Posts Tagged: "Gene Quinn"

By accepting cert. in Kappos v. Hyatt the United States Supreme Court has clearly and undeniably jumped the shark in terms of patents. This case, which raises issues of such little importance to the greater scheme of patent law, is hardly appropriate for Supreme Court consideration. All those attorneys and parties who will have your petition for cert. denied you are left with the sad reality that your case is not as important as a matter that statistically comes up in .00% of all patent applications filed at the USPTO.

Wherever we go we always get a number of individuals who are currently in law school, have recently graduated law school or are engineers or scientists looking to change careers. During one of the breaks between sessions on day 1 here in San Francisco one of the students taking the course asked me a question that we receive quite a lot, which is this: once I pass the exam how do I learn to actually do this? Like so many things in life experience is the best teacher, but increasingly finding a job without some experience can be extremely difficult.

Obviously, Congressman Rogers is not being completely straight forward. The funds that exceed the appropriation to the USPTO would be available for use by the USPTO if and only if that is consistent with grants by appropriators. That is a far cry from saying the USPTO would get to keep 100% of the user fees it receives. Of course, this would not be the first time that Congressman Rogers was less than completely accurate regarding PTO funding.

In truth, the dissent of Justice Breyer is extraordinarily short-sighted. As is the case with many inventions that are foundationally important, many judges seem extremely willing to find such pioneering inventions invalid for one reason or another. Indeed, Justice Breyer even glowingly referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court case that originally prevented the patenting of software. Today, the ruling in Gottschalk universally believed to be wrong, yet to some it still seems to remain the seminal case showing that pioneering inventions should not be patented.

The reality is that from 1790 to 1836 patents were given to the first to file. Between 1836 and 1870 a panel of arbitrators would decide disputes between conflicting patents and patent applications, but were not required to grant the patent to the first and true inventor. Moreover, even with the passage of the Patent Act of 1870, the first act that specifically and unambiguously gives the Patent Office the authority to grant a patent to one who is not the first to file, the power to grant to the first to invent is conditional, not mandatory. This permissive language persists through the Patent Act of 1939, and ultimately into the regime we have today, which was ushered in by the 1952 Patent Act.

Apple doesn’t have to worry about being an infringer under the copyright laws of the United States even if someone uses an Apple device to make an unauthorized recording or capture unauthorized images. That is because there are so-called substantial non-infinging uses capable for the iPhone, for example. So why then would Apple pursue disabling technology and put the keys to your iPhone in the hands of a third party who can disable certain functionality at will without your permission? That is a good question indeed.

The magnitude of the problems facing our economy cannot be overstated. Neither can it be overstated that a coherent national innovation policy is the answer to what ails the U.S. economy. As Hank explains in the Introduction, “for the first time in our history, the connection between technological innovation and job creation has broken down. And for the first time also, the wealth created by innovation is going mostly just to a handful of founders and venture capitalists rather than to many thousands of employees, not to mention the community at large.” Through mismanagement and misapplication of tax, immigration and patent policies our leaders in Washington, D.C. have done us no favors. Speaking at the reception last night Nothhaft explained: “We live in the greatest country in the world and we seem bent on tying our arms behind our backs.” That has to change.

The man who secretes his invention makes easier and plainer the path of no one. He contributes nothing to the public. Over and over has it been repeated that the object of the patent system is, through protection, to stimulate inventions, and inventors ought to understand that this is for the public good. Where an invention is made and hidden away, it might as well never have been made at all,–at least so far as the public is concerned. The law owes nothing to such an inventor, and to permit him to lie in wait, so to speak, for one who, independently and in good faith, proceeds to make and disclose to the public the same invention, would be both unjust and against the policy of the patent laws. In the eyes of the law he is not the prior inventor.

Given that House Republicans seem to fear an adequately funded Patent Office I got to thinking — What could they be afraid of? With that in mind, here are the top 10 things that House Republicans must be afraid of as they seek to oppose an adequately funded Patent Office. Can you hear the black helicopter squad swirling overhead, conspiracy theories in hand?

A representation relationship is just that, a relationship. Who you work with is an important decision and patent attorneys operate differently. At the end of the day what you should be looking for is someone who is competent and who you connect with on some level. In my opinion, when representation is most successful there is a good working relationship between the attorney and inventor, and that requires a certain comfort level and familiarity. Try and work with someone in a symbiotic way. No matter how good the inventor, the invention or the patent attorney, an “oil and water” characteristic to the relationship cannot result in the best work product or the most beneficial ultimate outcome.

icrosoft wanted to see that changed, with prior art not considered by the Patent Office requiring a lower evidentiary threshold to invalidate. To rule in Microsoft’s favor would have required the Supreme Court to throw away 30 years of well-settled Federal Circuit law, as well as overruling Supreme Court precedent in effect since at least 1934, but which traces back in some form from that date a further 100 years. That was a bridge too far for the Supreme Court, who ruled today 9-0 (with concurring opinions but no dissents) that in order to invalidate patent claims 35 U.S.C. 282 requires clear and convincing evidence regardless of whether the prior art was known by the Patent Office during prosecution of the patent application.

Despite the fact that Congressmen Ryan and Rogers would like this to be about the Obama Administration, the fact is that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is the one who championed the amendment in the Senate that would give the Patent Office the ability to keep the fees it collects. Senator Coburn is known as “Senator No” for his staunch fiscally conservative stance on virtually all issues. So if you are willing to let facts influence your viewpoint there is absolutely no way that Patent Office funding within proposed patent reform can be an issue upon which Republicans can beat up Democrats. It was a leading fiscally conservative Republican in the Senate who brought the USPTO funding issue out of obscurity and to the top of the agenda.

At issue in the case, essentially, was whether the extraordinarily successful Bayh-Dole legislation (enacted in 1980) automatically vested ownership of patent rights in Universities when the underlying research was federally funded. In a blow to the convention wisdom of Supreme Court patent-watchers, the Supreme Court actually affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Unlike some recent decisions where the result of the Federal Circuit was affirmed but a wholly new test announced, the Supreme Court simply concluded: “The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is affirmed.” Perhaps even more surprising, the Supreme Court seems to have objectively reached the correct conclusion.