Read Norman Van Treeck‘s answer to How can silicon tech companies prove the competition is infringing on a patent they own? on Quora

July 17, 2018 by nvantreeck

Using Copyrighted Articles in Patent Prosecution Is A Fair Use.

February 10, 2014 by nvantreeck

In a battle of intellectual property lawyers, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Keyes recently sided with the patent attorneys. He ruled that a law firm’s use of copyrighted scientific journal articles in prosecuting patent applications constituted fair use.

American Institute of Physics v. Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner involved science and technology articles published by Plaintiffs American Institute of Physics and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. The law firm of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner (Schwegman) obtained and later copied eighteen of the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted journal articles for use in its patent prosecution practice. The Plaintiffs allege that by obtaining the copies without paying for a license, and by making internal copies within the law office, Schwegman committed copyright infringement. The Plaintiff agreed submitting copies to the Patent Office was permissible. Both Schwegman and the USPTO maintain that Schwegman’s copying of the articles for their files and review constitutes a non-infringing “fair use.” The publishers disagreed.

In holding that fair use applied, the court applied the fair use provisions of the copyright statute which requires the courts to consider the following factors in deciding this issue:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
The nature of the copyrighted work;
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In this case, the court determined that all four fair use factors weighed in favor of finding that Schwegman’s use is fair as a matter of law. As explained by Magistrate Keyes:

The record demonstrates no genuine dispute that Schwegman’s use of the Articles was new and different and did not merely supersede the original purpose of the Articles. Also, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the nature of the Articles is predominantly informational. Further, although Schwegman did make complete copies of the Articles in its patent prosecution practice, the only reasonable inference to draw from the record is that Schwegman’s copying of the Articles was consistent with the new and different purpose and character of Schwegman’s use. And there is no evidence to suggest that Schwegman’s copying impacted a traditional, reasonable, or likely to be developed market for the Articles.

The decision is good news for fair use advocates and patent lawyers, but it must still be affirmed by the district court.

How Can I Help?

If you, or someone you know, need any help with Intellectual Property issues, from filing a patent, trademark or copyright, or just need advice regarding how best to protect your inventions, ideas or your brand, please contact me for a free 30 minute consultation at nvantreeck@usip.com or call TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) and ask for Norman.

– Ex astris, scientia –

I am and avid amateur astronomer and intellectual property attorney in Pasadena, California and I am a Rising Star as rated by Super Lawyers Magazine. As a former Chief Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy, I am a proud member of the Armed Service Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association working to aid all active duty and veterans in our communities. Connect with me on Google +

Norman

Support For Expanded Review Of Business Method Patents.

February 5, 2014 by nvantreeck

While there are several anti-patent troll bills pending in Congress, the STOP Act seems to be gaining the greatest traction. It would make the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Transitional Business Method Program permanent and expand it to other industries.

The new post-grant review procedures under the America Invents Act allow a third party to challenge a patent’s invalidity on a number of grounds, including prior art, lack of enablement, lack of novelty, or inadequate written description. Post-grant review allows parties to raise a number of new challenges that were previously reserved for litigation.

Under the proposed legislation, the definition of “covered business methods” would be expanded to include “an enterprise” or “a product.” The STOP Act, sponsored by Reps. Darrell Issa and Judy Chu, closely mirrors Senate legislation introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer this spring.

In a letter to leaders of the judiciary committees of both the House and Senate, nearly 50 major U.S. companies, including Morgan Stanley, Google, Wal-Mart and Dell, expressed support for the legislation as a way to combat abusive patent litigation by patent-assertion entities (PAEs).

As the companies explain, “Too often, abusive PAE litigation exploits low-quality business method patents. The vague and sweeping scope of many business method claims covering straightforward, commonsense steps has led to an explosion of patent claims against processes used every day in common technologies by thousands of businesses and millions of Americans.”

“Expanding an existing Patent Office program, the Covered Business Method (CBM) Program, beyond its current limitation of ‘financial services’ business method patents to all business method patents would accomplish this goal. An expanded CBM Program would enable the Patent Office to reconsider the validity of issued business method patents and provide a targeted “surgical strike” against the worst of these frequently abused patents. And it would increase certainty for innovators actually bringing new products to market, who now face an increasing threat of extortive demands based on low-quality patents,” the letter further argues.

How Can I Help?

I will be closely tracking the status of this legislation and all other patent reform initiatives currently pending in Congress. For additional information about how the proposed changes may impact you or your company, I encourage you to contact me for a free 30 minute consultation at nvantreeck@usip.com or call TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) and ask for Norman.

– Ex astris, scientia –

Norman

Federal Circuit Reveils New Model Order In Patent Cases.

January 31, 2014 by nvantreeck

The Federal Circuit Advisory Council, which advises the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on rules of court and operating procedures, recently unveiled a new model order regarding excess patent claims and prior art.

As highlighted by the council, “There is a consensus that the numbers of asserted claims, claim terms, and prior art references in patent cases are often problematically excessive. Cases with over a hundred asserted claims and over a hundred asserted prior art references during discovery are common. The identification of an unmanageable number of products can be a problem too.”

While many courts already issue orders limiting the number of patent claims and prior art references in patent cases, the model order is intended to provide a systematic approach that can be further tailored to individual cases. “Focusing patent cases to the issues at the core of the dispute will reduce the burden on courts and lower the expense for the parties. In addition, a greater focus on the true issues will improve the quality of the adjudicatory process for all,” the council argues.

The new limits occur at two phases: (1) after production of “core” technical documents but before claim construction, and (2) after claim construction but before expert reports. Below are the basis provisions of the model order:

Not later than 40 days after the accused infringer is required to produce documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused instrumentalities, the patent claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, which shall assert no more than ten claims from each patent and not more than a total of 32 claims. Not later than 14 days after service of the Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, the patent defendant shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall assert no more than twelve prior art references against each patent and not more than a total of 40 references.
Not later than 28 days after the Court issues its Claim Construction Order, the patent claimant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no more than five asserted claims per patent from among the ten previously identified claims and no more than a total of 16 claims. Not later than 14 days after service of a Final Election of Asserted Claims, the patent defendant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall identify no more than six asserted prior art references per patent from among the twelve prior art references previously identified for that particular patent and no more than a total of 20 references.
If the patent claimant asserts infringement of only one patent, all per-patent limits in this order are increased by 50%, rounding up.

However, within two days of being released, all content on the Federal Circuit Advisory Council webpage was removed and replace with the message “This site is being updated and will be posted soon.” Soon thereafter, the Council webpage was restored with the exception of the two model orders. Instead, the webpage contains the following statement:

“Model orders concerning e-discovery and limitations on claims and prior art were posted on the court’s website. Those orders have now been removed since the court has not sponsored or endorsed the orders. In light of the court’s determination, the advisory council should not be viewed as having sponsored or endorsed these orders on behalf of the court.”

How Can I Help?

– Ex astris, scientia –

Norman

Inventor Loses Spider-Man Royalties

January 22, 2014 by nvantreeck

Marvel Enterprises is no longer obligated to make royalty payments to the inventor of a Spider-Man toy called the Web Blaster. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Stephen Kimble’s licensing agreement was unenforceable beyond the expiration date of the underlying patent under the controversial precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brulotte v. Thys Co.

Around 1990, Kimble invented and obtained a patent for a Spider-Man toy that allowed a child “role play” as Spider-Man by shooting foam string. The patent expired on May 25, 2010.

While the patent application was pending, Kimble approached Marvel about the toy and other ideas. A company executive told him that he would be compensated if Marvel used any of his ideas. Although the company ultimately informed Kimble it was not interested, Marvel began manufacturing a similar Spider-Man role-playing toy.

Kimble filed suit for patent infringement and breach of contract. While the infringement claim was dismissed, Kimble eventually reached a settlement with Marvel under which the company agreed to purchase the patent and both parties agreed to dismiss all pending appeals. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Marvel agreed to pay Kimble $516,000 and three percent of net product sales of the toy.

In 2006, the parties got into a disagreement regarding the calculation of royalties, and Kimble filed another breach of contract lawsuit. In response, Marvel argued that it was no longer obligated to pay Kimble after the patent expired.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately agreed. It held that “a so-called ‘hybrid’ licensing agreement encompassing inseparable patent and non-patent rights is unenforceable beyond the expiration date of the underlying patent, unless the agreement provides a discounted rate for the non-patent rights or some other clear indication that the royalty at issue was in no way subject to patent leverage.”

As explained in the opinion, Brulotte has been interpreted to require that any contract requiring royalty payments for an invention either after a patent expires or when it fails to issue cannot be enforced unless the contract provides a discount from the alternative, patent-protected rate. While the court noted that it disagreed with the rationale of the rule, it also recognized that “we are bound by Supreme Court authority and the strong interest in maintaining national uniformity on patent law issues.” Accordingly, the panel begrudgingly applied the precedent.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Kimble’s argument that Brulotte was inapplicable because the agreement discriminated between patents and non-patent rights. “We cannot agree because the agreement plainly involved one royalty rate for both patent and Web Blaster rights, with no discount or other clear indication that the Web Blaster royalties were not subject to patent leverage,” the court concluded.

How Can I Help?

– Ex astris, scientia –

Norman

USPTO Announces Access to Chinese Patent Documentation Via New Global Patent Search Network

January 21, 2014 by nvantreeck

In contrast to yesterday’s story, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently announced the launch of the Global Patent Search Network. Accessible via the USPTO website, the new database allows users to search and retrieve Chinese patent documentation.

According to the USPTO, the data available includes both full text Chinese patents and English machine translations. Users can currently search documents including published applications, granted patents and utility models from 2008 to 2011. The USPTO has indiacted the network will periodically be updated with more current data.

A recent blog post touted the benefits of the Global Search patent Network. “This new search tool delivers to the public, as well as our patent examiners, an additional source of foreign patent collections. Furthermore, the immediate availability of English machine translations will effectively address the language barrier and allow for quick analysis of the relevancy of the prior art while reducing the need for costly human translations. Machine translation technology can sometimes generate awkward wording, but it provides an excellent way to determine the gist of the information in a foreign patent.”

The initial launch of the Global Patent Search Network features only Chinese patent documentation. However, the USPTO plans to incorporate additional foreign patent collections in the future. Interestingly, the Global Patent Search Network is the first patent-related initiative to use cloud technology.

How Can I Help?

– Ex astris, scientia –

Norman

Cracking Down on IP Scammers.

January 17, 2014 by nvantreeck

Trademark and patent holders are frequently targeted by scams, often in the form of official-looking correspondence. Some companies promise to protect your patent in foreign countries, while others claims that you have an unpaid invoice for trademark registration services. I have made many blog posts warning of these “notifications.”

While the services offered may sometimes be legitimate, the mailings are misleading because they use language, formatting and other identifying features that suggest the sender is an official government agency. I frequently field calls from concerned clients who have received unsolicited offers for patent, copyright and trademark services.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other industry groups frequently issue warnings about these fraudulent solicitations; however, new scams seem to pop up every few months. To put these companies out of business for good, a New York intellectual property law firm is pursuing legal action in federal court.

The suit against Patent & Trademark Agency LLC and its principal owner, Armens Organesjans, alleges that the company seeks to confuse trademark owners into purchasing services under the false color of authority. The claims include unfair competition, false advertising and tortious interference with prospective economic relations.

As highlighted in the complaint, Patent & Trademark Agency LLC’s website includes a statement that they are not lawyers and do not provide legal advice; however, its Terms, Conditions and Use Agreement state the opposite: “By accepting these terms you specifically and irrevocably authorize [Patent & Trademark Agency] to conduct negotiations and act on your behalf with any party needed in order to renew or register your trademark.”

The complaint further alleges that the company falsely states that “the Patent & Trademark Agency is the nation’s premier trademark registration and renewal service.” In reality, the USPTO lists the company among entities that have been the subject of complaints regarding fraudulent solicitations.

Last year, the same New York IP firm sued USA Trademark Enterprises Inc. on similar grounds. As a result of the lawsuit, the company was permanently barred from engaging in intellectual property-related activities in the United States.

The Attorney General of Vermont also sued Patent & Trademark Agency LLC to protect its citizens from these scams.

If you believe that you have been a target of this type of scam, please report it to the AG of your state and to your IP attorney. You can also file a complaint against the scammer on the USPTO web site here.

How Can I Help?

– Ex astris, scientia –

Norman

Patent Application Fees Can Qualify for the Research and Development Tax Credit.

January 15, 2014 by nvantreeck

The federal research and experimentation tax credit (referred to as both an “R&D credit” or “R&E credit”) can be a valuable tool for individuals and businesses that conduct research and development, including the invention of patented products and processes. It provides a 20 percent credit on selected research expenditures.

In order to qualify for the R&D credit, research activities must satisfy a four-part test established by Congress:

Permitted Purpose: The goal of the activity must be to create a new or improve an existing business component in terms of functionality, performance, reliability, or quality. A business component is defined as any product, process, technique, invention, formula, or computer software that the taxpayer intends to hold for sale, lease, license, or actual use in the taxpayer’s trade or business.
Elimination of Uncertainty: A degree of uncertainty must exist concerning the development or improvement of the business component. Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability of development or improvement, method of development or improvement, or the appropriateness of the business component’s design.
Process of Experimentation: The taxpayer must undertake a process of experimentation designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result.
Technological in Nature: The experimental process must fundamentally rely on principles of the “hard sciences, including physical, biological sciences, engineering, or computer sciences.

As detailed by the Journal of Accountancy, a number of expenses can qualify for the R&D tax credit, including wages, supplies and contract research expenses. For instance, in-house wages attributable to qualified research and 65 percent of vendor expenses related to design and testing services are includable.

In addition, the tax credit has been interpreted to include not only developing prototypes or models, but also applying for patents. Accordingly, inventors may be able to use the tax credit to offset the increased application fees now required by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

How Can I Help?

– Ex astris, scientia –

Norman

Guidance After The Myriad Decision.

December 30, 2013 by nvantreeck

USPTO Provides Guidance in Response to Myriad Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., which clarifies what types of DNA claims are patent eligible. Only a few days later, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued preliminary guidance to its patent examining corps.

Earlier this year, tThe Supreme Court held that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.

As noted by the USPTO, “Myriad significantly changes the Office’s examination policy regarding nucleic acid-related technology.”In accordance with the Myriad decision, the USPTO advises it examiners:

As of today, naturally occurring nucleic acids are not patent eligible merely because they have been isolated. Examiners should now reject product claims drawn solely to naturally occurring nucleic acids or fragments thereof, whether isolated or not, as being ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims clearly limited to non-naturally-occurring nucleic acids, such as a cDNA or a nucleic acid in which the order of the naturallyoccurring nucleotides has been altered (e.g., a man-made variant sequence), remain eligible.

The USPTO further added that it is closely reviewing the decision in Myriad and will issue more comprehensive guidance on patent subject matter eligibility determinations, including the role isolation plays in those determinations.

I will keep you informed of any new examination process and rule changes from the USPTO as they become relevant to you business.

How Can I Help?

– Ex astris, scientia –

Norman

USPTO and Korean Intellectual Property Office Announce New Pilot

December 26, 2013 by nvantreeck

The U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) recently announced the launch of a new patent pilot.

KIPO will classify some of its patent documents using the Cooperative Patent Classification system (CPC). It is the first foreign patent office to engage with the USPTO and EPO in this new system.

The CPC is a new classification system jointly managed by the USPTO and the European Patent Office (EPO). It includes approximately 250,000 classification symbols based on the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, and will allow examiners and patent users worldwide to conduct searches by accessing the same classified patent document collections. The goal is to enable more efficient prior art searches and enhance efficiency through work-sharing initiatives designed to reduce unnecessary duplication of work.

CPC definitions containing a thorough description of the technical subject matter covered will be provided for every CPC subclass and regularly updated. Downloadable CPC schemes, CPC definitions and concordances (e.g. ECLA to CPC and CPC to IPC) are now available on the official CPC website.

How Can I Help?

– Ex astris, scientia –

Norman

Astronomy and Law

Astronomy and Law Blog

Milky Way Rising

Tag Archives: patent

Read Norman Van Treeck‘s answer to How can silicon tech companies prove the competition is infringing on a patent they own? on Quora

Using Copyrighted Articles in Patent Prosecution Is A Fair Use.

Support For Expanded Review Of Business Method Patents.

Federal Circuit Reveils New Model Order In Patent Cases.

Inventor Loses Spider-Man Royalties

USPTO Announces Access to Chinese Patent Documentation Via New Global Patent Search Network

Cracking Down on IP Scammers.

Patent Application Fees Can Qualify for the Research and Development Tax Credit.

Guidance After The Myriad Decision.

USPTO and Korean Intellectual Property Office Announce New Pilot