Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

The latest television technology (4K) contains four times the number of pixels as 1080p (full HD). Without HEVC, broadcasters wanting to transmit programs in 4K quality face the challenge of needing high quality broadband reception to make 4K broadcasts a reality. A benefit of HEVC is that it makes broadcasting 4K more feasible – reducing both the cost and time it takes to deliver high quality programming. While the technology is anticipated to be used in almost all video processors and display devices in the future, adoption remains slow because of a complex licensing scenario.

Certain innovations—known as enabling technologies—provide the foundation for progress across a range of industries. Enabling technologies include mobile wireless, the laser, CT scanners, the microprocessor, artificial intelligence, and freight containerization. Such technologies drive wealth creation throughout the economy. However, the difficulties associated with monetizing this type of IP, which I explore in this article, mean that private enterprise tends to underinvest in new enabling technologies. Public policy needs to be more supportive, and firms need to be willing to support more blue-sky projects. As a nation, we are harvesting the fruits of old enabling technologies without investing sufficiently in new ones. We are eating our seed corn.

Three events boosted our economic turnaround in the 1980’s: the passage of Bayh-Dole, which injected the incentives of patent ownership into the federal R&D system; the enactment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which insured the courts would apply the patent law consistently; and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Diamond v Chakraberty that living organisms could be patented. That decision stated that patents could “include anything under the sun that is made by man.” Today that quote is only ironic.

The Federal Circuit recently decided the case of Oracle America v. Google Inc. To “attract Java developers to build apps for Android,” Google copied the declaring code, but wrote its own implementing code for the 37 Java API packages. Id at 1187.  Previously, the Federal Circuit held that “[the] declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization (‘SSO’) of the Java API packages are entitled to copyright protection.” .  On the other hand, the Federal Circuit also recognized that a reasonable jury could find that “the functional aspects of the packages” are “relevant to Google’s fair use defense.” In this key decision that has the potential to rock the software industry, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the jury verdict and found that “Google’s use of the 37 Java API packages was not fair as a matter of law.

This article reviews recent Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions addressing the scope of appellate review of institution of inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), provides that: “[t]he determination… whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” Federal courts initially interpreted Section 314(d) to bar appellate review of institution decisions entirely. However, recent decisions have narrowed Section 314(d) and expanded the scope of appellate review of matters decided by the Board at institution. This article will review decisions interpreting Section 314(d) to date, and explain how recent precedents have created new opportunities for appellate review of the Board’s decisionmaking in IPR proceedings.

The rate of digital transformation within the business world is unstoppable. Of course, transformation of this kind can deliver numerous benefits, but it is also leading to an increase in illicit counterfeit activity. Almost half (47%) of all brands are losing revenue due to counterfeiting while four out often organizations have experienced an increase in the occurrence of counterfeiting and brand infringement. This has, more often than not, originated from a variety of components related to digital transformation on a global scale, including but not being limited to: advances in social media (61%); chat/messaging (52%); artificial intelligence (51%); the dark web (48%), and augmented reality (47%).

87.2% of patents in the study, per the table, were subjected to just 1 or 2 IPR petitions – so gang tackling is no big deal. But make this simple observation: If a patent is killed in its first IPR, it can’t possibly be considered for a second one. The USPTO keeps their denominator fixed (and too large), which artificially lessens the reported percentage of patents which have large numbers of petitions filed against them. The calculation shouldn’t be 55/4,376 = 1.3% because by the time a patent faces its 7th(!) IPR petition, the universe of eligible-for-challenge patents is much smaller than during the first petition.

Proving inducement to infringe requires showing that the accused infringer possessed “specific intent” to infringe. In pharmaceutical cases, particularly those arising in the Hatch-Waxman framework, specific intent may be supplied by the wording of a drug label. Vanda sheds light on several issues relevant to inferring inducement to infringe based on a drug’s label. For example, can a label’s clear recommendations on ultimate dosage be negated by how a medical provider arrives at the dosage? Or, does finding specific intent require that every practitioner prescribe an infringing dose? Or, can evidence of substantial non-infringing use negate a finding of inducement when the drug’s label instructs performing the patented method?

Events along the prosecution process create multiple windows of opportunity for strengthening a portfolio. Decisions are based on indications of market adoption using evidence from specialized technical analysis and subject matter experts who examine products in the market that potentially use your teaching and proposed claims. There are four key factors to consider during the prosecution process that can identify strengthening opportunities

This article examines Supreme Court and Federal Circuit analyses of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 where the patent claims at issue were directed to Life Sciences-related technologies. I first examine this topic in the context of composition of matter patent claims and then in the context of method claims. As reflected in the below discussion, while the § 101 case law is fairly straightforward with respect to composition claims, the case law is murkier when it comes to method claims.

On June 7, 2018, the USPTO issued new guidance to its examining corps in the form of a memorandum discussing the Federal Circuit’s April 13, 2018 decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Circ. 2018). The memo indicates that it is intended to “addresses the limited question of how to evaluate the patent eligibility of ‘method of treatment claims’ in light of the Federal Circuit decision in Vanda” and also states, perhaps in a nod to the leadership of new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, that “[t]he USPTO is determined to continue its mission to provide clear and predictable patent rights in accordance with this rapidly evolving area of the law, and to that end, may issue further guidance in the area of subject matter eligibility in the future.”

In their supervisory role, partners typically set the tone for, and dictate the parameters of, their interactions with associates. A first partner may approach the partner-associate relationship as one of mutuality. A second similarly situated partner may premise the relationship substantially on advancing his or her own self-interest. Not surprisingly, associates tend to prefer working for the first partner if given the choice.

In 2011, as part of the American Invents Act (“AIA”), Congress significantly restructured the way in which previously issued patents could be challenged.   In some cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like ex parte reexamination and reissue proceedings, were kept intact as such proceedings existed prior to the AIA.  In other cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like inter partes reexamination, were replaced with new proceedings, such as the inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”).    In addition, brand new proceedings were created, such as post-grant review proceedings (“PGRs”), covered business method patent review proceedings (“CBMs”), and supplemental examination proceedings.  In each instance, Congress made policy choices as to who could (or could not) bring and/or participate in such proceedings, and who could (or could not) raise challenges to decisions made by the government in such proceedings. 

Missing for a while at the U.S. competition agencies has been an appreciation for how competition works in the real world — in particular, discounting the vital part intellectual property plays in sparking new competition and growing the economic pie. It can be easy to lock in a static view of the economic world.  Or misdefine “competition,” as Robert Bork noted in The Antitrust Paradox.  Fortunately, things are looking up. The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division is now led by someone steeped both in antitrust and innovation.  This breath of fresh air is supplied by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim.

In Vanda, Chief Judge Prost, one of the judges on the CellzDirect panel, dissented from the majority’s decision that found claims patent eligible for not being directed to a judicial exception in step one of the Mayo/Alice test. What differences between the claims in Vanda and those in CellzDirect led Judge Prost to dissent? Can these differences shed further light on the characteristics necessary for a claim to be found not directed to a patent-ineligible concept in step one?