Posts Tagged: "patent prosecution"

On January 13, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a new report on the impact of patent and trademark filing trends in China. The report, titled Trademarks and Patents in China: The Impact of Non-Market Factors on Filing Trends and IP Systems, discusses how the high rate of Chinese patent and trademark filings may well be influenced by government subsidies and other non-market factors, rather than inventiveness and organic economic activity within China.

Since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision in 2014, inventors have faced extra hurdles trying to protect their software-related inventions with patents. A chief obstacle has been satisfying the two-part test for eligibility under Section 101 set forth in Alice and Mayo. To meet this test, claimed subject matter must not be directed to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, (Step One), and if it is, must add “significantly more” to provide an inventive concept (Step Two)…. Theodore Rand reported in IPWatchdog last week, a disturbing but not surprising trend. Rand found that, in 2020, 81% of software-related patents on appeal for subject matter eligibility in decided precedential cases (22 of 27) were found invalid. But in three cases, software-related patents were found drawn to eligible subject matter for patent purposes. Id. In each of the three cases, the appeals court pointed to aspects of the patent specifications themselves. Looking more closely at the representative claims and court’s comments with respect to the corresponding patent specification is illuminating. In particular, the court looked to the specifications for evidence of performance improvements over conventional systems, description of a technical problem/solution, and technological advantages.

In Part I of this five-part series, the authors reviewed the law behind subsequent patent applications. In Part II, we reviewed the different types of subsequent applications. In Parts III and IV we discussed various implications of the types of subsequent applicants. And now, in Part V, we provide practice tips drawn from the case law cited in this series, as well as derived from omphaloskepsis.

In Part I of this series, the authors reviewed the law behind subsequent patent applications. In Part II, we reviewed the different types of subsequent applications. Part III discussed some of the implications of these for prosecution and litigation, and Part IV will examine some further implications. In the fifth and final installment in this series, we will distill all of the information covered to provide concrete practice tips for practitioners.

Greek philosopher Heraclitus is credited with saying “the only thing that is constant is change.”  In 2020, life for everyone changed, including for those in the intellectual property (IP) sphere. There were changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in IP litigation, client activities and business development. Looking into the crystal ball, we believe some of those changes are here for good, while others are not.

“Qualified women are unnecessarily excluded from membership in the patent bar,” wrote Mary T. Hannon in a recent law review article seen by Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), who promptly sent a letter to United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu demanding answers. A scandal of epic proportions in 2020 if an agency of the executive branch is actively excluding women from the ranks of patent practitioners. But it’s just not true.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched their INSPIRE (Index of Specialized Patent Information Reports) “database of databases” on November 4, 2020. It provides useful summaries of patent databases to help both novice and expert patent searchers identify the most suitable search system. WIPO’s ultimate goal was to speed up the pace at which innovation takes place. To do this, INSPIRE identifies database features without commenting on any strengths or weaknesses of products. At the time of writing, INSPIRE listed 23 databases, both free and subscription. Content was still being added to the collection and there was scope for more sources to be included.

While it has been said that the how and why of patent application drawings are usually best left to the professionals, I do think it is important for everyone – from the solo inventor to the big firm practitioner – to have a general understanding of the basics of utility application drawings. It is nice to be able to rely on an illustration service to get everything right for you; however, as the person with the name on the patent application, you are ultimately responsible for the content and form of the drawings that are submitted. This article will touch on the fundamentals of a utility drawing. While you may not be creating the drawings, it is crucial that you have an idea of what to look for in order to be compliant with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) guidelines.

Patent owners often obtain patents to protect products, as well as complementary products or use cases associated with those products. However, when selling or licensing the patented products, a patent owner may inadvertently extinguish potential revenue streams associated with the complementary use cases due to the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Patent exhaustion follows the basic idea that if a company sells or licenses a patented product to a buyer, the company cannot sue the buyer (or a third party that the buyer provides the patented product to under the license) for patent infringement for using the product. Patent owners should take care when preparing and licensing patents to ensure that infringement claims for complementary products or use cases associated with patented products are not exhausted by the sale or licensing of the patented products, as shown by the Federal Circuit case of Helferich Patent Licensing v. New York Times, 778 F.3D 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Currently, brain recording and/or brain stimulation is used almost entirely for medical or research purposes. Invasive surgery is generally required to read neural signals with high temporal and spatial resolution. High resolution of neural signals enables researchers to decode a brain’s underlying intentions, sensations, reactions, etc. rather reliably, if only in constrained environments. With regard to stimulation, researchers have demonstrated the ability to trigger different types of effects. For example, stimulating the reticular formation can cause a subject to become awake; stimulating the amygdala can evoke fear; stimulating the motor cortex can trigger movement; stimulating the visual cortex can cause a subject to see light flashes. However, the state of the art is neither able to decode complex and unrestrained thoughts nor cause a subject to have a particular “target” complex thought. At least not yet.

I am going to make a bold statement: every non-provisional patent application for an invention originating in the U.S. should be filed via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) first. Then, after another six months, following the international search, and PCT publication, those who desire U.S. patents should enter the U.S. National Stage. That’s right: every single application, no exceptions. No, I have not lost my mind. Here’s why.

A key issue of discussion with respect to the Brazilian patent system has to do with patents granted by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) under the following sole paragraph of Article 40 of the Brazilian IP Law: “Article 40 – The term of a patent for an invention shall be 20 (twenty) years and for a utility model 15 (fifteen) years as from the filing date. Sole Paragraph – The term shall not be less than 10 (ten) years for inventions and 7 (seven) years for utility models, as from the date of grant, except where INPI is prevented from carrying out the substantive examination of the application due to pending litigation or for reasons beyond its control.” This provision guarantees that patentees enjoy a 20-year term from filing and is particularly relevant due to the considerable examination backlog at the BPTO.

While researching the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) treatment of final Office actions for previous articles (Part I, Part II and Part III), we noticed too many petition decisions dismissed as moot for it to have happened by chance. Here in Part IV, we examine timely filed petitions that were dismissed as moot because the USPTO decision was inexplicably delayed to such an extent that applicants were forced to take other action to avoid abandonment of their applications. We uncover two different and seemingly arbitrary petition processing pathways within the USPTO: petitions which are promptly entered and decided on their merits or petitions belatedly entered and eventually dismissed as moot. We uncover a strong correlation between the USPTO’s initial petition processing steps, petition pendency and petition outcome. 

On November 13, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Board in In re: Google Technology Holdings LLC. In particular, the CAFC upheld a decision of the Board affirming a patent examiner’s final rejection and holding that Google forfeited the arguments put forth on appeal. Google’s U.S. Patent Application No. 15/179,765 was directed to “distributed caching for video-on-demand systems, and in particular to a method and apparatus for transferring content within such video- on-demand systems.” During prosecution, the examiner finally rejected the claims of the ‘795 application as being obvious under Section 103.

In Part I, the authors reviewed the law behind subsequent patent applications. In Part II, we reviewed the different types of subsequent applications. Part III will discuss some of the implications of these. When an applicant seeks to add new claims pursuant to a continuation or divisional application, U.S. Patent Law explicitly requires that the original specification provide adequate support for the new claims by the original specification satisfying the Section 112(a) written description and enablement requirements for the new claims. 35 U.S.C. § 120. The same is also true for continuation-in-part (CIP) applications claiming overlapping subject matter but not for claims comprising “new matter” because the new matter claimed must find support in additional disclosure, i.e., in material added to the CIP application itself.