Posts Tagged: "patent"

Patent systems around the globe offer a quid pro quo that exchanges limited monopolies for disclosures of inventions. Most patent filings list: (1) the inventor(s); and (2) the applicant. The applicant may be an assignee (e.g., company, university, organization, etc.) with rights to seek patent protection on innovations that were identified during employment and that were within a scope of employment. Frequently, the assignee is a current or former employer of the inventor(s). In some jurisdictions (e.g., in the United States), the inventor(s) hold the rights to prosecute the patent application and assert any resulting patent unless and until the inventor(s) assign those rights to another entity (which is frequently done in employment and work?for?hire contracts). In some jurisdictions (e.g., the European Union), it is presumed that the party that applied for a patent holds the rights to the patent application. Thus, it is well-established that non-human entities may be the applicant, assignee, and/or owner of a patent. However, it is not well-established that a non-human entity may be an inventor on a patent applicant. Multiple patent offices (e.g., USPTO, UKIPO, and WIPO) have been considering what the standard in this respect should be.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) yesterday issued a precedential opinion affirming a Delaware district court finding that Infinity Computer Products, Inc.’s patent claims relating to using a fax machine as a printer or scanner for a personal computer were invalid for indefiniteness. Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc. (Feb. 10, 2020). Chief Judge Prost authored the opinion. The patents at issue were U.S. Patent Nos. 6,894,811; 7,489,423; 8,040,574; and 8,294,915, which share a specification. The term at issue was “passive link,” which refers to the link between the fax machine and the computer.

Simply said, the rights provided by one design patent will be extremely unsatisfactory. However, design patents must be considered because a design patent can in many instances be awarded in as few as six to nine months. If obtaining some protection is important for an overall marketing strategy, getting at least some protection quickly may be advantageous compared to waiting the two to three years it will likely take to obtain a utility patent. Design patents can also be an extremely useful tool for a variety of reasons.

Filings reverted to the mean this week, with 31 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings (5 post grant reviews and 25 inter partes reviews) and roughly double that (61) for new district court patent complaints. Another four or so denials under Fintiv came this week, mostly over district court trials in Judge Gilstrap’s Eastern District of Texas court—in one case, over a significant relationship with previous petitioners, albeit as part of a set of earlier-reported-on cases. See IPR2020-01101, IPR2020-01358, IPR2020-01399, IPR2020-01400 (affecting Mitek, a group of UAB companies, and Samsung). A few new LLC players—Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Repeat Precision, LLC—were added in a week that saw relatively few non-practicing entity (NPE) suits and plenty of competitor suits.

The latest in a series of reports by the European Patent Office (EPO) and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) studying IP-intensive industries and their contribution to economic performance and employment in the European Union has found that companies owning at least one patent, registered design or trademark generate higher revenues per employee than companies that do not own IP rights and pay higher wages on average than other companies. The EPO-EUIPO report is titled “Intellectual property rights and firm performance in the European Union” and builds on research conducted in 2013, 2016 and 2019 regarding the contribution of IP-intensive companies to the EU economy, as well as a 2015 EUIPO study based on data from 12 Member States. The latest report analyzes over 127,000 European firms and compares the economic performance of firms that own IPRs with those that do not.

Helios Streaming, LLC and IdeaHub, Inc. have filed a complaint against the popular online movie ticket sale and media streaming platform, Fandango Media, LLC, for patent infringement involving four patents, alleging that Fandango infringed its media streaming-related patents. IdeaHub is the assignee and owner of the patents-in-suit and Helios—an “Intellectual Property Research and Licensing Service Company” characterized by Unified Patents as a non-practicing entity—holds the exclusive license and rights to assert them. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,270,830 (the ’830 patent); 10,313,414 (the ’414 patent); 10,356,145 (the ’145 patent); and 10,362,130 (the ’130 patent), (the “Asserted Patents”) all of which claim “technologies for providing adaptive HTTP streaming services using metadata of media content.”

To those of us who breathe intellectual property and innovation, it sounds so obvious to say that consumers benefit greatly from the dynamic competition inventions and IP bring forth:  new products, technologies and industrial sectors. However, many who breathe antitrust hold a different perspective — it presumes a patent confers market power, that commercialization amounts to anticompetitive conduct and that the right to exclude is equivalent to monopolization by incumbent players in a static market. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Makan Delrahim, who left the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) with the changeover of administrations, bridged this gulf. Delrahim achieved this due to his background as both patent attorney and antitrust lawyer. Delrahim offered a framework he calls the New Madison Approach. The New Madison Approach advanced through the division’s amicus program.

Reports surfaced last week that Microsoft was granted a patent in December for a way to allow people to have conversations with loved ones after they’re deceased. The tech company a tool that could make it possible to have a virtual conversation via a chatbot with a “past or present entity … such as a friend, a relative, an acquaintance, a celebrity, a fictional character, a historical figure.” Further, the patent indicates that the chat would use imagery to “mold a personality alongside a 3D model of its real-life counterpart using letters and images.”

Earlier today, in cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and dismissed-in-part a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in which the CAFC doubled down on its past contention that the USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is not binding on the court’s analysis. The panel included Chief Judge Prost and Judges Lourie and Hughes. The opinion was authored by Prost.  

In 1873, Mary Jones De Leon was granted U.S. patent No. 140,253 for her invention titled ”Cooking Apparatus.” De Leon, who resided in Baltimore, Maryland, is believed to be the second black woman to receive a U.S. patent, following Martha Jones in 1868. De Leon’s invention was an apparatus for heating or cooking food by dry heat and steam the same time. Her cooking apparatus was an early precursor to the steam tables now used in food buffets to keep food warm during gatherings.

Last month, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) issued its 38th annual listing of the Top 300 organizations that have been granted U.S. patents. The 2020 list reflects many of the findings released by IFI Claims in that company’s Top 50 U.S. patent grant recipient list for 2020, although discrepancies between the two underscore the oft-difficult nature of parsing patent data into statistically relevant categories. IPO’s Top 300 listing ranks International Business Machines (IBM) as the top recipient of U.S. patents last year. During 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued 9,435 patents to IBM, a decrease of only 12 patents from the total issued to IBM by the USPTO in 2019. Close on IBM’s heels is Samsung Electronics, which received 8,539 U.S. patents in 2020, a 1% decline from the 8,735 U.S. patents issued to Samsung in 2019. In third place is LG Corporation, which received 5,112 U.S. patents during 2020, a 4% decline from the series of LG companies that the IPO consolidated for this year’s listing.

Traditional Chinese Medicine, or TCM, is a subset of herbal medicine. TCM patent applications generally fall into four categories. A Compound formula is the predominant type of patent application in the field of Chinese medicine. This is not surprising because most TCM combines two or more medicinal materials to be effective. Medicinal craft refers to active ingredients extracted from medicinal materials using a specialized process, or the specialized process itself. Medicinal materials refer to the original medicinal materials used in the preparation of Chinese medicines. Some of these original medicinal materials are the whole plant or a certain part of the plant, and some need to be processed. Related products refer to non-medicinal products containing Chinese medicines, including medicated foods, namely functional foods, health products and cosmetics containing Chinese medicines. These categories reflect the main objectives of TCM patent protection: namely, to protect the formula, craft, original materials, and commercial products. 

The new Presidential Administration has hardly settled in before being confronted with a stark choice: will they continue policies that foster public/private sector R&D partnerships or be diverted down a path that’s been a dead-end? President Biden faces two herculean tasks: getting the COVID-19 pandemic under control while reviving the economy. The problems are intertwined and require continuous innovation to overcome, which means tapping the best minds in our public and private sectors. We’ve just witnessed a modern miracle, as such partnerships seamlessly came together to create effective COVID-19 vaccines and therapies in record time. But the policies these collaborations depend on are now being questioned.

Korean company Daewoong and its U.S. counterpart Evolus recently found themselves in a dispute with U.S.-Irish company Allergan and its counterpart Medytox over misappropriation of both a bacterial strain and the manufacturing process to make cosmetic injection products from that strain. Daewoong recently received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market an injection in the United States that competes with Botox, owned by Allergan-Medytox. In order to prevent this entrance into the market, Allergan-Medytox filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) to block imports of the new product under Section 337. The only relationship between Allergan and Medytox is an anticompetitive market allocation agreement. Daewoong’s new product posed a threat to the profitability of Allergan’s agreement with Medytox and therefore became the subject of a dispute before the ITC. Importantly, the manufacture of the products occurs in Korea and the injectables are then imported into the United States.

Accurate and clear patent drawings strengthen and enhance patent applications, helping patent examiners who are already overburdened with applications to understand inventions faster. In this article, we will be covering the essential points on the importance of patent drawings and how we can make the drawings feasible for filing at the USPTO. We will also cover some important guidelines to help you to avoid unwanted office actions.