Posts Tagged: "patents"

This morning, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which will be represented in Wednesday’s hearing on Section 101 reform by Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane, announced an urgent phone briefing for members of Congress and staff to address the contention that the “Proposed Patent Bill Would Jeopardize Health Care and Harm Medical Research.” The phone briefing, which all interested stakeholders should join, takes place today at 2:30 pm EST and will be jointly held by representatives from the ACLU, the Association for Molecular Pathology, a breast cancer survivor and patient, My Gene Counsel, and Invitae. Anyone who would like to listen should dial in to the number provided here. Below, Sherry Knowles, a well-known patent attorney, policy expert and also a breast cancer survivor, rebuts the arguments made in both the ACLU’s briefing announcement and associated letter to Congress on this topic.

Have you ever worked with a lay inventor who had a hard time dealing with obviousness under U.S. patent law? Many patent lawyers have. It is one of the greatest ironies in patent law: obviousness is not obvious. Lay people struggle with the concept of patent-related obviousness all the time. It is easy to understand their confusion. As lay people see it, an inventor can create and claim something that has never before been patented by anyone, has never been sold by anyone, has never been built by anyone, and has never even been publicly described by anyone; and can nevertheless be denied a patent “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” (This is a quotation from the post-AIA statute, 35 USC § 103(a), though language in the pre-AIA statute 35 USC § 103 is similar, obviously.)

Based on the age of many of us in the room, President Reagan was probably the first president many of us remember. And I mention this because we need another President Reagan—another person like that, who sees the power of the patent system. Upon taking Office, President Reagan told the then leaders at the patent office that the backlog of unexamined patent applications was unacceptable and he wanted it brought down to 18 months in his first term. The leaders at the patent office told him that that was simply not possible. That’s how bad the backlog was then. And then President Reagan and his advisors asked whether it would be possible to reduce the backlog to an average pendency of 18 months within two terms, assuming he would be given two terms. And they said, “yes, we think we can do that within two terms.”  And they didn’t quite get it done, but they got really, really close. They got to around 18.2 or 18.3 months average pendency by the end of President Reagan’s second term. And it was because President Reagan invested in the patent office.

IPWatchdog’s coverage of the November 2017 Bunch O Balloons district court trial left off with an Eastern District of Texas jury awarding $12.3 million in damages to patent owner Tinnus Enterprises and its partner ZURU against major U.S. telemarketing firms Telebrands and its subsidiaries. The jury found that Telebrands had willfully infringed Tinnus’ patents that protected Tinnus’ Bunch O Balloons invention, and that those patents were not invalid. But even with the November 2017 jury award in place, Tinnus still faced the upcoming specter of patent validity trials for which Telebrands had petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the patents-in-suit. Additionally, the Eastern District of Texas had not yet ruled on post-trial motions regarding the jury’s verdict.

To kick off the month in which Alice v. CLS Bank will turn five, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property will hold its first two hearings on “The State of Patent Eligibility in America.” The hearings are scheduled for Tuesday, June 4 and Wednesday June 5, both at 2:30 PM in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, and the Subcommittee has now published the rosters for both hearings. As mentioned in a Senate press release last week, there will be three hearings held in total, on June 4, 5 and 11, featuring three panels of five witnesses each, for a total of 45 witnesses over three days. Overall, it is quite balanced between those who will argue for and against reform. This is quite a change in and of itself; congressional hearings on patent legislation over the past decade have largely favored those arguing against pro-patent reforms. IPWatchdog will cover these hearings, and several of the witnesses testifying next week — Chief Judge Paul Michel, Sherry Knowles and Phil Johnson —will be speaking later in the month at our Patent Masters™ Symposium titled Alice Five Years Later. 

When drafting Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, or applications intended to be prosecuted abroad, a U.S. drafter inevitably faces the challenge of providing a description in line with the requirements of different jurisdictions. By the time feedback is received from the foreign patent offices, it will be too late to make any adjustments, and important aspects of the invention may inadvertently be lost. The challenge might feel impossible when dealing with the requirements of the European Patent Office (EPO), as the European Patent Convention (EPC) regulations on written description are framed in a way that is fundamentally different from U.S. regulations. For example, the requisites of providing an adequate description and notice of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are framed in the United States as separate requirements (written description and definiteness respectively) with different legal bases (35 USC 112(a) for written description and 35 USC 112(b) for definiteness respectively).

Senators Coons and Tillis and a group of Representatives recently proposed an admirable piece of legislation to amend the Patent Act to abrogate Supreme Court Section 101 cases on patent eligible subject matter. I like that they propose a fix to Section 101. So far, so good. Alice was an interpretation of Mayo, which was an interpretation of Flook, which was an interpretation of Benson, which was supposed to be an interpretation of what Congress meant by the short and crisp statement of Section 101 of the Patent Act. But just as a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy gets more distorted with each generation, so did Supreme Court rulings. The judicially-invented residue left behind not only errs by failing to capture the plain and unambiguous scope of Section 101 and patent-eligible subject matter, but also catastrophically undermines and invalidates important patents that, until then, protected breakthrough inventions. Congress is right to step in. Inventors of breakthroughs need protections to form companies and create new jobs. What the senators propose is not perfect, but at least as far as Section 101 is concerned, will restore fairness to many future outcomes.But there’s an extra bit. To call it alarming would be an understatement. That extra bit would sharply and sweepingly limit the property rights of all technology patents. The proposal (as currently drafted) amends Section 112 to require any patent claim limitation that names any function “without the recital of a structure, material or act in support thereof” to be interpreted as limited to the structural embodiment in the patent specification that practices that function (plus equivalents).

As a buyer, tracking the behaviors of sellers, both in aggregate and individually, allows you to operationalize your buying activities. This is especially true for repeat sellers, who account for 41% of the transactions for patent packages listed in calendar years 2017 and 2018. Knowing who the regular sellers are, often companies with a large portfolio, allows you to contact sellers to create a private deal. Keeping track of a seller’s listings, package sizes, and asking prices can also help you in negotiations because you know their negotiation parameters at the outset. Similarly, if you are a seller, it is important to get out the word that you are selling. Listing packages on your website, through the IAM Market, or working with brokers attracts buyers to you rather than you having to spend the time and effort to find them. For the analysis of current sellers and buyers we looked at all of the packages that sold between January 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018 (assignments were last checked on August 15, 2018) regardless of their listing date. Sales continue to be made mostly by operating companies, which is not surprising as they file the majority of patents. Operating companies were the sellers in 67% of transactions. This is remarkably consistent, at 66% in the previous two papers.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Chinese state media pushes back on the United States’ claims of intellectual property theft; a bipartisan coalition from both houses of Congress releases a draft proposal of Section 101 patent law reform; Senator Coons seeks more information on Amazon’s privacy practices for Alexa devices; the city of Baltimore files a lawsuit over a scheme to delay market entry of a generic to the Zytiga prostate cancer treatment; the USITC institutes a patent infringement investigation of Comcast after several complaints from Rovi; USPTO Deputy Director Peters files a petition brief in a Supreme Court case over USPTO personnel expenses incurred during litigation instigated by patent applicants; and Qualcomm plans to appeal adverse ruling in Northern California antitrust case brought by the FTC.

On May 7, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designated two recent decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as precedential, bringing the number of PTAB decisions declared precedential since the beginning of this March to 11. The recently designated decisions, both of which resulted in the denial of institution in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, appear to be part of a general trend to designate as precedential patent owner-friendly decisions denying the institution of PTAB trials. The first of these recent precedential designations was NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., an IPR proceeding that was denied institution last September. NHK Spring had requested an IPR to challenge the validity of four claims of U.S. Patent No. 6183841, titled Optimized Low Profile Swage Mount Base Plate Attachment of Suspension Assembly for Hard Disk Drive. The patent covers a disk head assembly having a low-profile base plate which addressed a need for increased data storage capacity in hard disk drives.

A group of Senators and Representatives has just released the draft text of a bipartisan, bicameral proposal to reform Section 101 of the Patent Act. Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property; Representative Doug Collins (R-GA-9), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee; Hank Johnson (D-GA-4), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and the Courts; and Steve Stivers (R-OH-15) sent the draft text via press release today. The stated goal of releasing the draft is to solicit feedback—there will be additional stakeholder feedback and Senate hearings, according to the press release.Senate hearings on the topic will be held on June 4, 5 and 11 featuring three panels of five witnesses each, for a total of 45 witnesses over three days. The draft text explicitly states that “the provisions of section 101 shall be construed in favor of eligibility.”

In a 233-page Order issued yesterday, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of California handed Qualcomm a stinging defeat in the case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging that Qualcomm engaged in unlawful licensing practices. It was just three weeks ago that Apple and Qualcomm entered into a peace treaty. The revelations about Apple’s coordinated efforts to manipulate the licensing market by shrewdly challenging inferior patents to beat down prices should have led to the FTC dropping its pursuit of Qualcomm. It is no secret that Apple has urged regulators all over the world to chase Qualcomm for alleged anticompetitive licensing practices, but it has now come out in federal court proceedings that Apple just didn’t like the rate it agreed to pay Qualcomm and decided to manipulate the marketplace and then use that manipulation to pull the wool over the eyes of regulators, including the FTC, in an attempt to leverage a better deal with Qualcomm.Apple succeeded in achieving peace with Qualcomm, although the company has been badly beaten by Apple in near collusion with regulators all over the world. So why would the FTC continue to persecute Qualcomm given the revelations in the Apple/Qualcomm litigation that demonstrate that Qualcomm did not seek an unreasonably high licensing rate?

Pursuant to the 2018 SUCCESS Act, Congress directed the USPTO to submit to it a report on the results of a study that provides legislative recommendations for how to increase the number of women, minorities, and veterans who apply for and obtain patents. To help gather information as part of its study, the USPTO opened its doors for public comment on Wednesday, May 8, 2019, in one of three scheduled hearings. Five inventors spoke at this hearing. I was honored to be one of them. Patricia Duran spoke first, providing testimony in Spanish while I read the English translation. Duran expressed appreciation for the SUCCESS Act’s intent, but quickly set the tone with this question: “What good is a patent if one cannot feasibly defend it?” She added that “women, minorities, and veterans all reside in the same category with other independent inventors, and this class—the independent inventors—is the true underrepresented class.” She was not alone. Three other inventors who provided oral testimony stated that all independent inventors are underrepresented in today’s patent system, which I found interesting, given that they all belonged to the classes at issue: women, minorities, and/or veterans.

When discussing potential patent purchases with buyers, we continue our push to end the use of the phrase “low quality” to broadly characterize rejected patents. We often hear that there are junk, low quality or weak patents on the patent market. Clearly, there are some patents that we can objectively agree are low quality, just as there are in most portfolios. However, buyers with an efficient buying program should never test the majority of patents for “quality” metrics (e.g. enforceability) because these tests are simply too expensive. Sophisticated buyers create targeted buying programs rather than general ones. When buying, you should have a use case in mind and analyze the value of the patents in that particular context. If you want patents to counter assert against Qualcomm, do not waste time and money evaluating clean energy patents. The “quality” of anything in that technology area is irrelevant. Buyers also tend to conflate quality and value when discussing packages. A package with no value to you for your particular business use should be rejected from your buying program, but again, this is not a comment on the quality. It is easier and cheaper to reject a patent for lack of value that to analyze it for quality. Necessarily, a well-run buying program has visibility into only a small set of the available packages on the market; for the rest of the packages, the program should have no visibility into the quality of the packages because the packages were rejected before any quality metrics were evaluated.

Most Congressional hearings are morality plays designed to reach a predetermined outcome. It wasn’t hard to predict how the second hearing on drug pricing by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform was supposed to go. If the title, “HIV Prevention Drug: Billions in Corporate Profits after Millions in Taxpayer Investments” wasn’t enough of a clue,  when Chairman  Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said it was because of the “phenomenal leadership” of freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)  that the hearing was being held, any doubts evaporated. In an extraordinary gesture of deference for a new Member of Congress, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was recognized for an opening statement before senior members of the committee. However, because of two differences in this hearing from its predecessor things didn’t quite go as planned. This time, the Committee invited both sides to appear, not just the critics; and one member dared to challenge its underlying premise, leading to an electrifying exchange with the Chairman. We’ll examine that shortly.