Tag Archives: USPTO

Michelle Lee to keynote “Patents for Financial Services Summit,” 7/19

The 14th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit being held July 19-20 at the Sheraton Times Square Hotel will examine recent developments affecting banks and other financial institutions. 

The featured speaker for 2017 is Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Ms. Lee will address “The Current State of U.S. Patent Law.”

IP CloseUp readers can save $200. Use code IPCNYC. 

2017 program highlights include:

  • Consider the impact of recent and pending Supreme Court cases, including TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods (venue and forum shopping), SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC (the availability of the doctrine of laches as a defense in patent litigation), and of Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. (patent exhaustion)
  • Evaluate best practices in oral argument before the PTAB and pinpoint the necessary information to communicate in an efficient and complete manner
  • Identify where changes have occurred in patentability and if additional clarity is available
  • Provide practical advice for weighing the costs and value of opinions of counsel, including when they should be obtained and from whom
  • Review the law of patent eligibility as it relates to FinTech in a number of jurisdictions outside of the U.S., including Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore, and China
  • Earn CLE: This program was designed to satisfy approximately 13 hours of Continuing Legal Education credit requirements and is appropriate for both newly admitted and experienced attorneys

For a full list of speakers, go here; for the conference agenda, here.

To register as an individual or group, please go here.

Image source: worldcongress.com

Fixing the patent system/ promoting jobs is focus of Capitol Hill event

An increasing number of experts say the U.S. has lost its edge in the battle to secure and defend meaningful patents that stimulate competition.

It is with making U.S. patents important again that “Promoting Innovation, Investment and Job Growth by Fixing America’s Patent System” is being held on Monday May 8 at the United States Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.

The invitation-only event hosted by the U.S. Chapter of the International IP Commercialization Counsel (IIPCC), will feature an all-star list of presenters from business, government and law.

Speakers Include

Dr. Carl J. Schramm, University Professor, Syracuse University; Former President of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation for Entrepreneurship; Board Member IIPCC; David Kappos, Partner, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP; Former Under-Secretary of Commerce and Director of the USPTO; Q. Todd Dickinson, Senior Partner, Polsinelli, PC; Former Under-Secretary of Commerce and Director of the USPTO; Judge Randall Rader, Former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Board Member IIPCC;  Judge Paul Michel, Former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Charles Henry Giancarlo, Former CTO and Chief Development Officer Cisco Systems and former Managing Director Silver Lake Partners; Phil Johnson, Former Senior VP, Intellectual Property Strategy & Policy, Johnson & Johnson; Marshall Phelps, Vice-Chairman, Center for IP Understanding; former VP IP for Microsoft, IBM, Bob Pavey, Partner Emeritus, Morgenthaler Ventures; former Chairman of the National Venture Capital Association;

Manny W. Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel, IBM Corporation; Laurie C. Self, VP and Counsel, Governmental Affairs, Qualcomm; Bill Elkington, Chair & President Elect, LES USA and Canada; Senior Director, IP Management, Rockwell Collins; Orin Herskowitz, SVP of IP & Tech Transfer, Columbia University; Executive Director of Columbia Technology Ventures; Teaches ‘IP for Entrepreneurs’ in Columbia’s Engineering School; Professor Adam Mossoff, Director, Center for Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason; Professor Jeffrey A Lefstin, Associate Academic Dean and Professor of Law, UC Hastings; Robert B. Aronoff,  U.S. Executive Director, International IP Commercialization Council; Managing Partner, Pluritas; Damon Matteo, CEO, Fulcrum Strategy; Robert P. Taylor, President, RPT Legal Strategies; Venture Advisor, New Enterprise Associates, Bruce Berman, Chairman, Center for IP Understanding; Publisher, IP CloseUp; Principal, Brody Berman Associates; Elvir Causevic, Managing Director, Houlihan Lokey Tech+IP Advisory, Art Monk, VP IP Transactions, TechInsights; Rob Sterne, Founding Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

Opening Panel

IP CloseUp publisher and editor, and Center for Intellectual Property Understanding Chairman, Bruce Berman, is moderating the opening panel at 2:00 pm: The business impact of IP uncertainty and negative attitudes. Panelists include:

  • Manny W. Schecter (IBM)
  • Phil Johnson (J&J)
  • Marshall Phelps (Center for IP Understanding)
  • Laurie Self (Qualcomm)
  • Bob Pavey (Morgenthaler Ventures)

“Our patent system may no longer be providing the protection and incentives necessary to entice investors and entrepreneurs to assume the enormous risks that inhere in the creation of many new technologies and new companies,” said Rob Aronoff, IIPCC U.S. Chapter Chair.

“In recent years patent reform initiative have resulted in significant unintended consequences, including a decline in the reliability of patents is contributing to a waning of entrepreneurial energy and a decline in the risk tolerance of American investors and entrepreneurs.

Profound Implications

“This shift has profound implications for the long-term U.S. economy, as China, Korea, Germany and other countries expand the role that patents play in their economies with ambitious plans to displace American dominance of technology in the years to come. This program will explore the direct and essential role that strong and enforceable ‘good patents’ play in allowing investors and entrepreneurs to justify the high levels of risk that drive innovation.”

Conference sponsors include Houlihan Lokey, TechInsights, Qualcomm and Pluritas.

Partners include IAM Magazine, the Licensing Executives Society, the Center for IP Understanding, USIJ Alliance for Startups & Inventors for Jobs and IP CloseUp.

For more information, go here.

Those interested in attending can request and invitation, availability permitting, by emailing rob.aronoff@iipcc.org.

Image source: iipcc.org; west-windsor-plainsboro.k12.nj.edu

 

 

PTAB fairness data is misleading, say more patent holders

Not all patent owners agree the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a fairer forum for vetting patent quality today.

While some believe that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) board is no longer the “death squad” that it was described as by the former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, most patents subject to multiple inter partes reviews are, with an uncanny frequency, either invalidated or severely weakened. Few, emerge as clear winners.

The USPTO established the PTAB, an administrative law body, as part of the America Invents Act in 2012 to eliminate issued patents that should not have been granted because prior art way overlooked. IPRs are said to be a patent office “second look,” but while patent office re-examinations (an earlier review process superseded by IPRs) eliminated many patents that should not have seen the light of day, they also strengthened some, making them easier to license. To date, IPRs effectively have been a one-way street, eliminating many patents that should not have been issued but ineffective at identifying good ones.

An article that appeared last week, “How IPR Gang Tackling Distorts PTAB Statistics,” takes the recently reported data to task for misleading about the ultimate effect of multiple IPR filings on a single patent.

“If you use the PTAB published statistics, they’ll tell you that the institution rate was 50% – because only 1 of 2 petitions was granted. That’s true, as far as it goes. But from the patent owner’s perspective, they used to have 10 claims, and now they have 0.  That’s a 100% kill rate!”

“Assume 10 petitions and one institution,” wrote Peter Harter in IP Watchdog. “A 10% institution rate seems terribly biased towards [in favor of] the patent owner. But if all 10 claims get killed, that’s still a 100% kill rate – pretty good for challengers. When both sides think the deck is egregiously stacked against them, it’s easy to see why there’s no middle ground for compromise and improvement. And the way the PTAB is reporting statistics is to blame.”

An article that appeared recently in Law 360, “Inter Partes Reviews Becoming Friendlier to Patent Owners,” argues that holders whose patents are subjected to IPRs today have a better chance of survival than in the past.

“The PTAB also now institutes inter partes reviews less frequently,” writes Law 360. “Looking at all institution decisions made by the PTAB, the board decided to institute trials more than 85 percent of the time in the first year after inter partes reviews became available (2013) according to data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but only 68 percent of the time in its 2016 fiscal year.”

Statistically Valid

The decline in the institution rate may be statistically valid, but some patent holders argue that it does not tell the whole story. The statistics do not explain that some of the worst, most easily invalidated patents came before the PTAB in the first year of its existence, so the institution rate was destined to go down as it became clearer the weakest patents had been terminated.

Results from a November-December 2016 Bloomberg Law and AIPLA research study asserts that “progress has been made in patent owner attitudes towards IPRs.” However, it really depends on which patent owners you ask: those that have large portfolios that they rarely enforce or those with a small number of quality patents that they wish to license.

Brad D. Pendersen, former chair of AIPLA’s IPR Committee and co-author Bloomberg Law-AIPLA’s Patents After the AIA: Evolving Law and Practice (2016) believes that there is an opportunity for patent holders subject to IPRs to strengthen their patents, despite evidence to the contrary.

“Given the potential gold-plated downstream advantages (in litigation and/or settlement) of surviving an IPR (either at the Decision or Institute stage, at the Final Written Decision stage), and given that one-third of patents survive at the Decision to Institute Stage, it is surprising – but not completely unexpected – that some portion of patent owners are starting to look more favorably on the IPR process.”

It is not clear that most patent owners who license would agree with the “gold-plated” reasoning. If it were true, there would be even fewer patent suits and more owners seeking IPRs of good patents. In fact, it is a bit of a mystery what happens to patents that pass PTAB muster. A significant number appears to move on to district court litigation, and there is little data analyzing if they have greater value or fare any better licensing than patents that are less successful running the IPR gauntlet.

Leading IPR Target

Finjan is an example of an IP holder that engages in licensing whose patents are frequently subject to IPRs. The company has fared surprising well in defending itself at the PTAB, but that success does not seem to have translated into significant shareholder success for the cybersecurity company which also frequently out-licenses its patents.

On March 15, 16 and 17, as reported in The Patent Investor, Finjan won three more IPR rulings, involving Palo Alto Networks. Shares of Finjan (FNJN) currently sell at just $1.54. The company has a micro market capitalization of $35M, $18M on 2016 revenues. Its shares are up significantly over 12 months vs. for the S&P 500 Index, but the company, which lost $12.6M in 2015, showed its first profit in 2016, $350K or .02 per share. Finjan has executed a difficult IP strategy. If successful IPRs have gold-plated its patents, the value has yet to shine through.

Finjan was the fourth most IPR’d patent holder in 2016 and the third most in 2015. It is the most successful company in successfully defending against IPR petitions. Of 47 total IPRs against Finjan patents to date, 32 have been denied institution.

With that track record at the PTAB, one would think Finjan would have a field day licensing its patents, but the IPRs continue to come, and it still must win hard-fought victories in district court litigation. In September, a California jury found that cybersecurity firm Sophos infringed all eight patents asserted in a lawsuit brought by Finjan over software that identifies new computer viruses, awarding the company $15 million in damages.

“We have a portfolio of patents that has been proven durable in light of the increasing number of administrative pathways to challenge validity largely due to two factors,” says Finjan CEO, Phil Hartstein.  “First, our patents were developed jointly and alongside product development of technology that was disruptive to a market.  Second, we do not deviate from the intrinsic record of the assets themselves and vigorously defend our patent rights on the merits.”

Coordinated Challenges

Editor and patent attorney Gene Quinn of IP Watchdog believes that Finjan and other businesses that attempt to out-license their patents are frequently subject to repeated, coordinated attacks.

“At least several patent owners, including Finjan, are routinely subject to serial, harassing IPR challenges,” writes Quinn. “The Patent Office doing something about harassing IPR challenges is long overdue. If the Director is not going to exercise the discretion vested in that Office by the America Invents Act (AIA) hopefully more panels of the Board will take it upon themselves to do just that.

“Patent owner harassment needs to stop. Patent owners shouldn’t have to be subjected to many dozens of IPR challenges before someone recognizes there is coordinated harassment – perhaps even collusion – against certain patent owners who have the audacity to want to be paid for blatant, ongoing, willful infringement.”

23 IPRs Filed on a Single Patent

Zond makes plasma generators, the kind used in manufacturing semiconductors. Pulsed DC plasma generators for magnetron discharge were first introduced in the late 1990s to reduce arcing during for the purpose of improving the quality of thin-film materials. A big breakthrough came in September 2002, when Zond applied for what it describes as a “revolutionary” pulsed technology approach.

Zond is a Massachusetts-based company that wholly owns Zpulser LLC, which commercializes its patent technology by making and selling high-power plasma generators. The patent at issue relates to methods for generating magnetically enhanced plasma.

Over the last three years, Zond’s patents have challenged an average of 12.5 times in IPRs and as many as 23 times.  The patent research firm, Patexia, writes that it is difficult for holders of good patents to survive multiple IPR challenges. In the case of Zond, it has made licensing pretty much impossible.

A study last year, reported in Law 360, showed that Zond’s patents have been challenged in AIA reviews more than those of any other patent owner, including largest patent licensing company, Intellectual Ventures, which owns more than 70,000 patents and took second place on the list.

Zond’s large number of infringement suits, reports Law 360, spurred many companies to band together to challenge the patents in AIA reviews. In addition to Fujitsu and Gillette, petitioners have included Toshiba Corp., Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Were potential licensees and defendants in patent suits lining up against Zond’s patents because they were bad and its case without merit, or did they want to destroy some potentially good patents that would have cost them to license?

For IPRs the devil certainly is in the details, as Patexia’s Pedram Sameni points out in a case study, “Can Patents Survive Multiple IPR Challenges?”

“Some have been suggesting that solely relying on the denial rates reported by the patent office is not enough to conclude that patents are surviving the IPR challenge,” writes Sameni. “Many have called PTAB, the patent death squad. Our study shows that in some cases, patents are challenged many times.

“The reality is that it only takes one successful IPR to completely kill all the claims of one patent. Therefore, the case-level status is not the best indication of PTAB performance and patent survival rate. While as IPR’s Final Written Decision usually means that some of the claims were invalidated, it does not necessarily mean that all claims were canceled.”

Not the Full Story

If claims still exist, they could be threats. And potential licensees/defendants will go to lengths to “kill” a patent to avoid paying a license or being dragged into court, including teaming on multiple petitions. Repeat IPRs are an efficient way to make a potential infringement suit or royalty payment disappear for multiple parties.

“The statistics that show that the PTAB is becoming fairer for patent holders do not tell the full story,” a prominent NPE told IP CloseUp. “IPRs are frequently unfair fights between several, well-funded petitioners and a single patent owner who has to run the gauntlet, repeatedly.  Surviving an IPR doesn’t mean anything if subsequent challenges can be filed at any time, especially in coordinated fashion.”

Once a patent is challenged multiple times with different prior arts, it is highly unlikely that any of its claims will survive – no matter how good it is.

“The PTAB may not be a death squad, but challenged patents are put in a kind of headlock that can render them useless. Where are the patents that emerge from IPRs generally intact or whose petitions against them for review are not instituted? They should be eminently licensable, but they are nowhere to be found. The ‘normalization’ statistics that are being cited to show that the PTAB is becoming a fairer forum for patent holders are highly misleading.”

Lack of Uniformity

Another patent licensing business, one whose petitioned patents have survived multiple IPRs, still believes that the lack of uniformity among the many PTAB panels and administrative law judges is a major factor in the continued unfairness that has effectively destroyed patent licensing for many companies and independent inventors.

“It’s difficult to predict how the PTAB will rule,” says the executive, a lawyer. “The first year or two that patents were subjected to IPRs there was a lot of low-hanging – really, rotting –  fruit. Those petitions were almost universally instituted, and many bad patents were appropriately eliminated.”

“But anyone can file and IPR and they can keep filing them. Reliable patents don’t seem to emerge from the process, only ‘bad’ ones, which are eventually neutralized. Few patent holders have the time or money to repeatedly defend themselves in IPRs. This has made otherwise licensable patents pretty much worthless and daily infringement, at least to some, an acceptable way of doing business.”

Image source: patentlyO.com; patentacademyonline.com; 

Three notable IP events coming up in NY, SF and Bangalore

IP event season is upon us and at least three conferences are worth noting. 

The first takes place this week in New York, March 21-22, the 9th annual Corporate IP Counsel Forum. The USPTO Keynote will be given by Mary Boney Denison, Commissioner for Trademarks and Mark Powell, Deputy Commissioner for International Patent Cooperation.

The featured session will be “Reconsidering Patent-Eligibility under Section 101.” Speaker faculty can be found here and the conference agenda here. I understand that there are only a few seats left.

IP CloseUp readers can save $200 by using registration code IPCNYC.

*****

The World IP Forum will take place this year April 26-28 at the Shangri-La Hotel in Bengaluru (Bangalore), India.  The theme for the conference is “Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property.” The fourth edition of this three-day conference will focus on recent developments in intellectual property and its syncing with business objectives. Past participants have include Judge Randall Rader and former USPTO Commissioner Q. Todd Dickinson.

For more information about the World IP Forum, go here.

*****

On May 18 San Francisco’s Golden Gate Club (at the Presidio) will be the site for IAM’s IP Software Summit.  The Summit is the first event to provide a platform for professionals from the software industry to discuss open innovation, open source and proprietary systems, collaboration, the scope of patent protection, and monetization.

The list of speakers can be found here and the full agenda here.

Speakers include senior IP executives from Cisco, Qualcomm, Mozilla, SAP, Open Invention Network, Google, Uber, LinkedIn, Ericsson and IBM.

Experts: Void from U.S. patent “train wreck” is being filled by China’s patent system

In a few short years China’s patent system has gone from an IP rights wannabe to one of the most responsive and patent-friendly systems in the world.

Leading U.S. IP experts say that underlying this rapid evolution is a desire for China to become a science and technology powerhouse, with the ability to create new and formidable industries that employ many of its 1.4 billion people.

“China wants to be an innovation leader for multiple reasons,” Irv Rappaport, former Chief Patent Counsel at Apple and National Semiconductor, who served on the Uruguay Round of GATT, told IP CloseUp recently. “It is fascinating to see how the U.S. patent system is imploding, while the Chinese system is exploding with activity and purpose.

“For more than a decade the U.S. has been emasculating its patent system, while the Chinese have been studying it and adopting the benefits of a well-coordinated and fast-moving one. The U.S. has gone from being on the global cutting edge in IP in the 1990s, to becoming a patent backwater, because of a well-heeled, anti-patent faction among technology companies that want to stifle competition.

“Train Wreck”

“China has watched the U.S. train wreck and is moving fast to fill the void,”continues Rappaport. “It wants to become the world’s ‘Eastern District of TX,’ that is, a fair and fast adjudicator of disputes that respects patent holders’ rights. China will soon be the world’s largest economy with the biggest population and a middle class the size of England, France and Germany combined. Their commitment to innovation can not be ignored.”

oj-am734_cpaten_9u_20160720061809

Peter Holden, CEO of ipCreate and former managing director with London-based Collar Capital and a founding executive with IP Value, has worked extensively with Asian companies and patents. He has traveled to Korea, China and Japan more than 100 times over the past twenty years. “The Chinese have learned from the U.S. and are sincere about making their IP system the best — one that will encourage innovation and help their nation to become the economic leader. It is not merely a thought. It’s an idea that they are dedicated to.

“China’s attitude towards foreign patent enforcement may not always be as generous as it is currently. It knows that it needs to bend over backwards to be fair if it is to be taken seriously on a global scale. To encourage competition there needs to be a level playing field.”

Counterfeits Still Rule

But China’s record on counterfeits is poor, with everything from luxury goods to pharmaceuticals sold domestically and exported globally. According the U.S. International Trade Commission, Chinese theft of U.S. IP in 2009 alone cost almost one million U.S. jobs and caused $48 billion in U.S. economic losses.

“Counterfeit goods are still an issue for China,” says Erick Robinson, a patent attorney in Beijing and author of Defending a patent case in the brave new world of Chinese patent litigation, in the current issue of IAM magazine. “However, sales of fake goods are no longer openly accepted and the government has been on the war path trying to stop them in different ways. Authorities know that in order to be taken seriously about IP rights, they cannot ignore the problem of counterfeit goods.”

For a prior IP CloseUp post summarizing the Robinson article, go here.

“Go-To” Jurisdiction

China is just beginning to build its giant tech companies. They have succeed with Alibaba and Huawei, and acquired Lenovo from IBM, which is now a $45 billion (USD) business. Their big businesses currently have less to lose from strong patents and quick dispute resolution than those in the U.S. and Europe. To create successful businesses and attract investment, incentives need to be provided, and strong patents and a reliable legal system for adjudicating disputes are great for encouraging that.

Perhaps when China has as many big tech players as the U.S. it will start to think more defensively, but for now it is the perfect setting for encouraging new ideas with strong patents and courts that make it easy to obtain injunctions.

“It’s interesting that the Chinese are encouraging large foreign corporations to sue non-Chinese companies in China,” opines Rappaport. “This suggests that they are looking to become the patent litigation go-to jurisdiction.” As their innovation grows and becomes more complex, I believe they will have less interest in exporting cheap knock-
china-is-receiving-the-most-invention-patent-applications-in-the-world-insideiim-rishikeshakrishnan-1024x792

offs.  Their IP path is similar to that followed by many of today’s developed economies, such as Japan and South Korea.  You start off copying others and gradually move to internal innovation.”

Despite China’s success in facilitating stronger patents and more decisive courts, a huge question is just how prominent a role will patents play in new companies in a data-driven information age.

“Given the accelerating pace of technology development and nature of discoveries, which are frequently software driven, it’s not clear whether existing patent systems can remain relevant in the longer term,” says Rappaport. ” This effect may partially explain why patents currently seem to be less relevant in the U.S.  It remains to be seen whether this is a longer term development. It is a development that needs to watched.”

“100% Win Rate”

“Trust the Chinese government to do what is best for the Chinese people,” reminds Beijing-based Robinson. “It’s less about assisting foreign patent holders than establishing a really viable IP system that encourages innovation and growth, and that attracts foreign investment. Forty-percent of the smart phones in India are currently manufactured by Chinese companies. Innovation coupled with enforcement will drive China’s new businesses and help them grow.”

As reported by Robinson in IAM, “foreign plaintiffs notched a 100% win rate [65 – 0] in civil cases heard by the Beijing IP Court last year, according to a judge who has been on its roster since it was established in 2014.”

Wake-Up Call

A decade of weakening has taken its toll on the U.S. patent system and patent holders. It will not be quick to recover unless a concerted effort can be made to take IP rights seriously. Allowing U.S. patent policy to be dictated by those with the greatest financial success and market share may be appealing to shareholders, but it is not necessarily what is needed for the nation to remain competitive in a global economy, and to generate new businesses and jobs.

Hopefully, the wake-up call comes soon for the U.S. and it can retain the title of innovation leader it has held since the 19th Century but is slipping away.

Image source: insideiim.com; chinapatentblog.com; wsj.com

Gov’t study of economic impact of patent infringement is needed ASAP, experts say

There are abundant statistics on the cost of counterfeit goods, copyright infringement and even the negative impact of patent “trolls,” but nothing on the estimated extent of U.S. patent infringement and the cost in lost jobs, failed businesses and unpaid taxes. 

Global trade in counterfeits or fake goods, such as fashion, automobile parts and pharmaceuticals, has reached $600 billion annually, or about 5%-7% of GDP.  

The U.S. economy alone loses $58 billion each year to copyright infringement (2011 estimate) — crimes that affect creative works. That includes $16 billion in the loss of revenue to copyright owners and $3 billion in lost tax revenue.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) reports that the U.S. economy loses $12.5 billion in total output annually as a consequence of music theft and that sound recording piracy leads to the loss of 71,060 U.S. jobs, as well as losses in tax income.

Statistics on the cost of counterfeits and copyright infringement are conducted fairly regularly. There is even biased research on the cost of non-practicing entities. (Claims of $29 billion in damage from “trolls” are wildly inflammatory, says a former USPTO commissioner, which despite having been debunked are still cited by academics and reporters.)

Surprisingly, there are no estimates of the extent of patent infringement in the U.S., and the cost in lost jobs, failed businesses, unpaid taxes and other economic impact.

____________________

“There have been no studies that I am aware of devoted to quantifying the amount of patent infringement in the United States,” said Gene Quinn, patent attorney and publisher of IP Watchdog told IP CloseUp.

_________________

“”It would be extremely helpful to get some kind of quantification of the amount of harm that befalls innovators through the concerted and calculated ‘efficient’ infrdataingement business practices of those who use technology and simply refuse to pay for their ongoing, and frequently willful, patent infringement.”

Tip of the Iceberg?

Patent damages paid may be the tip of the infringement iceberg. The real damage may be below the waterline.

To provide some context, 15 leading technology companies paid patent litigation damages of more than $4 billion over as 12-year period from 1996-2008.

That’s just a little over a dozen companies who had to pay damages. The figure presumably does not include settlements, licenses, and all of the times they and thousands of other businesses paid nothing for the inventions that they used.

The Impact of Undetected Infringement 

  • Today, with more issued U.S. patents, and much greater difficulty securing a license or winning a patent law suit, the amount of patent infringement that actually takes place but remains unidentified could exceed a trillion dollars.
  • There is no known government, academic or privately commissioned study of the extent of patent infringement in the U.S., and the cost in lost jobs, failed businesses and economic loss.

_________________

“It is not enough just to be aware that there is harm caused by undetected patent infringement,” said Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (ret.). “The government needs to conduct a proper empirical study ASAP to determine its scope and impact.”

___________________

 

Image source: ltrdigitalgroup.com

 

 

Post-election “Patent Law & Policy” conference to be held in Washington

Many businesses are wondering what the patent terrain will look like after the U.S. elections in November.

Will further reforms will be forthcoming, or will there be a move toward stronger patents and greater certainty?

On November 15, the Tuesday following election day, at Washington DC’s Reagan Conference Center, those attending the 2016 Patent Law and Policy will be in a better position to find out.

Capitol Building in Washington DC USASpeakers assembled for this year’s IAM Patent Law and Policy conference will include senior government officials, members of the judiciary, corporate patent leaders, private practitioners and investors, who will discuss how court decisions and legislation are affecting US patent values and strategies.

The keynote speaker is US Patent and Trademark Office Director Michelle Lee. Other speakers include the chief judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, David Ruschke, ex-USPTO Director David Kappos, and former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel.

Also participating as speakers or panelists will be senior representatives from companies closely involved in the ongoing patent reform debate, including: GoogleQualcomm, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb and IBM. Lead counsel in two of the pivotal Supreme Court patent cases of the last decade, KSR v Teleflex and Cuozzo v Lee. Also present will be as several high-profile patent investors.

IP CloseUp readers are able to receive $100 off the $895 fee if they use the discount code PLAP100 (offer valid until October 7 2016).

For the complete program and speakers, go here. For registration go here.

Image source: ipo.org; ipwatchdog.com

 

 

Reporter: Patent system failed heart valve inventor

One of the biggest obstacle to inventors today may the system created to protect them. Research cardiologist Tory Norred thinks so.  

In a recent post on IP Watchdog, excerpted below, I summarize how investigative reporter Scott Eden skewers the U.S. patent system in the July-August Popular Mechanics article, “How the U.S. Patent System Got So Screwed Up.”

Eden, an award-winning reporter, whose credits include the Wall Street Journal, ESPN and TheStreet, examines the devastating impact of recent changes to the patent system by focusing on an inventor who got caught up in it.

The NPR-style article tells the story of Tory Norred, a fellow in the cardiology program at the University of Missouri cardiologist, who in 1998, came up with the idea for a collapsible prosthetic aortic valve that could be fished up through an artery with a catheter, and implanted in the hearts of patients who suffered from failing aortic valves. Unlike previous valves, Norred’s stent disperses the force needed to hold it in place against the aorta’s walls, requiring no sutures.

gallery-1466458424-pmx07116-patentoffice15In November 2002 he received U.S. Patent No. 6,482,228, “Percutaneous Aortic Valve Replacement.” Norred knew that he was onto something important, but that was not the beginning of success, it was the start of a nightmare that led to repeated frustration.

“That’s my valve!”

Norred spent the next four years talking to venture capitalists, medical products companies and even a Stanford University consultant, in an effort to finance his invention. Despite many quality meetings, no one was interested in providing capital or product development – including the product-development people he signed non-disclosure agreements with at Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson & Johnson, and Guidant.

“By September 2003,” writes Eden, “Norred had all but given up on his dream when he and a colleague were strolling the exhibition hall at an important cardiology congress held annually in Washington, D.C. They came upon a booth occupied by a California startup called CoreValve. With increasing alarm, Norred studied the materials at the booth. He turned to his colleague: ‘That’s my valve!'”

The rest of the story is not unfamiliar: CoreVale basically ignored him, and Norred settled into private practice. Then, in 2009, Norred saw the news online: CoreValve had sold itself to Medtronic for $775 million in cash and future payments.

In fact, collapsible prosthetic valves fished up through an artery with a catheter and implanted in the aorta are well on their way to becoming the standard method of replacing worn-out heart valves. Thee annual market has already surpassed $1.5 billion and is expected to grow.

Immediate Suspicion

The remainder of “How the U.S. Patent System Got So Screwed Up,” is devoted to the slow decline of the patents system over the past decade, and how a handful of patent “trolls” have been used as the reason to systematically dismantle much of the patent system. The same system that was the envy of the free-world and spawned many breakthrough inventions, as well as successful businesses that employ millions.

“Norred wasn’t a troll,” continues the article, “and the decision to sue did not come easily for him. His lawyer told him that the cost to litigate could exceed half a million dollars. Norred did not have half a million dollars. He considered letting it drop and moving on with his life, but in the end he couldn’t. ‘It’s gallery-1466458804-pmx07116-patentoffice17hard to give up on something you’ve worked so hard on,’ he said.”

“Whenever an independent inventor sues for infringement today, an immediate suspicion attaches to the case,” states Eden. “The anti-patent feeling is such that to assert one is to become stigmatized as a troll or, worse, a con artist or a quack. But there’s another way to look at these litigants. It could be that an inventor-plaintiff is a modern-day Bob Kearns, the Michigan engineer who spent decades fighting the global automobile manufacturing industry over the intermittent windshield wiper. They made a movie about it called Flash of Genius.

Greater Uncertainty

Inter partes reviews (IPRs) were supposed to clear up much of the uncertainty surrounding patents that are thought to be infringed, by determining which, if any, of their claims are valid in the first place. But IPRs also have had an unfortunate side effect. IPR tribunals make it easier for sophisticated defendants to kill patents held by legitimate inventors.

“The IPR isn’t an effort to figure out whether an inventor invented something,” says Ron Epstein, the former Intel attorney. “It has turned into a process where you use every i-dot and t-cross in the law to try to blow up patents… There isn’t a patent that doesn’t have some potential area of ambiguity.”

Go here to read, “How the U.S. Patent System Got So Screwed Up.”

___________ 

Popular Mechanics was first published in 1902. It is known as the monthly bible of the independent inventor. 

In 2011, two of Scott Eden’s pieces received “Best in Business” awards from the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (one for investigative reporting and one for feature writing). Eden is former staff reporter for TheStreet and Dow Jones Newswires.

Image source: popularmechanics.com

Engaging IP book for students is free via iBooks or PDF, $.99 Kindle

The US intellectual property system has been the envy of nations everywhere. Despite this, confusion reigns about what are patents and other IP rights, and whom do they serve.

A new book has been published that makes it easier for college students and non-IP professionals, including inventors, engineers and investors to understand how IP rights work in the real world and how they affect peoples’ lives.

In an increasingly digital, knowledge-driven economy, an understanding of IP rights needs to be part of a core curriculum. The Intangible Advantage: Understanding Intellectual Property in the New Economy serves that mission admirably.

Compiled by an all-star team of writers, jurists, lawyers and professors, The Intangible Advantage (TIA) explains in clear, non-technical prose how the IP system works and the many audiences (aka stakeholders) it benefits. TIA is a revealing journey through the history and practice of IP in the United States. It is the first comprehensive text book for students that explains the IP system’s strengths and weaknesses, and dispels many of the myths surrounding them.

Clear and Concise

Chief writer, David Kline, is co-author of Rembrandts in the Attic (HBS Press), the first serious book about patents for business managers and investors. Kline is a former Pulitzer-nominated war correspondent, who has contributed to many business and news publications.

Serving as the book’s executive editor was David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent and lockup-ipad-verticalTrademark Office, 2009 to 2013. Prior to that Mr. Kappos was chief IP counsel at IBM. Also integral to the project was Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge for the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) who sat for 22 years on the bench, from 1988 to 2010. CAFC is the the highest patent court.

Giving Back

The Intangible Advantage is published by the Michelson 20MM Foundation. Established by Dr. Gary K. Michelson, an inventor, a spinal surgeon who responsible for 340 issued US patents and 953 worldwide. Dr. Michelson sold his company for $1.35 billion to Medtronic in 2010 as a settlement in a patent dispute.

The Michelson 20MM Foundation supports and invests in leading edge entrepreneurs, technologies, models, and initiatives with the potential to improve post-secondary access, affordability, and efficacy.  Dr. Michelson also founded the Gary Michelson Medical Research Foundation, which since 1995 has supported forward thinking initiatives in medical science by leveraging the collaboration of engineers, scientists, and physicians to solve real world problems; rapidly moving medical advancements into our society.

Separating Truth from Myth

The Intangible Advantage is written with clarity and charm, a Kline’s trademark that can be found in the books and articles about IP that he has written under his own by-line and those he has co-authored. IP professionals as well as students will gain from the historical insights the book provides, such as that despite media and hoopla about “trolls,” patent trials have remained virtually flat at around 100 for 30 years.

Given the explosive increase in patent filing and grants — About 325,000 US patents were issued each in 2014 and 2015 alone, and there are literally millions in force — the number of disputes that go to trial is extraordinarily low — not what the media would have us believe.

static1.squarespaceWhat The Intangible Advantage does exceedingly well is explain the US patent system and how rights can be used productively. It reminds readers that the system exists to facilitate sharing information about new inventions and stimulate new business, not to keep inventions secret or deter commerce. US IP rights differ markedly from others, especially the 18th and 19th century English system, which was more closely associated with privilege and class. The book underscores that the US system strives to use IP, especially patents, to level power, not to wield it.

TIA is un-intimidating at just 287 pages (1320 KB), a good length for those who want to know more without getting into legal minutiae. The book is available at iBooks for free and on Kindle for just $.99. An inexpensive print-on-demand edition (under $10) is also available. I downloaded a copy to my Kindle in about 15 seconds and read it over several days.

Start Learning Now

For the free iBooks version, go here or to your iBooks app store.

For the 99 cent Kindle version, go here or to the Kindle store.

For the $6.68 print on demand version, go here.

For the free standard Widows PDF version, go here.

The main Michelson 20MM Foundation resource page provides additional information.

In addition to Kline, editorial credits include:

Randall E. Kahnke (Author), Robert G. Krupka (Author), Kerry L. Bundy (Author), David Kappos (Editor),Paul R. Michel (Editor), Phillip J. Kim (Editor), Mayra Lombera(Editor), Marisa S. Moosekian (Editor), Gary K. Michelson (Preface).

The book is accompanied by a series of 3-minute animated videos available on YouTube answering such common questions as “Can I Patent That?”“Is it Fair Use or Infringement?” and “What If Someone Infringes Your Trademark?

Education – the Future of IP

IP literacy is no longer an option, it is a requirement. A rudimentary understanding IP rights and the patent system is essential for individuals to excel in a knowledge-based economy.

Until recently intellectual property has been taught primarily in law schools or the occasional business school seminar. The history and use of US IP rights is an amazing success story, whose impact needs to be conveyed accurately to wider audiences, and repeatedly over time.

The Intangible Advantage – not to be confused with my 2015 book, The Intangible Investor – is the first IP text book for non-IP professionals, especially college students, that makes it easy to learn about an integral part of American history and commerce.

Image source: 20mm.org; michelsonip.com

The future of IP will be examined at the 10th IP Summit in Berlin

Uncertainty is putting pressure on patents, trademarks and copyrights. All are facing more scrutiny and a challenging future.  

Scrutinizing these fundamental issues on December 3rd and 4th in Berlin will be more than 600 IP holders, executives and investors attending the Intellectual Property Summit. Organized by Premier Cercle, it will be the tenth edition of the popular conference, held previously in Paris and Brussels.

This year’s Summit will attempt to deconstruct global IP trends and explore the future of IP rights – patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets – as business assets. There will be 100 speakers from Europe, North America and Asia.

Plenary topics include:

  • What is the future of IP in the 21st century?
  • Is your nation ready for open innovation?
  • More IP rights or better enforcement?
  • The future of injunctive relief in Europe?

On Friday, December 4 at 2:20 (14.20), your intrepid IP CloseUp editor, BB, will moderate a panel on Patent Quality – Always Challenging; Never Simple. Panelists will include:

>Valencia Martin Wallace  Deputy Commissioner for Patent Quality  USPTO / US

>Daniel G. Papst    Managing Director  PAPST LICENSING Gmbh & Co. KG / DEU

> Christian Vejgaard   European Patent Attorney  ERICSSON / SWD 

Chair : Bruce Berman Principal  BRODY BERMAN ASSOCIATES / US  

11A Patent Quality – Always Challenging; Never Simple
Defining patent quality
– What is a good patent?
– Distinguishing validity from invention quality and value
– Establishing more reliable patents
– The impact of poor quality

The patent quality session will be followed by a session on patent transactions on which IBM, Samsung, Chipworks and Unified Patents and are scheduled to participate.

This year’s IP summit partners include IP CloseUp and Brody Berman Associates. 

For the full agenda go here.

To register go here.

imgres

Image source: premier cercle; i-mop.biz

Patent quality — Is a “shared responsibility”, says IBM; it does not represent invention quality or IP value

There is a great deal of agreement that patent quality is lacking, but surprisingly little about how to define and achieve it.

Patent quality is typically associated with validity. Good patents are valid upon scrutiny, bad ones invalid. However, the term also refers to the relative importance of an invention and the value of the “negative” right – the right to exclude others from practicing it.

I attended the recent Patent Quality Summit hosted by the USPTO in Alexandria, VA on March 25-26.  Among the challenging remarks were those of Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel at IBM, and the Summit’s first speaker.

He reminded the audience of more than 200 that patent value is a “shared responsibility” between the applicant and the examiner.

Schecter also said that “patent quality is not invention quality of patent value.” Wise words from head of IP of the 20-year leader in obtaining U.S. patents.

Hon. Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), was candid about how he believes patent quality can be improved. He wants greater onus placed on the examination and examiner. He says that the application process is the first line of offense for eliminating bad patents and facilitating more reliable ones. Better-educated and more empowered examiners who understand likely legal arguments should issued patents be disputed will help. Patents should not be issued in a vacuum.

*****

Search time and examiner resources are often cited as the key obstacles to issuing good patents. Those USPTO realities are unlikely to change much. What could change are the introduction of stricter parameters for patents to issue, and not wait for the courts or the PTAB to weigh in on issues like validity and enablement (Rule 112), when they could have been addressed much earlier in the application process. This would save multiple parties time and money. Currently, patents are almost always insufficiently reliable both to those who practice inventions and those who may wish enforce them. This may not be inevitable.

Issued patents need to move closer to a slam dunk than a moving target. Examinations and examiners will play a key role in that difficult process. If I hear what Judge Michel is saying, let’s give them a chance.

Information about the Summit, including it’s three pillars and six quality proposals can be found here. Public comments are requested by the USPTO until May 6. 

*****

An article by Christi Guerrini, an IP Fellow, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law in the Fordham Law Review, “Defining Patent Quality,” is a nobel attempt to begin to deconstruct the meaning of superior patents, and to go beyond a simple black/white definition defined by the legal parameters of validity.

From the author’s abstract:

“Depending on whom you ask, the state of U.S. patent quality is either dismal or decent, in decline or on fordhamlrev_headerthe upswing, in need of intervention or best left alone. Absent from the ongoing debate about the quality of U.S. patents, however, is much thoughtful discussion about what constitutes a patent’s “quality” in the first place. What features of a patent make it “good” in quality, what features make it “bad” in quality, and whose opinion matters?

“Surprisingly, scholars and policymakers have shown little interest in these questions. Yet their answers are critical to the direction of the patent agenda because they dictate how to measure patent quality and, consequently, how to evaluate the extent of the so-called patent quality ‘crisis’ as well as the effectiveness of quality reforms.

“The broad aim of this Article is to draw attention to the definition of patent quality as an important subject of scholarly inquiry. Its more specific aim is to call for a return to first principles and begin the process of operationalizing the meaning of patent quality. It does so by analyzing the concept using a methodology applied in the business literature of quality management.”

Defining Patent Quality” can be found here.

*****

In “Toward a working definition of patent quality,” which appears in the May IAM, out next week, I consider the challenges to better reliability.

“Patent quality is important because, among other things, a lack of it can impede businesses and require some to engage in unnecessary licensing or lawsuits.

“Bad patents are unreliable and undermine the integrity of the patent system, including the institutions Quality WEB HeaderNEWand professionals that sustain it. However, given the multitude of ways that standards are applied in specific cases, coming up with a universal definition of ‘patent quality’ is no easy feat. The best patents are often in the eye of the beholder.”

For the column I asked four people — an economist and valuation expert, a patent attorney, a former chief patent counsel and a successful NPE — to provide me with a two-sentence definition of “patent quality.” Their responses – thoughtful and startlingly precise – are a good indication that more work still needs to be done on this deceptively important area.

IAM subscribers can find my Intangible Investor column here.

Image source: ipfrontline.com; uspto.gov; fordham.edu

Patent ‘Quality Summit’ will be open to the public, March 25-26

The goal of the USPTO gathering is to promote discussion of ways to improve patent quality.

The first Patent Quality Summit will take place at United States Patent and Trademark Office headquarters in Alexandria, VA on March 25-26.

The two-day event’s opening session, “Perspectives on the Importance of Quality,” will feature corporate counsel, private practitioners, academics, economists, and jurists. Sessions will be open to the public, and those wishing to attend the Quality Summit but cannot be in Alexandria, they will be able to listen to and watch the presentations via a live stream. Participation in the Brainstorming sessions will be via WebEx during which virtual attendees will be able to participate interactively.

According to a press release the gathering is intended to “encourage robust discussions among USPTO leadership; patent prosecutors, litigators, applicants and licensees; and other members of the public interested in USPTO’s efforts to further improve patent quality through its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative.

The conference draft agenda, three pillars to improve quality and six proposals can be found here, as well as information about virtual attendance. 

A focus of the Summit will be on improving patent operations and procedures to provide Quality SUMMIT Logo-02the best work product, to enhance the customer experience, and to improve existing quality metrics. USPTO has already set in motion several quality initiatives, including robust technical and legal training for patent examiners, as well as a Glossary Pilot, Quick Patent IDS Program, First Action Interview Pilot, and After Final Consideration Pilot.

Public Comments Solicited

Separate from the Quality Summit, the USPTO is seeking public comment on its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative. Comments in this round will be accepted through May 6, 2015. For further information about the summit – including a draft agenda – and instructions for submitting comments, visit the Federal Register Notice.

“High quality patents permit certainty and clarity of rights, which in turn fuels innovation and reduces needless litigation,” said Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO, Michelle K. Lee.

Image source: uspto.gov

%d bloggers like this: