Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

Despite the possibility that the judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may have been unconstitutionally appointed, as held recently by a Federal Circuit panel, it is hard to imagine the Federal Circuit (or the Supreme Court) throwing out nearly a decade of USPTO policies and PTAB jurisprudence relating to administrative patent trials under the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). Stay tuned for a probable en banc rehearing of the Arthrex decision in 2020. That being said, a lot happened at the PTAB in 2019. Early in 2019, the PTAB designated as “precedential” an opinion in the Lectrosonics case explicitly adopting the practice called for by the Federal Circuit in the 2017 Aqua Products case of placing the responsibility on the petitioner who challenges a patent to also show that any amendments presented by the patent owner are also invalid. This was followed by proposed formal rules in October 2019 codifying the Lectrosonics holding that the petitioner who initiates a patent challenge will not only have the burden of persuading the PTAB that a patent owner’s claims as issued are invalid but will also have the same burden with regard to claim amendments during the proceeding. The USPTO should finalize this rule shortly.

On December 31, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Commissioner for Trademarks, Mary Boney Denison, retired from her position with the agency. Denison joined the USPTO in 2011 as Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations and became Commissioner for Trademarks on January 1, 2015. Before joining the USPTO, she practiced law in the area of trademark prosecution and litigation, as a founding partner of Manelli Denison & Selter PLLC in Washington, D.C., from 1996 to 2011, and as a partner of Graham & James LLP for ten years. The USPTO has not yet named the next Commissioner for Trademarks. Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations Meryl Hershkowitz will be acting in the role until the new commissioner is named. In late December, IP Watchdog had the opportunity to interview Denison about her career and her accomplishments at the USPTO. Below, she discusses what she is most proud of, what she could have done better, and provides an update on the Office’s efforts to combat fraudulent trademark filings from China, which has proven to be a major stumbling block for the agency in recent years.

Since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision in 2014, the Judiciary’s development of 101 law has caused such an upheaval, Congress may need to intervene. In a July 2018 joint position paper entitled “Congress Must Remedy Uncertainty in 35 U.S.C. §101 and Return Balance to the U.S. Patent System,” the American Bar Association’s IP Law section, the IP Owner’s Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association contended the “Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has injected significant ambiguity into the eligibility determination . . . .” and there is now “[u]ncertainty about what types of inventions qualify at the most basic level for patenting.” This ambiguity, however, may be a blessing in disguise. By creating demand for Congress’ intervention, we have an opportunity to change course from the patent policy that has resulted in this mess. But to turn a corner, Congress needs to first understand the shortcomings of its and the Judiciary’s fundamental assumptions that have created this situation. For more than a decade, both Congress and the Judiciary have approached patent policy from a foundational presumption: the inherent problem with our patent system stems from a bad actor.Under a single-minded bad actor presumption, the Judiciary and Congress have framed our patent policy to increase roadblocks for this bad actor, to prevent it from taking advantage of the system. But this presumption has spawned a policy that is contrary to economic principles, and it has systematically weakened and undermined the U.S. patent system. Even if Congress manages to fix 101 law, if it fails to correct its and the Judiciary’s foundational shortcomings regarding patent policy for the past decade+, we’re doomed to repeat mistakes of the past. If, on the other hand, we switch our patent policy principles to a rational actor model, we can begin to understand our patent system from a foundation rooted in economics. More importantly, we can use economic principles to improve our patent system.

The European Patent Office has refused two European patent applications that designated an artificial intelligence called DABUS as the inventor, following a non-public hearing on November 25, 2019. The applications are for a “food container” (number EP3564144) and “devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention” (number EP3563896). They were filed by the Artificial Inventor Project, which has so far filed patent applications for the inventions via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, China, Korea and Taiwan.

The United States Senate Finance Committee today considered the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in an Open Executive Session and voted 25 to 3 to move the bill forward.

The USMCA enjoys wide bipartisan support, but Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA), Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) voted against the bill. Toomey and Cassidy objected largely to process issues, as the Committee was not allowed to present amendments under a fast-track process, while Whitehouse was critical of the agreement’s lack of urgency on climate change. President Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reached agreement on the USMCA, which would, if ratified, replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), on December 10. Notably for the IP community, the new version struck down provisions that would have expanded regulatory data protection for biologics inventions from five years in Mexico and eight years in Canada to 10 years in both countries.

On January 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision that Google failed to prove Koninklijke Philips’ (Philips) U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (the ‘913 patent) obvious. The patent describes a method for entering primary and secondary characters on the keypad of a device such as a handheld mobile device. After Philips sued Acer, Inc. and other companies for infringement based on devices that use Google operating systems, Google petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘913 patent and the board found for Philips. Google appealed the Board’s decision to the CAFC, which held that the Philips invention would have been obvious in light of the prior art.

If you are a patent owner asserting and licensing your patent, chances are you want to avoid an America Invents Act (AIA) proceeding, whether that proceeding is an Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) or Covered Business Method Review (CBM). This is separate from any belief about the fairness of the proceedings or about whether you believe your patent would survive; simply because of the added cost, it is likely that you do not want to be involved in one. All that said, the question is whether you can avoid it. The answer to that is “sometimes, yes.” No patent owner can be immune from AIA proceedings in the absolute. You cannot stop all routes of attack on your patent, but there is a chance that you can limit your exposure.

In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the United States Supreme Court discussed legal principles of obviousness in the patent context. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court: “Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” This simile, comparing obviousness analysis to the fitting together of pieces of a puzzle, has been referenced and quoted by a number of trial and appellate courts. Expert witnesses have used it in their testimonies. It also appears twice in the current Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). With due respect to former Justice Kennedy, may we dispense with this terrible analogy? Although it has at least one redeeming aspect, the puzzle simile does more to confuse than to enlighten.

On December 27, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Jimmie Reyna authored an opinion affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,265,760 (‘760) and 9,339,499 (‘499), both titled “Treating Pain in Patients with Hepatic Impairment,” held by Persion Pharmaceuticals LLC,  were invalid due to obviousness. The CAFC found no reversible error in the district court’s decision and therefore affirmed.

The lack of clarity by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark patent case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208; 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) and the subsequent failure of the Federal Circuit to achieve consistency and predictability in Section 101 jurisprudence, has resulted in the destruction of thousands of patents, especially in the fields of information technology, software and life sciences. Was it really the Supreme Court’s intention in Alice to invalidate so many good patents based on so-called judicial exceptions to Section101 such as the “abstract idea” test, which no court has been able to adequately define? How can the U.S. patent system be trusted when criteria for patent eligibility can no longer be clearly defined and courts can invalidate patents based on judicial discretion, without affording the patent owner due process such as presenting scientific and technical evidence from the viewpoint of a person of skill in the art? Due to the Section 101 problems created by the courts, owning a U.S. patent in the today is no longer an asset but a liability. Inventors are increasingly looking to other countries like China to provide protections they can no longer find in the United States—or are avoiding the patent system altogether. Where will the United States be in 10 years if innovation continues to be stifled and innovators increasingly resort to trade secrets?

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit affirms a district court’s obviousness finding invalidating Persion Pharmaceutical’s liver pain treatment patent; Deputy Trademark Commissioner Meryl Hershkowitz is promoted to Acting Commissioner for Trademarks at the USPTO; Jay Hoffman will begin his new role as  Chief Financial Officer at the USPTO on January 6; the Copyright Royalty Board publishes a notice of inquiry on royalties for statutory licenses; the Ninth Circuit finds that TTAB cancellation proceedings don’t preclude claims of trademark infringement in district court; the creators of the children’s cartoon Peppa Pig score a copyright victory in Chinese courts; a New Jersey District Court finds that the SCOTUS decision in Impression Products doesn’t prevent trademark claims against resellers; Singapore announces a new chief for its international IP commercialization agency; and Tesla beats Wall Street expectations on fourth quarter car deliveries.

Earlier today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it will no longer accept requests to participate in the IP5 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Collaborative Search and Examination (CS&E) pilot and will no longer accept new international applications. The reason for the USPTO no longer accepting these requests is because the Office has reached the total number of applications it can accept. The operational phase of the CS&E pilot went into effect on July 1, 2018 and was established for a two-year period running through June 30, 2020. During this two-year operational phase, each of the International Searching Authorities (ISAs) participating were quite limited with respect to the number of applications they could accept, which accounts for the USPTO’s inability to accept any additional applications with a full six months remaining in pilot program.

Executives that have decision making capacity within any innovation-based organization, whether a young startup or a Fortune 500 corporation, almost universally have little or no familiarity with patents from a legal perspective. Sometimes these leaders also have little familiarity with science or technology, and are hired because they are particularly adept in leading a rapidly growing company with hopes of an initial public offering (IPO), or because they have shown a particular facility with raising ever increasing rounds of capital from investors, or for their ability to make returns to early investors on their capital investments. Whatever the case, after a high-tech startup has outgrown the founders as being the top leaders in the C-suite, it is commonplace for the top decision makers in those high-tech companies to be far more familiar with the business and marketplace realities facing technology companies than the actual science and technology that made them high-growth darlings in the first place.

Underscoring the seriousness of the threat posed by the Chinese government’s campaign to obtain results of U.S. publicly funded research, the Board of Directors at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida announced that its President and CEO, Dr. Alan List, along with center director, Timothy Sellers, suddenly resigned after an internal review found they had violated conflict of interest rules regarding their relationships with China. Four researchers also abruptly left.  The actions came after the Moffitt Center conducted an internal review of collaborations between its employees and Chinese institutions as a result of warnings from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to its grant recipients about foreign attempts to influence or compromise their research. 

In mid-December, President Trump presented a plan to lower prescription drug prices by allowing states, drug wholesalers and pharmacies to import some cheaper drugs from Canada. While reducing the cost of medicines is a laudable goal, pharmaceutical importation programs – if implemented safely and effectively – would fail to deliver the promised savings. And if implemented without the necessary safeguards, they would endanger the lives of countless patients. The plan essentially relies upon importing price controls from Canada, which will both undermine innovation and prove unsustainable. As with many “simple solutions” the devil is in the details. Not surprisingly, the Trump Administration’s plan contains very few details on implementation. And it is precisely those details that are expensive and complicated.