Posts Tagged: "patent"

Perhaps Edison’s most famous invention was the light-bulb. Truth be told, however, Edison didn’t really “invent” the light-bulb. Edison significantly improved upon the technology by developing a light-bulb that used a lower current electricity, a small carbonized filament, and an improved vacuum inside the globe. Edison’s invention lead to a reliable, long-lasting source of light. Prior to Edison’s invention light-bulbs lasted only a few hours, but after Edison’s improvement light-bulbs could last 50 to 60 days, making them practical for the firs time. So it is entirely fair to say that Thomas Edison invented the first commercially useful light-bulb, which was an improvement on previously existing light-bulbs.

The FTC brief explains that the no-authorized-generic (no-AG) commitment at issue raises the same antitrust concern that the Supreme Court identified in Actavis. A no-authorized-generic commitment means that the brand-name drug firm, as part of a patent settlement, agrees that it will not launch its own authorized-generic alternative when the first generic company begins to compete. An FTC empirical study of the competitive effects of authorized generics found that when a brand company does not launch an authorized generic during the exclusivity period reserved for the first-filing generic under the Hatch-Waxman Act, it substantially increases the first generic company’s revenues, and consumers pay higher prices for the generic product.

While all nations have a great deal to gain from attracting foreign direct investment and research spending from multinational firms, developing nations in particular stand to gain tremendously. These investments create jobs, enhance productivity, and foster economic growth and development. However, robust intellectual property rights are a necessary prerequisite. The activists and government policymakers who claim that IP rights are a barrier to economic development have it backwards. Strong intellectual property rights incentivize innovation which facilitates economic growth and development.

Although carbon capture technologies exist, the scale of carbon dioxide that needs to be drawn from the atmosphere to combat the effects of climate change is very discouraging. We seem to be many years, if not decades, away from any realistically deployable solution. Nevertheless, we wanted to wrap up our coverage of Earth Day 2014 at IPWatchdog, albeit a little bit late, with a look at developments in this very important technological field. To do this we profile recently published patent applications found in our search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database, focusing on carbon capture and mitigation technologies.

The purpose of the U.S. patent system has been to promote innovation. The various ”Patent Reform” bills will in fact retard innovation and cost America jobs. They are contrary to the Founding Fathers’ intent in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, contrary to the policies of over 220 years of patent law, contrary to the advice of the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and contrary to prior statements of President Obama.

Under the AIA and through its own initiatives, the USPTO has developed many programs that facilitate the prosecution of applications through the Office. Applicants should consider the usefulness of these programs in any on-going and newly filed U.S. patent applications.

35 U.S.C. § 285, which is an extremely short statute, authorizes a district court to award attorney’s fees in patent litigation to the prevailing party. In its totality, § 285 states: “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” With such a simple statute you might wonder how or why it was necessary for the Supreme Court to step in and provide clarity. Because in 2005 the Federal Circuit departed from three decades of case law and made it difficult, if not impossible, for prevailing parties to demonstrate entitlement to attorneys fees.

In this Part IV, we will discuss the proposal that all interested parties by plaintiffs, the enhanced pleading requirements, limitations on discover and customer stays. While some of these provisions may seem to make sense on their surface, and tailored to provide greater transparency, the reality is that the provisions are extraordinarily burdensome. For example, as written one proposal would require a corporation bringing a patent infringement lawsuit to disclose every stockholder no matter how few shares are owned. Furthermore, by micromanaging patent litigation discretion will be taken away from district court judges while at the same time onerous obligations are placed on small businesses before they can even begin to assert patent infringement, which is problematic because so many entities already knowingly choose to infringe rather than negotiate licenses or engineer around patent rights.

As is evident from Figure 2, a significant problem affecting USPTO performance has been identified as the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Backlog, which grow dramatically from 2009 into 2013. The intricacies of RCE practice go beyond the scope of this article, but it is RCE practice that is a primary problem facing the USPTO. At the end of the USPTO’s 2013 End of Fiscal Year, approximately 78,272 RCE applications were awaiting examination at the USPTO. These RCEs divert resources away from the examination of new applications.

In this Part III, we will discuss the Covered Business Methods (CBM) expansion and the proposed elimination of post grant review estoppel. If these provisions are enacted it will provide greater incentive to challenge granted patents, making serial challenges the new norm. This will substantially and negatively impact small business innovators who will be forced to continually fight to keep the patents they have obtained after having already spent many years during patent prosecution to obtain the rights. This means patent rights will never be more than an expectation and not a true property right. Therefore, if these provisions are enacted it will mean no patent is every truly safe, no title is every quieted, and this will substantially, and negatively, impact investment opportunity and ultimately the commercialization of innovations.

The patent system is, has been, and will remain a vital engine of economic motivation and growth if preserved intact. At the moment, that preservation is at risk…. In pursuing the invention they did not need to conduct thousands of experiments on data and how to create genetic and behavioral databases; instead they concentrated on figuring out the best way to make use of the data provided/collected by others. And, ta da, after 7 years of research and over 100+ discrete patent filings, the 27 patent portfolio covers: 1) genetic and lifestyle correlated prevention and/or treatment for a disease; 2) drug and behavioral changes to enhance health and longevity; and 3) use of genetic information to create social networks or make product recommendations. Essentially, specific recommendations on how to make the best of the genetic hand you’ve been dealt.

The US House passed the Innovation Act (HR3309) in December 2013. The Senate is now well on its way to incorporating this legislation which will make Americans poorer. The bills have many problems that will inhibit small inventors, but the most insidious are “Loser Pays” and “Pay to Play”. It changes the law, singling out inventors as a class so onerous that only they must pay the other side’s legal fees if they don’t win every claim. Pay to Play makes inventors guarantee payment up-front. Some proposed Senate bills (e.g.: S.1013 & S.1612) make sure that almost all Americans and most small companies will never be able to afford to enforce their patents on their inventions.

For small business, patents will become mostly unenforceable due to the proposed much higher upfront cost of litigation, thus making small business patents significantly less valuable. Loss of patent value constricts new company formation, chilling new investments, and choking job formation. Legislating disincentives for capital investments will result in the loss of many hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth in America and dry up the major source of new jobs, small inventing businesses… Patents are the number one indicator of regional wealth according to the Federal Reserve Bank… If these “Patent Reform” bills are signed into law, they will discourage small business patents, and the contrapositive indicates that we will be a poorer nation.

Vonage has been granted three patents on ReachMe Roaming by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The patents are U.S. Patent No. 8,571,060, U.S. Patent No. 8,600,364 and U.S. Patent No. 8,693,994. These patent share a common ancestry, with the ‘364 patent providing the earliest filing date, which was December 22, 2011. Both the ‘060 patent and the ‘994 patent are continuations in part of U.S. patent application Serial No. 13/492,361, filed Jun. 8, 2012, which is itself a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Serial No. 13/334,849, filed Dec. 22, 2011, which matured into the ‘364 patent.

We’ve noticed a great deal of inventions that involve desalination techniques to turn saline water containing a lot of salts into fresh, drinkable water. Desalination is capable of reducing salinity in water from 35,000 ppm, the typical salinity of ocean water, to 1,000 ppm, and many of these innovations are designed to help people apply desalination techniques on a wider scale at lower costs. We’ve also noticed some developments that might help communities derive water from sources other than rivers and streams, such as the atmosphere. As I conducted my research I was struck by how many of these inventions for creating clean water involved other recycling or sustainable technologies, addressing many environmental concerns through one novel system or apparatus.