Saturday, August 29, 2015

USPTO - PAIR Not Available 4:30 am - 5:30 am ET Daily

In August 2015, the USPTO notified PAIR unavailable 04:30 AM to 05:30 AM ET daily.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Friday, August 28, 2015

USPTO - New Patents Petitions Timeline Now Available

On August 26, the USPTO notified:

"The Office of Petitions has launched a new USPTO Patents Petitions Timeline that provides information on petition types that can be filed throughout each stage of the patent prosecution process. For each petition type, users can easily access information on average pendency over the past 12 months of decided petitions, the deciding office, petition grant rates, and link to specific sections of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) or other parts of the USPTO website that relate to each petition type.
The Patents Petitions Timeline website was developed to help our customers access more detailed statistics, including grant and pendency rates, and useful information about each petition. This will help applicants make better quality decisions on when to file a particular petition type during prosecution or for the life of the issued patent.

Please visit the USPTO's USPTO Patents Petitions Timeline found on http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions/timeline/uspto-petitions-timeline."

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

USPTO - New Patent Maintenance Fees Storefront Now Available

On August 28, the USPTO notified:

"New information about the USPTO’s upcoming release of the Patent Maintenance Fees Storefront is now available online. We’ve also published a list of Frequently Asked Questions that provides further details about this new online fee payment tool. It includes information about the USPTO’s new online shopping cart, which will be available in the Patent Maintenance Fees Storefront.
If you haven’t done so already, check out the Fee Payment System Customer Survey Highlights to see how your input has helped us design our newest online fee payment tools.

If you have questions or feedback about the Patent Maintenance Fees Storefront, send an email to fpng@uspto.gov. Your input continues to drive our plans for future systems and your question could appear on our Frequently Asked Questions page.
Having trouble using the in-text hyperlinks? You can copy and paste these URLS to your web browser:

Patent Maintenance Fees Storefront - http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/patent-maintenance-fees-storefront

Frequently Asked Questions - http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/online-fee-payment-tools-faqs

Fee Payment System Customer Survey Highlights - http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/transition-resources"

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

PTAB - Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

On August 20, 2015, the USPTO published Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As stated in the Federal Register, this proposed rule would amend the existing consolidated set of rules relating to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) trial practice for inter partes (IPR), the transitional program for covered business method patents (CBM), and derivation proceedings that implemented provisions of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act (AIA) providing for trials before the Office.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

San Jose Mercury News - Apple v. Samsung: Court Rejects Latest Appeal

If you are interested on the latest on the Apple and Samsung patent infringement battle, the San Jose Mercury News reports Apple v. Samsung: Court Rejects Latest Appeal.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Federal Circuit - Akamai v. Limelight - Joint Infringement of Method Claim

In US patent law the standard of joint infringement of method claims seems to be shifting in recent years. Although not a lengthy decision on August 13, 2015, in Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Network, the Federal Circuit made it easier to prove joint infringement.

The Federal Circuit began in safe territory by stating: "direct infringement under occurs where all steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity." The Federal Circuit stated if "more than one actor is involved in practicing the steps, a court must determine whether the acts of one are attributable to the other such that a single entity is responsible for the infringement. When should it be attributable? The Federal Circuit says we will hold an entity responsible for others’ performance of method steps in two sets of circumstances: (1) where that entity directs or controls others’ performance, and (2) where the actors form a joint enterprise, and not just when we have a principle-agency relationship or a contract between the actors.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Professor Peter Mennel et al. - Patent Case Management Judical Guide - New Third Edition

Professor Peter Mennel of UC Berkeley Law School published a new third edition of the Patent Case Management Judical Guide. I am just starting to read it this week, but based on my experience with previous editions expect this 1321-page Guide is again a valuable detailed description of US patent litigation. Part of the strength is it is based on contributions from leading practitioners and patent academics. It's amazingly a free PDF download which should prove valuable to attorneys and judges in the patent litigation trenches.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

USPTO - Windows 10/Microsoft Edge: Compatibility Issue for EFS-Web and Private PAIR Authentication

Today, the USPTO announced "For users who are updating their operating systems to Windows 10, please be aware that Windows 10 comes installed with a new web browser, Microsoft Edge, that does not support plug-ins and will not run Java. Because Java is required for authentication to EFS-Web and Private PAIR, this impacts your ability to access EFS-Web and Private PAIR via Microsoft Edge.

To access EFS-Web and Private PAIR using Windows 10, Oracle is recommending the use of alternative browsers such as Firefox and Internet Explorer. IE11 will also be available on Windows 10. For additional information regarding Java compatibility and instructions on how to access IE11 on Windows 10, please visit: http://www.java.com/en/download/faq/win10_faq.xml
The USPTO is working on a longer term plan to improve the overall authentication process. For USPTO updates regarding this issue please visit either of our Announcements pages:



If you need assistance with this matter, or have questions on any eFiling topic, please visit the Patent Electronic Business Center webpage: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-electronic-business-center for comprehensive contact information, FAQ’s, and other eFiling resources."

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Friday, July 31, 2015

USPTO - Updated Interim Guidance on Patent Eligibility

The USPTO updated and provided new material to assist applicants seeking patents in technologies being rejected as seeking to patent "abstract ideas." See the 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility in July 2015.

As stated by there: "the USPTO has issued the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Interim Eligibility Guidance) for USPTO personnel to use when determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, including Alice Corp., Myriad, and Mayo. The Interim Eligibility Guidance supplements the June 25, 2014 Preliminary Examination Instructions issued in view of Alice Corp. and supersedes the March 4, 2014 Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, and/or Natural Products issued in view of Mayo and Myriad.

The USPTO has produced an update pertaining to patent subject matter eligibility titled July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility in response to the public comment on the 2014 Interim Patent Eligibility Guidance.  The July 2015 Update includes a new set of examples and discussion of various issues raised by the public comments, and is intended to assist examiners in applying the 2014 Interim Patent Eligibility Guidance during the patent examination process. The USPTO is now seeking public comment on the July 2015 Update."

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

USPTO & AIPLA - Co-host Roadshows on Patent Quality and AIA Trials August 24, 26, and 28, 2015

The USPTO notified of the following events:

"The USPTO is pleased to co-host with AIPLA a series of cross-country roadshows in August with stops in Santa Clara, California; Dallas, Texas; and Alexandria, Virginia. The full-day program will focus on enhancing patent quality (morning session) and conducting AIA trials (afternoon session) with numerous speakers from the USPTO as well as private practice.

CLE is available, and lunch is included. To register to attend, please visit: http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/AIARoadShows/Pages/default.aspx
Hope to see you there for a full day of learning from the experts

Schedule:
Monday, August 24, 2015
  • Santa Clara University, Locatelli Center
  • Co-sponsored by the High Tech Law Institute of Santa Clara Law
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
  • Belo Mansion, Dallas
  • Co-sponsored by the IP Section of the Dallas Bar Association
Friday, August 28, 2015
  • USPTO headquarters, Madison Auditorium
Agenda:

9:00 - 9:10 am: Opening Remarks

9:10 to 9:45 am: Track 1: Patent Quality Initiative Overview
9:45 to 10:45 am: Track 2: Clarity of the Record and Drafting High Quality Applications

10:45 to 11 am: Break

11:00 to Noon: Track 3: Interviews and Measuring Quality

Noon to 1:30 pm: Lunch - Luncheon Speaker: Russell Slifer, Deputy Director of the USPTO

1:30 to 1:50 pm: Track 4: PTAB State of the Board

1:50 to 2:45 pm: Track 5: Proposed AIA Trial Rule Changes

2:45 to 3:30 pm: Track 6: Hot Issues in AIA Trials

3:30 to 4 pm: Break

4 to 5 pm: Track 7: Actual AIA Trial Hearing


Speakers Include:
USPTO:
  • Valencia Martin Wallace, Deputy Commissioner of Patent Quality
  • Sandie Spyrou, Senior Quality Assurance Specialist in the Office of Patent Quality Management
  • Bob Bahr, Senior Patent Counsel in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy
  • Tim Callahan, Director of Technology Center 2400
  • Marty Rater, Chief Statistician in the Office of Patent Quality Assurance
  • Vice Chief Judge Scott Boalick
  • Lead Judge Susan Mitchell
  • Judge Peter Chen
  • Judge Miriam Quinn
  • Judge Linda Horner
  • Lead Judge Matt Clements
  • Judge Tina Hulse
  • Judge Stacey White
  • Judge Georgianna Braden
  • Lead Judge Mike Tierney
  • Judge Sally Medley
Practitioners
  • Tom Irving, Finnegan Henderson
  • Courtenay Brinckerhoff, Foley Lardner
  • Ken Nigon, RatnerPrestia
  • Professor Collen Chien, Santa Clara Law School
  • Brad Pederson, Patterson Thuente
  • Erika Arner, Finnegan Henderson
  • Sharon Israel, Mayer Brown
  • David McCombs, Haynes and Boone
  • Todd Baker, Oblon
  • Dorothy Whelan, Fish & Richardson
  • William Noon, Illumina"
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

USPTO - Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) FAQs - Each PDF File Limited to 25 MB

The EFS-Web has made life slightly easier, but it strikes me as quirky. Let me give a few examples. Recently, I received larger files (e.g., over 30 MB) to submit in an information disclosure statement. Even if my email server didn't return them as undeliverable it made me consider if they could be uploaded to the USPTO. Google search pulled up the USPTO EFS-Web FAQs web page that says each PDF copy must not exceed 25 MB. I can't think of too many web sites that would tolerate the hours of downtime each weekend to perform maintenance. I don't want to be sound like a curmudgeon, but even the lingo is a bit confusing. As stated in the FAQs a person cannot file in EFS-Web Contingency during scheduled EFS-Web outages" because "EFS-Web and EFS-Web Contingency share a common backend system." Wait why is it called contingency? Oh yeah weekend maintenance trumps contingency. Don't make me think!

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Friday, July 24, 2015

PTAB - Trial Statistics 1998-2015

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) trials have become a major factor in resolving patent disputes. To see what is going on, you may want to check out the USPTO statistics: PTAB recent statistics and graphical AIA trial statistics and PTAB/BPAI statistics 1998-2013. If you have questions on the statistics, the USPTO recommends calling 571-272-7822.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Amazon Web Services Agreement's Intellectual Property Non-Assert Clause

Reading a cloud service provider contract is no fun. It is typically written in hyper-technical legalese, tiny font, and long convoluted sentences. And this style helps cloud service providers structure customer relationships to their advantage in surprising ways. How many of us are willing to slug through the fine print? Maybe this is the point since the service provider can remind a customer to not forget "our agreement" when a dispute arises leading to the customer read the "agreement" for the first time too late.

Amazon Web Services is a popular service for software startups, but the customer agreement appears to have some IP issues. In Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement, warns ex-Microsoft patent chief, Joff Wild flags a problematic non-assert clause in the standard Amazon Web Services (AWS) customer agreement. It states "during and after the Term, you will not assert, nor will you authorize, assist, or encourage any third party to assert, against us or any of our affiliates, customers, vendors, business partners, or licensors, any patent infringement or other intellectual property infringement claim regarding any Service Offerings you have used" (Section 8.5). Aren't many of us customers of Amazon? If so are we shielded from patent infringement for any AWS service used?

As noted by Joff Wild, the non-assert clause appears to be way too broad. And now we will see how it is interpreted by a court, because Amazon seeks to dismiss a patent infringement suit based on the AWS customer agreement. For details see Todd Bishop of GeekWire's article Amazon fights patent suit using little-noticed clause in standard AWS customer agreement.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Monday, July 20, 2015

PTAB - MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc. - Patent Owner Must Prove Patentability in Motion to Amend Claims

In MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (PTAB July 15, 2015), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) discusses requirements for a patent owner seeking to establish the patentability of substitute claims in a motion to amend.

This is intended to clarify the patent owner's burden to set forth a prima facie case of patentability of narrower substitute claims in a motion to amend as described in Idle Free Systems, Inc. v Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB June 11, 2013)(informative).

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Friday, July 17, 2015

USPTO - Multiple Systems Down for Maintenance on July 18 - 19, 2015

The USPTO announced it will "perform maintenance affecting multiple systems beginning at 8 p.m., Saturday, July 18 and ending at 5 p.m., Sunday, July 19 ET." This will affect public and private PAIR. For further details see USPTO Systems Status Page.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Google’s Patentability Search Improvements - Extending CPC codes to NPL

The initial step in assessing whether or not an invention qualifies for patent protection is to find the closest prior art in a pre-filing patentability search. For search I like using a variety of sites including www.freepatentsonline.com, www.uspto.gov and Google for patents and non-patent literature (NPL).

Today, Google announced some improvements to its prior art search engine. I think the most important is it has associated the USPTO's new classification codes CPC to NPL. This might be viewed as "obvious to do" but should prove helpful since free online patent databases do not relate NPL to the USPTO classification codes such as CPC, which is now used by both the USPTO and the EPO. Kudos to Google on this as long as they don't retain your search queries.

For further details see Tech Crunch's article Google’s New, Simplified Patent Search Now Integrates Prior Art And Google Scholar and Google's Public Policy Blog Improving Patent Quality One Search at a Time.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Stanford Technology Law Review - Functional Claiming and the Patent Balance

I suggest reading David Kappos and Christopher P. Davis' Functional Claiming and the Patent Balance in the recently published Stanford Technology Law Review volume 18, issue 2. Functional claiming has become an important issue in software patenting.

See STLR online for other IP articles.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

USPTO - Google Chrome No Longer Able to Access EFS-Web and Private PAIR After September 2015

On June 22, the USPTO announced "Google Chrome removed the default ability to use the Java plug-in for browser version 42. This impacts your ability to access EFS-Web and Private PAIR because Java is required for your authentication into these systems. Currently, Chrome has a temporary workaround that will allow you to use the Java plug-in so that you can continue to log into EFS-Web and Private PAIR: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/6213033(link is external).

This workaround will only work through September 2015, when Google Chrome plans to end their support for Java plug-ins with their newest browser, Chrome versions 45 and above. Therefore, Chrome users using version 45 and above will no longer be able to use the workaround and thus will not be able to log into EFS-Web or Private PAIR.  Oracle is recommending the use of alternative browsers such as Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari. For additional information regarding Java and Chrome please visit https://java.com/en/download/faq/chrome.xml(link is external)."

Let's see if Google develops a permanent solution for Chrome users that require these USPTO services.

Also the USPTO announced PAIR is unavailable 4:30 to 5:30 AM Eastern daily, i.e., no problem.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Monday, June 29, 2015

FOSS Patents - US Supreme Court Denies Google's Petition on Android's Use of Oracle's Java API

I suggest reading Oracle v. Google Android-Java copyright case goes back to San Fran: Supreme Court denies Google petition at FOSS Patents. Google's petition for certiorari (Supreme Court review) has failed despite substantial efforts and numerous amici briefs arguing Oracle's Java API are a method of operation rather than copyrightable subject matter. The case next considers if Google's use of the APIs in Android is nonetheless a "fair use." FOSS Patents expects Google will lose.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

USPTO - Patent Quality - Examiner Interviews & USPTO Tools - Tuesday, July 14

The USPTO announced Face-to-Face Examiner Interviews: A Demonstration of USPTO Tools runs noon - 1 pm Eastern, July 14.

In this second webinar in the Patent Quality series, the USPTO Director Timothy Callahan will demonstrate: "USPTO tools for virtual, face-to-face interviews and discussing various initiatives for enhancing the quality of examiner-Applicant interviews while collecting feedback and listening for new stakeholder ideas on the same."

Note - USPTO interviews are an important tool for reducing costs of patenting. 

In case you missed it, the first webinar was held on June 9: Clarity of the Record and videos and slides. Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Drew Hirshfeld discussed examiner training on 35 U.S.C § 112, functional claiming, which is an important topic in software patenting, making the record clear, and the USPTO's clarity of record quality initiative.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Supreme Court - Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment - Patent Owner Cannot Charge Royalties After Term Expires

In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overrule its earlier decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co. that a patent owner cannot charge royalties for use of a patented invention after the patent term expires.

Brulotte has been the law for fifty years so I don't think this recent decision is that surprising. Perhaps more interesting is the fact the Supreme Court granted little credit to the economic arguments raised to overrule Brulotte and the idea "bad economics" should trump long standing US patent law.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

PTAB - Expediting Ex Parte Appeal

The USPTO announce a pilot program where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will expedite an ex parte appeal if appellant withdraws another appeal (e.g., abandons or files a RCE).

The pilot program is available to June 16, 2016 or PTAB expedites 2,000 appeals, whichever occurs first.

Here's the USPTO announcement:

"The PTAB is pleased to announce a new pilot program, beginning on June 19, 2015, that will allow appellants with multiple ex parte appeals pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) to expedite review of one appeal in return for withdrawing another appeal. The Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot will allow appellants having multiple ex parte appeals currently pending before the Board to have greater control over the priority with which their appeals are decided and reduce the backlog of appeals pending before the Board. Appellants wishing to participate in the pilot program need only make a certification and file a petition to the Chief Judge under 37 C.F.R. § 41.3. The Office has waived the petition fee and provided a form-fillable PDF (Form PTO/SB/438) for use in filing the certification and petition."

For more information refer to the Federal Register Notice and PTAB web page.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Monday, June 15, 2015

USPTO - Improvements to Private PAIR

Today, the USPTO announced improvements to Private PAIR, which gives online access to records of unpublished patent applications:
 
"Users can now self-administer, in real time, a number of routine administrative tasks that previously required the submission of a paper form. The new Private PAIR features enable self-administration of the following items:
  • Entity status changes (Micro, Small, or Regular Undiscounted)
  • Update Correspondence Address
  • Update Maintenance Fee Address
  • Request a new customer number
Entity status and correspondence address updates will be visible in the transaction history, and a copy of each change request will be uploaded to the Image File Wrapper (IFW).

Users may notice that all applications are set to Regular Undiscounted entity status by default upon initial filing until the application completes formalities review. Once this review is complete, the entity status will be updated based on any assertion of small or micro entity status.

The Address & Attorney/Agent tab has also been enhanced to include complete information for Correspondence Address, Maintenance Fee Address and Power of Attorney information."

Learn more at the PAIR Announcements page.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

USPTO - Progress on Intellectual Property (IP) Rights

In a blog post, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee addresses IP rights issues in China:

"It was clear during my recent trip to Beijing, China, that the timing for the visit could not have been better. China is at a crossroads in its economic evolution, and as such governmental officials are considering changes to every aspect of intellectual property law. After a series of high-level meetings, what was clear to both me and my China team—led by Senior Counsel Mark Cohen—was an increased recognition in China of the value of IP to the nation’s economic ambitions. It is through a mutual respect for the importance of IP rights and protections that U.S. companies will be able to fully and successfully compete in the Chinese market.

From May 25th to the 27th, I met with senior leaders across China’s IP landscape, starting with Vice Premier Wang Yang. The Vice Premier stated quite clearly that China aspires to be an innovation-based economy. China is no longer content with manufacturing goods invented by others, he and other leaders said, as the country aims to move up the economic value chain and compete in the global marketplace of inventors. As such, we were told that China recognizes that improving IP rights and enforcement is not just in the interest of the U.S., it is also in the interest of China. We heard this not just from the Vice Premier but in meetings with China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), the Ministry of Commerce (MofCOM), the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), the National People’s Congress (NPC), and the Supreme People’s Court (SPC).

Much progress needs to be made in China in all forms of IP law, from patents and trademarks, to copyrights and trade secrets. I made clear in my meetings that we seek to work with China to develop a market-oriented, business-driven innovation environment that allows businesses the freedom to license and contract as conditions warrant. Those businesses need to be free from governmental interference in an environment comprising transparency and rule of law. Already assisting U.S. businesses in China are three USPTO IP attachés, including Beijing-based Joel Blank, who was part of my delegation.

We discussed with our counterparts China’s new IP specialized courts, offering input on how to ensure this reform guarantees justice for IP owners. We pushed for reforms to ensure effective protection and enforcement of trade secrets that would include revisions to its criminal law. We emphasized the need for increased protection for copyright and trademark owners while recognizing the importance of reforms already enacted, offering feedback on further reform efforts being discussed in China on those issues. And we did so, in each case, by emphasizing how these changes would be mutually beneficial for both countries.

I also had the unique opportunity to meet with U.S. industry representatives while in Beijing. It’s invaluable to hear about the IP challenges and issues faced by those “on the ground,” and to discuss the ways in which the U.S. government can help them.

This visit built on a successful trip by Deputy Director Russell Slifer to the IP5 Heads meeting in Suzhou, China, a week earlier. Along with signing a Memoranda of Cooperation with the Korean IP Office and the Japanese Patent Office, Deputy Director Slifer met with SIPO Commissioner Shen Changyu. Deputy Director Slifer and I had just hosted Commissioner Shen at the USPTO in April, and I had a productive meeting with him on this recent trip.

During that meeting, I signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Commissioner Shen that commits the USPTO and SIPO to a general framework of bilateral cooperation. We both committed to educational programs on how best to protect patents in each country’s legal system, and could organize activities related to USPTO programs such as the Patent Prosecution Highway and the Global Dossier initiative. SIPO and the USPTO process more patent applications than any of the other IP offices in the world, and I am encouraged by the furthering of our agencies’ collaboration.

As evidence of this collaboration, SIPO also participated in a cause close to my heart. On May 25, I gave a speech at Columbia University's East Asia Center in Beijing to an audience of 60 people, mostly women between the ages of 25 and 40, on the importance of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. A representative from SIPO echoed my remarks, and emphasized the link between a strong STEM education system and an innovative society.

Engagement with SIPO—and Chinese policymakers more broadly—will continue later this year with the next meeting of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Trade and Commerce that I co-chair with Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Robert Holleyman. This trip helped lay the groundwork for that very important bilateral trade dialogue, in which IP is a top priority. We’re moving forward on plans for that meeting with a commitment to continue to encourage China’s evolution to an innovative economy that increasingly respects and promotes IP rights."

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

PWC's 2015 Patent Litigation Study - A change in patentee fortunes

I suggest reading PWC's 2015 Patent Litigation Study - A change in patentee fortunes.

Here are PWC's observations for what happened in 2014 with a few comments:
  1. Patent lawsuits filed dropped 13%. Congress should consider this with respect to patent reform.
  2. Median damage awards second-lowest point in two decades. Is the median skewed by lack of mega damage awards in 2014?
  3. Juries decided 67% of the patent cases and median jury award were 31 times greater than median bench awards, which indicates patent owners should request jury trials 100% of the time. 
  4. Differences exist in awards based on industry; from highest to lowest: biotech /pharma, telecommunications, and medical devices, and consumer products. 
  5. Median time to trial grew to about 2.4 years.
  6. Top five districts favoring patents remain: ED Texas, Virginia Eastern, Delaware, Wisconsin Western, Florida Middle. Northern District of California has lots of cases filed, but is not as favorable to patent owners.
  7. Damages for non-practicing entities (NPEs) 4.5 times greater than for practicing entities. This is surprising given the media fed to the public (see juries) about "patent trolls."
  8. Federal Circuit modifies some ruling of the trial court in about 50% of the cases.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.