Thursday, September 18, 2014

USPTO Extends Comment Period on AIA Trials to October 16, 2014

The USPTO is extending the time for public comments on procedures of the America Invents Act (AIA) trials before the Patent and Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Any comments must be emailed to trialsrfc2014@uspto.gov by October 16, 2014.

As stated by the USPTO, it "published a request for comments in the Federal Register on June 27, 2014, seeking public comment on all aspects of the new administrative trial proceedings, including the administrative trial proceeding rules and trial practice guide. See Request for Comments on Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 79 Fed Reg. 36474-77 (June 27, 2014). The USPTO initially indicated that written comments must be received on or before September 16, 2014. In view of stakeholder requests for additional time to submit comments on the new administrative trial proceedings, the USPTO is now extending the period for public comment until October 16, 2014."

For additional information regarding AIA Trials:

www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bpai.jsp

www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/ptab_trials.jsp.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Professor Robin Feldman Coming of Age for the Federal Circuit

Tonight, I just finished reading Hasting Law Professor Robin Feldman's article Coming of Age for the Federal Circuit, which discusses the patent law tug-of-war that is going on between the US Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

Here's the abstract:

"This has been a watershed year for the Federal Circuit, with the Supreme Court granting cert. in more patent cases than any term since the Circuit’s creation in 1982. Moreover, in case after case this year, the Justices soundly and unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s logic.

Some attribute the tension between the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court to a clash between rules and standards, but that view misses the heart of what is occurring. Rather, a strong message echoes through the six Supreme Court decisions. It is a message about restraint, about carefully constructed logic, and about coming into the fold of judicial decision-making. This is a coming of age for the Federal Circuit — or at least the Supreme Court seems determined to coax, cajole and, when necessary, club the Federal Circuit into coming of age.

This article examines the messages evident in recent Supreme Court decisions and evaluates whether the Court appears to be gaining ground. Although some indications are positive, others suggest that the Federal Circuit may not be entirely ready to relinquish its role as the judiciary’s enfant terrible."

The article is thought provoking, but if the Federal Circuit is the "terrible child," the Supreme Court may just be that "parent" who issues vague orders then "punishes" the child for "disobedience" at least on the application of the abstract idea. The Supreme Court on patent eligibility law (e.g., Alice v. CLS Bank) is unclear and that is why many are struggling with it. It is easy to blame the Federal Circuit for being recalcitrant, but the early Supreme Court patent eligibility cases have plenty of flaws. For example, Benson seems to not understand the claims recite hardware such as registers and mask bits and that the patent owner stipulated that the hex to binary conversion algorithm was executed in special hardware. Justice Douglas, who never did find that patent he liked, ignores the hardware and asserts the claim totally preempts the algorithm. In the end, although we are talking about capable judiciary, it may be time to note Benson said software patent protection (or not) is a policy question best decided by Congress.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

USPTO - Patent Lawsuit Threats or Demand Letters - What to Do

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee wrote an article USPTO’s Plain Language Toolkit Empowers Public on Patent Litigation "to empower and inform 'Main Street' retailers and consumers that may have been threatened with a patent lawsuit or received a demand letter. It was developed to provide plain language answers to key questions.

Ms. Lee says "The online toolkit features several Web pages containing plain language answers to commonly asked questions about demand letters and patent infringement complaints, such as:
• what a patent is,
• what to do if sued for patent infringement, and
• what to do after receiving a demand letter.

To the extent that legal terms are included, the toolkit has a useful glossary to ensure that consumers and 'Main Street' retailers are on the same page. By presenting the information in as straightforward a manner as possible, the USPTO sees this toolkit as a first-stop for people learning about their rights and trying to understand the various courses of action available under their circumstances."

For more details see USPTO's Patent Litigation Toolkit and join the Webinar Thursday September 18 at 12:00pm ET.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Monday, September 15, 2014

IP Navigator - Did the Supreme Court Intend to Kill Software Patents?

Tonight, check out IP Navigator's Did the Supreme Court Intend to Kill Software Patents? It may sound a crazy question until you notice examiners, PTAB, and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted Alice v. CLS Bank to prevent software inventions from being held patent eligible.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

US Supreme Court - Alice v. CLS Bank - Software Inventions Patent Eligible Under 35 USC 101

The Supreme Court decision Alice v. CLS Bank on patent eligibility of software related inventions continues to generate controversy and loads of critical commentary. Here's a sample:

Some argue Alice greatly impacted software patenting. For example, Supreme Court ruling has wiped out 11 " do it on a computer" patents so far, and The Ramifications of Alice: A Conversation with Mark Lemley

Some argue it hasn't or the impact is unclear: For patent litigants, Court affirms status quo, Supreme Court leaves patent protection for software intact, and The uncertain expansion of judge-made exceptions to patentability

While other articles advise on how to obtain software patents despite the Alice decision: Alice v. CLS Bank: Supreme Court Issues Decision in Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank,  and How to Correctly Apply the Alice Examination Guidance

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Scott McKeown - Why Motions to Amend at the PTAB Are of Such Great Interest

Tonight, check out Scott McKeown's article Why Motions to Amend at the PTAB Are of Such Great Interest noting the Patent Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) practice to deny amendment to the claims in nearly all cases and suggesting solutions.

Mr. McKeown notes "there have been 66 motions to amend filed at the PTAB to date, roughly 50% of the final decisions to date. (5 CBM, 61 IPRs). The current success rate (where patent owner tried to substitute new claims as opposed to simple claim cancellation) is 4.1%. In other words, 95.9% such motions were denied. Clearly such statistics create a public relations issue for the PTAB as being anti-patent."

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Gene Quinn - The Software Patent Problem: Not Emphasizing the Technological Contribution of the Innovation

Tonight, let's return to Gene Quinn's final segment of his interview with Mark Lemley. One exchange suggests the motive for a highly restrictive 35 USC 101 eligibility standard. Tech wanted a tool to cheaply kill patent infringement actions. No discovery required for this coarse filter!

QUINN: "But by the same token I would be so much more comfortable handling these cases under 102, 103, and 112 because like Judge Newman says, if you handle technologies under 101 you’re potentially forestalling an entire avenue of innovation and preventing an entire industry from developing."

LEMLEY: "I think that’s right. The problem is 101 is an attractive tool to people who are confronting those nuisance suits because it’s early and it’s easy, right? And it doesn’t require going through a lot of the facts, discovery, and work that can cost a lot of money if there were better mechanisms to try to get at those weak suits earlier and more cheaply you know then people could use those mechanisms. But the problem is that I’ve got somebody who shows up and says it’s going to cost you $3 million to get the summary judgment on your obviousness claim and probably courts aren’t going to grant summary judgment and they’ll send it to trial anyway. So why don’t you pay me a million dollars to go away. Everybody’s decision is to pay million dollars."

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Janice M. Mueller - Patent Law, 4th Ed.

Tonight, if you want a nice introduction to US patent law, I would check out Janice Mueller's Patent Law, Fourth Edition (2012). It is well written, understandable, and concisely explains many aspects of US patent law, including the America Invents Act of 2011, without being boring.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Gene Quinn - The Ramifications of Alice: A Conversation with Mark Lemley

Tonight, check out The Ramifications of Alice: A Conversation with Mark Lemley.

Here's Professor Lemley's initial comment during the interview:

"Well, I think Alice is a real sea change on the patentable subject matter issue. I’ve heard a lot of folks talk about how Alice doesn’t really use the word “software” so it doesn’t really change anything, but I honestly think that’s wishful thinking. Here’s what it seems to me Alice does that’s significant. The first thing it does is it makes it clear that Mayo wasn’t a one-off thing, but rather is the fundamental test going forward for all kinds of patentable subject matter issues. I think a lot of patent lawyers had talked ourselves into thinking that the Court didn’t really mean it in Mayo when it talked about having to add a significant inventive component beyond the abstract idea or the natural process. But the court in Alice makes it clear that if your patent covers an implementation of an idea we want proof of an inventive concept beyond that idea before we’ll grant you a patent. You’ve got to add new steps or new hardware, not just conventional hardware or conventional steps. Not just computer technology that is generic or functionally described. And if you can’t do that not only your method claims but also your article of manufacture claims are going to be invalid."

Where's the support for grafting "an inventive concept" requirement into 35 USC 101." Sounds like  "inventive concept" is a synonym for nonobviousness. If not, maybe someone can explain how they differ. If it is the same, why are we performing the obviousness analysis without reference to 35 USC 103, which requires the decision-maker compare the claim as a whole to the prior art?

So let me get this straight, 35 USC 101 allows the decision-maker to identify a portion of the claim that is an abstract idea (and ignore the other part) then decide if the ignored part contains "significantly more" or "an inventive concept?" What's a patent attorney to do? Professor Lemley suggests writing means-plus-function claims .... How about we agree "inventive concept" is decided by the requirements of 35 USC 103?

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Vinod Khosla The Case For Intelligent Failure To Invent The Future

Tonight, check out Vinod Khosla's The Case For Intelligent Failure To Invent The Future that tells why Silicon Valley has succeeded.

As Mr. Khosla states it, "I have experienced the power of doers, the chaotic and na├»ve world of optimistic entrepreneurs who just try things, admit mistakes, fail, learn, iterate, try again and find solutions – often out of necessity. Accepting, even encouraging, the right kind of failure is the best way to discover the solution to our problems and close the resource gap."

George Bernard Shaw said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." People like Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak who held onto the unreasonable belief they could start a company in a garage that would bring computing to the world.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Monday, September 1, 2014

Allison Orr Larsen - The Trouble with Amicus Facts

Associate Professor Allison Orr Larsen's The Trouble with Amicus Facts does a great job describing the problem with amicus briefs at the US Supreme Court (e.g., over 40 amicus briefs in Alice v. CLS Bank) and Federal Circuit. These friend of the court briefs are not just friendly input, but financial orchestrated efforts to influence a court's decision. As Judge Posner puts it, amicus briefs are advocacy docs.

Here's Professor Orr Larsen's abstract:

"The number of amicus curiae briefs filed at the Supreme Court is at an all-time high. Most observers, and even some of the Justices, believe that the best of these briefs are filed to supplement the Court’s understanding of facts. Supreme Court decisions quite often turn on generalized facts about the way the world works (Do violent video games harm children? Is a partial birth abortion ever medically necessary?) and to answer these questions the Justices are hungry for more information than the parties and the record can provide. The consensus is that amicus briefs helpfully add factual expertise to the Court’s decision-making. The goal of this article is to chip away at that conventional wisdom. The trouble with amicus facts, I argue, is that today anyone can claim to be a factual expert. With the Internet, factual information is easily found and cheaply manufactured. Moreover, the amicus curiae has evolved significantly from its origin as an impartial “friend of the court.” Facts submitted by amici are now funneled through the screen of advocacy. The result is that the Court is inundated with eleventh-hour, untested, advocacy motivated claims of factual expertise. And the Justices are listening. This article looks at the instances in recent years when a Supreme Court Justice cites an amicus for a statement of fact. It describes the way the brief, rather than the underlying factual source, is cited as authority and the failure of the parties to act as an adequate check. I challenge this process as potentially infecting the Supreme Court’s decisions with unreliable evidence, and I make suggestions for ways to reform it. It is time to rethink the expertise-providing role of the Supreme Court amicus and to refashion this old tool for the new purpose to which it is currently being used."

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

USPTO - Prioritized Examination - That Rare and Controversial Bird!

Yesterday, Harold Wegner emailed his readers regarding the USPTO's prioritized examination which permits a final disposition (allowance or final Office action) within 12 months of the filing date. It's a pay to play procedure: a large entity pays $4,000, a small entity pays $2,000, and a micro entity pays $1,000.  But pre-filing search is avoided which can be expensive and risk a court challenge.

Given prioritized examination may result in allowance five months after the petition and the USPTO rarely declines it, I found it surprising only 1% of applications are requesting prioritized examination. Mr. Wegner says the USPTO granted prioritized examination for 6,693 applications of about 600,000 applications filed in FY 2014. The USPTO dashboard indicates traditional pendency is about 27 months.

Part of the answer may be a cost-benefit decision. Applicants are unwilling to pay these fees to get a final disposition sooner, since it might not result in an US patent, but a final action rejecting all of the claims. Harold Wegner notes "an informed colleague disputes prioritized examination as a metric to judge how many applicants want a speedy patent grant: 'A great majority of my clients would like a decision within one year. The problem is that the USPTO has never been able to play it straight. All of the programs that speed examination have had a much lower success rate for the applications that were expedited. To get a final rejection sooner is not the point at all.'"

In contrast, Mr. Wegner said another claims: "we use the prioritized examination system quite regularly. With every application, so far, we have received a Notice of Allowance, usually within 6 months. The trick is to file the prioritized application as a continuation of an already pending application and submit narrow, picture claims directed to the commercial embodiment, and leave the broader claims to the parent application.  I’m a huge fan of the prioritized system and it has worked very well for my clients."

Here's a couple of factors one might consider during the cost-benefit analysis: (1) will the patent claims be infringed upon issuance; (2) will investors or acquirers give you an increased valuation that will pay for having patents vs. applications (note you may see your valuation decrease a bit if the application(s) are under a final rejection); and (3) does the technology have a short "half-life," i.e., is having a patent within one year much better than two years from now?

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Gene Quinn Erosion of Patent Rights Will Harm US Economy

Tonight, check out Gene Quinn's article Erosion of Patent Rights Will Harm US Economy. Basic idea? The Federal Circuit is creating an expansive view of what is obvious, while the US Supreme Court has a narrow view of what subject matter is eligible for patent protection. Gene also notes the Supreme Court's failure to replace the CAFC's machine and transformation test with a software patent eligibility test that can be consistently applied.

I agree and add we now get a test that encourages decision makers to rewrite patent claims to a pithy snippet that is surprise an abstract idea! The test then asks: Is what is left in the claim significantly more than an abstract idea? If it's just a computer, your software patent is ineligible! Yes, because software is such an important part of the US economy, such untrammeled law may ultimately harm it.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

USPTO Hosting a Roadshow to Discuss First to File System of America Invents Act

The USPTO is hosting a nationwide roadshow to discuss the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act in September - October 2014.

"The roadshow series will begin on September 16 and run through October 9, 2014, with stops in Concord, New Hampshire; Madison, Wisconsin; Dallas, Texas; Silicon Valley, California; and Atlanta, Georgia, as well as on USPTO campuses in Alexandria, Virginia, and Denver, Colorado. The roadshows in Alexandria on September 23 and Denver on October 2 will be webcast live through the USPTO website.

The roadshow events are free and open to the public. Seating is available on a first-come, first-served basis. For more information, including roadshow logistics, venues, and webcast access information, please refer to the AIA roadshow page on the USPTO website."

See USPTO press release for further details.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Joe Mullin - US Courts Trash a Decade's Worth of Online Documents, Shrug it Off!

Wow! Mr. Joe Mullin reports in US Courts Trash a Decade's Worth of Online Documents that the US Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) removed online access to nearly a decade's worth of electronic documents from four US appeals courts, including the Federal Circuit.

Why the removal given the low cost of data storage and the Internet bandwidth? We are told it's due to an upgrade to Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). Mr. Mullin notes that AOC refused to comment when asked why it gave no warning about the removal of the online access on August 10. So the public gets to travel to the courthouse or pay 7 - 10 cents per page thanks to AOC and PACER? Surely, you must be kidding, Mr. Mullin!

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Monday, August 25, 2014

PTAB - Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd. - Extraterritorial Depositions during Inter Partes Review

Today, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued informative decisions related to taking of an extraterritorial deposition in a foreign language. See inter partes review Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR 2012-00022 (Paper 55 and Paper 67).

Also see the Board’s Informative Opinions Web page.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Shine Tu - Patent Examiners and Litigation Outcomes

Tonight, check out Shine Tu's Patent Examiners and Litigation Outcomes. Here is the abstract of the article:

"Conventional wisdom argues that unnecessary litigation of low quality patents hinders innovation, and that the PTO could play a role with its high grant rates. Accordingly, it is important to answer these questions: (1) which patent examiners are issuing litigated patents, (2) are examiners who are “rubber stamping” patents issuing litigated patents at a disproportionately higher rate, and (3) are examiners with less experience issuing more litigated patents? In sum, do patent examiners who issue litigated patents have common characteristics? Intuition would argue that those examiners who issue the most patents (approximately one patent every three business days) would exhibit a higher litigation rate. Surprisingly, this study suggests that this is wrong.

This study uses two new patent databases that code for nearly 1.7 million patents and approximately 12,000 patents that were litigated between 2010 and 2011. This study determined that (1) litigated patents mainly come from primary examiners (those examiners with more experience), and (2) primary examiners with between three to five years of experience and who grant between forty-five and sixty patents per year are contributing to the litigated patent pool at a higher rate than expected. Interestingly, the highest volume primary examiners (examiners who on average grant more than eighty patents per and have more than eight years of experience) do better than expected."

The study matches my observations. Less experienced examiners tend to have lower production and/or require amendments that unduly narrow applications. Higher volume primary examiners (e.g., having eight years of experience) tend to have a better understanding of patent law and their technology which increases the chance the issued patent will be worthy of litigation.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

PriceWaterhouseCooper's 2014 Patent Litigation Study

Tonight, check out PWC's 2014 Patent Litigation Study - As case volume leaps, damages continue general decline. This study is interesting.

IP Navigator argues the explosion in patent litigation is a myth. IP Navigator's article states the study fails to support big tech's claim that patent litigation is out of control. Instead, big tech pushes the myth to pressure Congress to pass new laws that limit US patents. This makes sense as an incumbent wouldn't want strong patents held by startups. After all, it might shake up the status quo.

How do lobbyists and academics perpetuate the myth? Ignore that the increase in cases is partly due to the American Invents Act making it difficult to join multiple defendants in a single lawsuit, plus ignore that the increase in patent litigation is also due to an increase of US patent grants.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

USPTO - Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update

The USPTO's Patent Public Advisory Committee held a quarterly meeting and published a Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update on August 14, 2014.

In the Update, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Mr. James Donald Smith provides 41 PowerPoint slides that describe the operation of the PTAB.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Jay Walker's Patent Properties the ASCAP of Patent Licensing?

Jay Walker, Priceline founder, is launching a startup Patent Properties to produce a marketplace for patent owners much like ASCAP which represented musicians and publishers to reach an agreement where radio stations paid a reasonable fee to play songs licensed by ASCAP. Since 1920, ASCAP has collected nearly $1 billion in royalties.

Patent Properties hopes to make a marketplace for patent owners that will broker low cost deals between inventors and users. Mr. Walker states, "we believe that by using simplicity, technology and common sense that works for everybody, and especially by keeping prices very low, we can replicate in the intellectual property and patent world what ASCAP did in the music world." Walker notes only 5% of 2.3 million U.S. patents enforce are licensed due to the high cost of patent litigation and companies unwillingness to take a patent license until forced.

Patent Properties asks that a patent owner agree to a no-fault system that makes the patented invention available to companies that pay a monthly fee of $1,000 to license 100 patents deemed statistically relevant to the company's business. Mr. Walker states each time a patent gets packaged an inventor can expect on average $100/year.

Mr. Walker notes since it won't have permission to use all US patents, the subscribers will be provided insurance that covers 50% of legal costs arising from infringement lawsuits up to, of course, a limit.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Friday, August 15, 2014

I/P Engines, Inc. v. AOL, Google et al. Federal Circuit Holds US Patents Invalid & Stock Drops 70%

One of the more interesting software patent cases decided this year is I/P Engines, Inc. v. AOL, Google, et. al., because of the large damages at stake that led extensive arguments related to patent defenses (e.g., invalidity, non-infringement, laches, etc.).

Today, Mr. Joe Mullin reports the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed with some of the arguments and reversed Vringo's $30M damages and cut off future royalties on Google Ad words. See Mr. Mullin's article: After years of hype, patent troll Vringo demolished on appeal: Vringo stock drops 70%, as Google shuts down dreams of a billion-dollar payday. Note Vringo established I/P Engines as a patent holding company.

For a PDF copy of the CAFC decision: I/P Engines, Inc. v. AOL, Google, et al.

Although this per curiam decision is non-precedential, it reminds that sufficient legal resources can overturn even fact findings underlying a judgment of non-obviousness.

The concurrence showed how 35 USC 101 and 103 analysis continues to be conflated: "There is, of course, some 'overlap' between the eligibility analysis under section 101 and the obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103, however, asks the narrow question of whether particular claims are obvious in view of the prior art. By contrast, the section 101 inquiry is broader and more essential:  it asks whether the claimed subject matter, stripped of any conventional elements, is ‘the kind of discovery that the patent laws were intended to protection."

Software patent cases such as this one may be difficult to decide, but it's hard to applaud rewriting a claim, concluding "the claim" is a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and labeling that activity as defending our Constitution. Is it just a concurring judge or the precursor of 35 USC 101 analysis?

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

USPTO Requests Public Comments on Optimum First Office Action (Examination) and Total Patent Pendency

I am often asked how long will it take to get examination of US patent application. People know that issuance of a US patent is not guaranteed, but also want a sense of how long it will take on average if all goes well. The USPTO is aware this is a common concern so published Request for Comments on Optimum First Action and Total Patent Pendency seeking the public's input on the optimal time from the filing date to get the first Office action and a US patent.

Five years ago, the USPTO targeted ten months for the first action and twenty months for issuance. The USPTO states in the last four years it reduced average first action pendency from 25.7 months to 18.1 months, and reduced average total pendency from 35.3 months to 28.1 months.

This sounds like good news for patent applicants, however, the USPTO concedes that the average pendency in both cases does not include applications in which a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) has been filed. Since RCE's constitute nearly half of all of the applications pending, it seems that it would be appropriate to see how they affect the pendency values.

Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) notes it "supports reducing pendency and while the proposed levels are laudable, there is nothing magical about the proposed pendency times."

I am glad the patent pendency problem is being reviewed, but note reducing patent pendency to the target amounts (e.g., 10/20 months) is ultimately in the USPTO's hands, not ours. At the same time, the America Invents Act (AIA) has a number of options to reduce pendency:
  • Prioritized Examination: Payment allows a final disposition of an application within a year.
  • Patent Prosecution Highway: Advances an application if its claims were allowable in an earlier counterpart application.
  • First Action Interview: Grants an interview before the first Office action.
  • After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) - authorizes additional time for examiners to consider after final rejections.
  • Quick Patent IDS - Eliminates need for a RCE to submit an information disclosure statement for consideration by the examiner after issue fee payment.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Conversant Offers Help: Patent Troll Letter or Notice Letter?

Tonight, Conversant's ad on IP Watchdog asks if we have received a patent troll letter. Here's what Conversant offers:

1. A quiz, a video, two articles, and two letters to help us understand the difference between a patent troll demand letter (bogus) from a patent notice letter (legit);

2. An opportunity to share one's patent troll experiences with others; and

3. An opportunity to see a streaming RPX ad and Professor Rubin Feldman's quote that 70% of VC-backed startups have received a demand letter.

Unfortunately, I don't feel like taking a quiz or sharing with others at 11 pm. Also not to fixate on a typo, but it's Professor Robin Feldman not Rubin.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.