Posts Tagged: "patent"

The first patent received by an HBCU was on April 11, 1978, assigned to Shaw University of Raleigh, NC. Between 1969 and 2012, HBCUs received 100 utility patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in various fields, including energy, advanced manufacturing technology, nanotechnology and breast cancer treatment. Although this is a very small portion of patents issued by the USPTO during that period, the rate at which HBCUs have received patents has increased exponentially in recent years. In 2010, HBCUs received 10 patents; in 2011, 17 patents; and in 2012, 24 patents.

The reason the abstract idea doctrine is unworkable is because the Supreme Court has never defined what is an abstract idea. The Supreme Court has treated the term “abstract idea” much as they have the term “obscenity”; they know it when they see it. Such a level of subjectivity leads to chaos, which is exactly how the Judges on the Federal Circuit can manage to find themselves evenly split on the issue of whether software is patent eligible. The Supreme Court abhors bright line rules unless they are the ones who announce them. Such an irrational fear of certainty and predictability is curious given how those concepts are so fundamentally important to a functioning judicial system. Still, if they don’t like bright line rules that everyone can follow as announced by the Federal Circuit they at least owe us a workable test that they are willing to endorse.

“Today, Congress is under another call to weaken patent protection. This time the alleged culprit is a so-called “patent troll” who, according to some reports, hijacks inventions and while providing no product and therefore no societal value, extorts billions of dollars from the economy. This story could not be further from the truth. The argument is based on highly questionable data. Some of the claims are that patents asserted by so-called “patent trolls” are much weaker than patents asserted by others, that these entities cause billions of dollars of unnecessary cost, and that the number of patent infringement lawsuits has risen dramatically due to the so-called “patent trolls.” All of these assertions are highly disputed.”

When a patent is challenged by an IPR the challenge must be taken very seriously. Patent Office statistics for FY 2013 and FY 2014 through January 31, 2014, show that there have been a total of 361 decisions on IPR petitions, with 288 trials instituted. There have been 11 cases that have been joined and only 62 petitions denied, which corresponds with an 82.8% IPR petition grant rate. Having said this, the IPR grant rate during FY 2013 was 87.2%, while so far during FY 2014 the IPR grate rate has been 77.2%. This drop in IPR granting rate, while statistically relevant, should not lull patent owners into a false sense of security.

The question should not be whether you can get a patent, but rather whether any patent you are able to obtain is worth the investment. In other words, is the scope of protection meaningful? But to answer that question you really need to consider several business questions first… Wrapped up in what we have been discussing is a very simple question that many inventors fail to ask. It is this: is a market for your invention… The goal of this article has been to point out that there are a great number of things that need to be considered before you decide to move forward down the patent path. As with many complex systems in life there is no single correct way to move forward. The goal should be to move forward in a business responsible manner.

In Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp. (Fed. Cir. December 26, 2013), in a 2-1 decision, the majority suggested that the fee shifting provisions of 35 U.S.C. §285 have broader application and are not applicable only when subjective bad faith and objective baseless claims are found. The push for broader application for the existing fee shifting statutory provisions is particularly relevant since there has been an increase in media coverage about certain abusive litigation tactics of patent trolls. This case might signal a nod to the district courts to apply the fee shifting provisions when trolling behaviors are practiced by the patent owner.

The “new normal” created by the PTAB has drastically altered the patent assertion landscape. Simply stated, when a patent owner is notified that a patent they own is being brought into a post grant proceeding the statistics, if not the gravity of the threat, suggest that it must be taken seriously immediately and competent representation must be obtained quickly. The burdens are different at the PTAB than they would be in the Federal District Court. Specifically, the PTAB will employ the standard USPTO technique of giving patent claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, which will make it easier for a claim to be determined to overlap with the prior art. Furthermore, in litigation patent claims are presumed valid and the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a claim is invalid for one or more reasons.

InterDigital CEO William Merritt writes: “It’s no secret that the regulatory environment is challenging for companies that license patents – in our case, patents that are deemed essential to wireless standards… One of the greatest frustrations for me is that so much of this rests on a bedrock of total miscomprehension of how standards are developed… I met with a reporter for one of the primary tech websites in the world, and he dismissed standards development. It became apparent he didn’t understand how the process worked at all… He didn’t realize that it was private sector companies – companies like ours – that committed significant engineering time and resources, and competed to develop the best solutions, and in so doing committed to licensing them fairly.”

Various governmental agencies have acknowledged that better methods of identifying risks in a crowd environment would be beneficial in preventing criminal activity. Security is always heightened at an event like the Super Bowl, but spectator security has come under increased focus during a year which saw the horrific events of the 2013 Boston Marathon. Thousands of people will commute to Super Bowl XLVIII through public transport, and MetLife Stadium can hold more than 80,000, making public security in that confined area a major concern.

The featured patent application for this column describes a novel improvement for providing latent-image patterns for protecting secure documents. This system creates more effective watermarks for preventing unauthorized copies that are camouflaged but can transmit important data. We also discuss a series of patent applications for medical devices, including a few upgrades to X-ray imaging devices and a design for a less cumbersome ophthalmologic device for creating an X-ray image of a patient’s eye. Our profile of Canon’s recently issued patents shows a wide range of small improvements to various imaging and printing devices developed by the corporation. One patent protects a new design for copy machines that provides better access for clearing paper jams. Another issued patent protects an inkjet head capable of recycling unused ink droplets escaping the inkjet head. We also discuss a few upgrades to printing software systems, including better methods of storing print job histories while in sleep mode.

There are some who say that the number of patents Woods obtained is at least 60, may be even much higher. But from Professor Fouché’s book, I’ve only identified 45 patents for Woods which is still a pretty awesome figure. These patents may be divided into essentially 4 technology categories: (1) induction telegraphy of which there are 8 patents; (2) electrical railways of which there are 20 patents; (3) other electrical devices of which there are 13 patents; and (4) 4 patents on “other inventions” that don’t fall into any specific category. This article focuses only the first category of inventions, induction telegraphy, for which Woods is most famous for. So why is induction telegraphy important? Well…

Much of the science behind how concussions are sustained is still underdeveloped, but rotational forces created on the brain when a body sustains an off-center hit may be to blame. Helmet safety standards enforced by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment have been largely unchanged since the early 1970s and typically only measures linear forces created in a straight impact. The helmet industry has been pretty stagnant for decades, but the new push for better protections against concussions has been driving innovation within the industry over the past few years.