sets out the USPTO’s mission-focused strategic goals: to optimize patent quality and timeliness; to optimize trademark quality and timeliness; and to provide global and domestic leadership to improve intellectual property (IP) policy, protection, and enforcement worldwide.

On May 17, 2010, Invention Submission Corporation (ISC) d.b.a. InventHelp® and IPWatchdog, Inc. settled the litigation initiated by ISC against IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn and Renee Quinn (collectively IPWatchdog). Effectuation of the settlement has taken longer than initially contemplated, and this article (published after review, contribution and acquiescence by InventHelp® and their attorneys), has gone through multiple revisions and is the final piece of the settlement. The case is now over and all terms of the Settlement Agreement have been satisfactorily met by both parties. The parties are pleased that the lawsuit was resolved to their mutual satisfaction. Aside from the details contained in this article the terms of the settlement will remain confidential, although the lawsuit itself may be discussed.

One reason I was quite interested in Bilski was because the Supreme Court (not surprisingly) ruled that the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test was too inflexible, much like the “teaching, suggestion and motivation” (TSM) test in KSR International v. Teleflex. So why my intense interest in the Supreme Court (aka the Judicial Mount Olympus) relegating the “machine or transformation” (aka MoT) test to “second class status” in Bilski? Besides the inanity of MoT as the sole test for patent-eligibility, I am interested because of Judge Sweet’s ill-advised reliance on MoT (now smitten by the thunderbolts from our Judicial Mount Olympus in Bilski) for invalidating Myriad’s method claims using its BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequence technology.

USPTO Director David Kappos made one of his rare excursions outside of the US at the end of June when he flew to Munich to take part in the IP Business Congress, organised by IAM – the magazine which I edit. Speaking to 450 delegates, many of them heads of IP at large corporations and SMEs, Kappos was clear that he has a major task in getting the USPTO fit for purpose and able to meet the myriad challenges it faces. I also discussed many of these with him in an interview we recorded at the congress.

At the start of the new year I pledged that I would start to try and expand the scope of IPWatchdog.com to touch upon intellectual property matters outside the United States. In part this means trying to add an international flavor where appropriate, which is certainly always possible in part through discussion of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In another facet it means profiling interesting stories relating to foreign intellectual property laws.

The reality is that individuals and companies fuel the piracy market. Simply stated, if there were no demand there would be no supply, so it is quite disingenuous for us to only point the finger at the supplier, but rather we ought to acknowledge that there is plenty of blame to go around, which may be a hard pill to swallow. And while there may an intellectual distinction between sharing software or music with a friend or family member, there exists a cultural indifference that borders on contempt for the rights of creators.

I have wondered out loud why we don’t have more of a bounce coming off this Great Recession. Certainly the historical dysfunctionality of the Patent Office prior to Director Kappos has something to do with that. It seems to me that open source has also lead many otherwise capable individuals to turn away from innovating. They are not looking for paradigm shifting open spaces and instead toward copying, or simply being blissfully ignorant about whether they are advancing or simply reinventing what others have already invented. The march forward has ceased in part due to the Patent Office backlog and due to an infatuation with open source and reinventing the wheel.

Now that the Supreme Court has vacated and remanded both the Classen and Prometheus decisions, the Federal Circuit must revisit these issues. For Prometheus, the decision may be simpler, because the claims were already held to meet the machine-or-transformation test. Although the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision held that the M-or-T test was not the only test by which patent-eligibility can be determined, the Supreme Court seemed to have agreement from all nine Justices that the machine-or-transformation test was still a useful tool and valid option. See, e.g., Bilski, slip. op. at 2 of J. Breyer’s concurrence. Although a claim that does not meet the M-or-T test may still be patent-eligible under other theories, one can presume that the M-or-T test is still a “safe harbor” for claims that meet its provisions. The Federal Circuit’s re-visitation of Prometheus will be the first opportunity for this presumption to be tested.