The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has launched a new tool that helps interested parties monitor pending patent applications and receive alerts when applications of interest are published. The Patent Application Alert Service enables registered users to receive notice of published applications using various search criteria, including:
- applications filed by particular inventors or assignees;
- applications containing specified keywords in the claims, abstract, title or description, or
- applications having certain CPC classifications.
The USPTO noted that the new service may help more third parties participate in the “pre-issuance submission” process. In that process, any interested party can submit prior art against a pending patent application for the USPTO Examiner to consider. The time frame for submitting prior art against an application is the later of (i) six months from publication, or (ii) the date of first rejection by the Examiner.
“Patent misuse” is perhaps one of the most “misused” phrases in patent law. When faced with a patent lawsuit or even just a cease-and-desist letter, accused infringers who disagree with the patent holder’s actions often ask whether they can counter the infringement accusation with a claim of patent misuse.
Which leads to the question: what exactly is “patent misuse” in U.S. patent law?
Patent misuse can occur when a patent holder improperly tries to expand the scope of the patent in a way that has an anti-competitive effect. (See B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997).) Patent misuse requires more than just aggressive litigation tactics or disagreement as to whether or not an accused product actually infringes: “the defense of patent misuse is not available to a presumptive infringer simply because a patentee engages in some kind of wrongful commercial conduct.” Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission and U.S. Philips Corp.616 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Because patent misuse typically requires an anti-competitive effect, courts give the doctrine a “narrow scope.” Id. Even a finding of anti-competitive effect may not be sufficient to find that patent misuse occurred. Continue reading
When drafting and negotiating a license agreement, it’s tempting for the parties to simply use definitions and so-called “standard” paragraphs that are taken from previous agreements. This can be risky. Even paragraphs that might be considered boilerplate need to be carefully reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the parties’ intent
The Licensing Journal recently published my article “Defining ‘Affiliate': Pay Attention to the Boilerplate“, in which I describe two examples in which boilerplate terms led to unintended consequences. For more details, click the hyperlink above for the full article.
Since the June 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, the vast majority of district court decisions, Federal Circuit decisions, and Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) decisions that considered the issue have overturned software and business method patents under the new patent-eligibility standard of Alice. In the first quarter of 2015 alone, when considering a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of patent-eligibility under §101, U.S. district courts have granted the motions and ruled the patents to be invalid over 66% of the time.
In November 2014, I published a post that summarized court and PTAB decisions that bucked this trend and found software to be patent-eligible. Since then, a small but growing number of cases refused to overturn patents that involved software, and the USPTO issued an Interim Guidance document describing actual and hypothetical claims that could survive post-Alice scrutiny.
To track the activity since then, I have updated my original post. It’s still available via this link. I intend to keep it updated on a periodic basis, so feel free to bookmark it or simply check back for future updates.
A recent United States Supreme Court decision is likely to affect the way that parties approach trademark opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
My colleagues Bill Hansen and Suzi Morales recently published an article describing the decision and its potential effects. For more details about the Court’s decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. follow this link for the full article.
2015 could be a pivotal year for U.S. patent reform, with two significant — and very distinct — patent reform bills pending before Congress. This article compares the two bills, the Innovation Act and the STRONG Patents Act, the forces behind the bills, and the next steps in the U.S. patent reform debate.
Introduced in February 2015 by Rep. Bob Goodlatte as a measure to “curb abusive patent litigation,” the Innovation Act picks up where the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) left off by proposing additional reforms to patent litigation procedures. The Innovation Act would also streamline some of the AIA’s mechanisms for challenging patents.
In March 2015, Senator Christopher Coons and others introduced the STRONG Patents Act as a way to “reduce abuse while sustaining American leadership in innovation,” The STRONG Patents Act includes some reforms that are similar to those of the Innovation Act, along with several other sections that are designed to protect the positions of patent holders.
Significant provisions of each bill include: Continue reading
In February 2015, the White House proposed a draft “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” that the Obama administration believes will provide a baseline of clear protections for consumers, as well as greater certainty for companies who currently have to navigate a patchwork of state privacy laws across the country.
The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is part of a policy memo titled “Consumer Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy.” The document calls on Congress to pass legislation that adopts the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. The document also asks Congress to give both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and individual state attorneys general authority to enforce the Bill, although only the FTC could seek financial penalties.
The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights proposes specific obligations on companies who collect data from individual considers that will preserve the consumers rights to:
- Individual Control (the right to exercise control over what personal
data companies collect from consumers and how the companies use it);
- Transparency (the right to easily understandable and accessible
information about privacy and security practices);
- Respect for Context (the right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data);
- Security (the a right to secure and responsible handling of personal
- Access and Accuracy (the right to access and correct personal
data in usable formats);
- Focused Collection (the right to reasonable limits on the personal
data that companies collect and retain); and
- Accountability (the right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights).
The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights has been criticized by consumer advocacy and industry groups alike, as well as by the commissioner of the FTC. Nonetheless, it has provoked a discussion that may help establish a uniform standard for protecting consumer data across the United States. Just days after the administration released the proposal, a group of senators who criticized it re-introduced a bill that would regulate data brokers who collect and sell personal and sensitive information about consumers.