Showing posts with label US patent law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US patent law. Show all posts

Thursday, October 29, 2020

USPTO - Report Inventing AI - Tracing the Diffusion of Artificial Intelligence with US Patents

On October 27, the USPTO report "Inventing AI - Tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with U.S. patents" states that US patent applications received on AI have sharply increased. 

Here's the USPTO announcement:

"The number of artificial intelligence (AI) patent applications received annually by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) more than doubled from 2002 to 2018, according to a new report published today by the USPTO, “Inventing AI: Tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with U.S. patents.” During those 16 years, annual AI patent applications grew from 30,000 in 2002 to more than 60,000 in 2018.

Accompanying the 100% increase of AI-related patent applications was unprecedented growth and broad diffusion of AI across technologies, inventor-patentees, organizations, and geography that attest to the growing importance of AI for all of those seeking intellectual property protection.

'I am pleased to see this rapid increase in artificial intelligence patent applications received by the USPTO, as artificial intelligence is becoming an integral part of our everyday lives,' said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. 'I commend the USPTO for quickly adapting to this increase in AI-related patents and for supporting American patent filers as they utilize new technologies to enhance the lives of people across the globe.'

'Artificial intelligence is becoming ingrained in the daily life of Americans, facilitated by its rapid integration into products such as voice recognition systems in mobile phones, robotic appliances, satellites, search engines, and so much more,' said Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. 'As this major new report demonstrates, the expansion of AI is a long-term trend that is accelerating every year. Unlocking the potential of AI will provide the basis for future U.S. economic growth and prosperity, and is something that the USPTO will continue to facilitate with our corps of patent examiners and other professionals who specialize in the nuances of this broad-based and far-reaching technology.'

The study’s authors developed their own AI algorithm to examine all U.S. patent applications published from 1976 through 2018. They found that patents containing AI appeared in 9% of technologies in 1976, spreading to more than 42% of technologies by 2018. While the growth of AI patent applications came in all AI-related technologies, 'planning and control' and 'knowledge processing' were the two categories that recorded the greatest increase in AI use.

The number of individual inventor-patentees active in AI also expanded dramatically during this period, from 1% in 1976 to 25% in 2018. There was similar growth in AI activity by organizations, with most of the top 30 AI companies being in the information and communications technology sector. The top five U.S. patent owners at time of grant from 1976 to 2018 were IBM, Microsoft, Google, Hewlett Packard, and Intel.

While AI inventor-patentees between 1976 and 2000 tended to be concentrated in larger cities and technology hubs, the report found that from 2000 to 2018 there was a marked diffusion of AI into other areas of the country, with notable growth in the Midwest.

'AI has the potential to vastly broaden the inventor community in the United States,' said Director Iancu. 'We have entered a new era of invention, entrepreneurship, and technological development. It is imperative that we train the next generation of Americans in the STEM subjects and innovation skills that will enable them to be part of this revolution.'"

Copyright © 2020 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, September 27, 2020

USPTO - Director Iancu's Remarks at the IPO Association's Annual Meeting 2020

On September 15, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Andrei Iancu gave the following remarks at the Intellectual Property Owners Association's (IPO) Annual Meeting 2020:

"Hello, and thank you, IPO, for bringing us together. I wish we could be meeting in person as in years past, but I am thankful for the thousands of patents awarded over the decades that make it possible for us to meet virtually.

I hope you are staying safe and healthy. Even in these difficult times, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is running smoothly. Before the pandemic, 56% of USPTO employees worked from home full time, and another 31% worked from home at least one day a week. Our popular telework program made us uniquely well-positioned to pivot to full-time telework for all employees with little difficulty.

We are all learning a lot from the pandemic—and like all pandemics in the past, it is changing the structure of our society. It is also ushering in a new era of invention and innovation, in spite of the hardship and suffering.

The USPTO is currently in “Phase 1,” so our buildings are still closed to the public. Most of our employees continue to work from home and are encouraged to do so to the maximum extent possible. We are moving cautiously and following the guidelines and mandates of our federal, state, and local governments. We will move forward to the next phase only when we are confident of the safety of our employees and customers.

In the meantime, our employees are as committed as ever to our mission of fostering innovation and economic competitiveness. They continue to work with the utmost diligence and professionalism. I couldn’t be more proud of them, especially those with school-age children. But working remotely is certainly not a panacea, and we look forward to the day when we are back together in the office.

The USPTO’s response to the COVID-19 crisis has included a variety of initiatives designed to help our customers. To support filers impacted by the crisis, we have waived petition fees in certain situations, extended the time to file certain fees and meet certain deadlines, and we have allowed all documents and applications—including plant patent applications—to be filed electronically. 

We also instituted a COVID-19 Prioritized Examination Pilot Program. It waives the fees for prioritized examination for small or micro entities whose applications cover a product or process that is subject to FDA approval, for use in the prevention and/or treatment of COVID-19. We aim to reach final disposition of these prioritized applications in this program within six months.

We also created a new USPTO IP marketplace platform called “Patents 4 Partnerships,” to facilitate contacts between patent owners who want to license their inventions and potential licensees. It is our hope that Patents 4 Partnerships will accelerate the commercialization of products and technologies to address the current health crisis. The data in the platform includes U.S. patents and published U.S. patent applications related to COVID-19 that have been identified as “available for licensing” by their owners. 

For our latest COVID-related initiatives, I encourage everyone to keep an eye on our COVID-19 Response Resource Center. It is now on our website to assist the public with accessing all of our COVID-19 initiatives and programs.

Despite our efforts to spur innovation during the pandemic, there has been a decrease in some filings as a result of the lockdowns. Based on our experience in previous economic downturns, we expected this would happen.

Patent applications are a lagging indicator of economic activity because of the innovation lag that occurs between the completion of research to the conception of a new idea or product, to the creation of an invention, and to the application for a patent. 

Through the end of August, serialized patent filings are 0.1% above fiscal year 2019 filings for the same time period. This might sound promising, but it is below plan. Before the pandemic we expected that serialized filings would increase by 2.5% this year. We saw strong improvement over the previous year through February. However, since March, filings have been in decline. Further, RCE filings are currently 10.4% below fiscal year 2019 through the end of August. These declines accelerated during the second half of this fiscal year and are expected to continue into next year.

There have also been recent decreases in patent renewals. For the months of May through August, maintenance fee collections were 4.1% lower—or $19.5 million less than projected. Looking back during previous periods of economic uncertainty, renewal rates typically drop for a short period but then bounce back. We expect that will hold true now, but we’ve never had a period of time quite like this.

Nonetheless, there is good news to report on the innovation front: Small and micro entity patent filings are at a historic high, with more than 112,000 filed during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2020.

While patent filings are a lagging indicator, Trademark applications are more closely correlated with current economic activity, and they tend to follow the S&P 500 index. This year, Trademark filings at the USPTO have exhibited a healthy V-shape recovery, where the front edge of the “V” represents a precipitous decline caused by the pandemic, and the trailing edge of the “V” represents a rapid bounce back to normalcy. It is moving in parallel with the general economic recovery we are experiencing as a nation.

Through the end of August 2020, trademark filings are 3.2% above filings for the same period last year and are slightly higher than we expected. In fact, August 2020 is our biggest filing month yet, with 76,400 classes. We should see more than 700,000 classes for the year.

This is all good news. However, trademark renewals have been lower than expected, and we now project a decrease in collection of $12.3 million. As the mix of filers shifts more towards pro se, one-time filers, and foreign filers, we expect lower trademarks renewal rates in the future. 

Despite the pandemic-related challenges, the USPTO has remained focused and operations have been smooth. Through all the metrics we have put in place over the years, we know that our examiners are as productive as ever. 

Plus, we have continued our work to improve the IP ecosystem. Among other things, we are clarifying patent subject matter eligibility and balancing post-grant proceedings at the PTAB. In fact, given the economic downturn and the global competitive challenges we face as a nation, we are doing more than ever before to boost innovation in America.

Turning to Section 101 of the Patent code (patentable subject matter), as most of you know, we issued new guidance last year that synthesizes the relevant case law and provides a clear analytical framework. By increasing the clarity of examination and decreasing uncertainty, the results have been remarkable. For example, a recent statistical report from our Chief Economist found that uncertainty decreased by 44% in the first year since our guidance. The report’s findings make it crystal clear that in proceedings at the USPTO our 101 guidance works very well, and it successfully addresses the confusion that existed for years in this important area of patent law.

Turning now to the PTAB, we have made many changes over the past three years to bring post-grant proceedings within balance. Among other things, we have worked to close loopholes that allowed repeated post-grant challenges to patents. IPRs and PGRs were meant to be a cheaper, faster alternative to District Court litigation. They were not meant to create more expensive, prolonged, and duplicative litigation. By reducing multiple bites at the apple, these changes have worked remarkably well and have brought much-needed balance to our post-grant proceedings. They have helped return the U.S. patent system to the top levels of worldwide rankings. 

We have made many other substantive changes too, such as a consistent claim construction standard, a more robust amendment process, and much more. Let me highlight a couple of non-substantive new programs that have quickly become popular. PTAB’s Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program allows appellants to have their ex parte appeals advanced out of turn and expedited. We have so far received 48 petitions and granted 45 of them. 

PTAB also recently launched the Legal Experience and Advancement Program—known as LEAP—to facilitate the much-needed training of newer practitioners and help groom the next generation of highly skilled IP lawyers. Under this program, junior practitioners can receive up to an additional 15 minutes to argue a case. Plus, LEAP offers training not found elsewhere. Newer lawyers, for example, have the opportunity to refer back to senior lawyers on standby during an oral hearing, providing more confidence for both the junior lawyers and their clients. Newer lawyers can also receive training directly from PTAB judges about effective oral argument techniques and skills. The USPTO is heavily invested in the success of America’s IP law community, and we embrace the opportunity to help. 

In a similar vein, this summer the USPTO released an update to our 2019 report on U.S. women inventors. The new report updates the previous findings based on a review of an additional nearly one million issued patents and three years of new data, and it provides further insights into the participation of women in America’s IP systems.

The report’s numerous findings show that more women are entering and staying active in the patent system than ever before. The number of patents with at least one woman inventor increased from 20.7% in 2016 to 21.9% by the end of 2019. The “Women Inventor Rate”—the share of U.S. inventors receiving patents who are women—increased from 12.1% in 2016 to 12.8% in 2019. These numbers show that efforts to increase the participation of women in the innovation and IP ecosystem continue to yield results. But much more is needed still. 

In order to retain our nation’s edge as a global innovation leader, we need even broader participation in patenting. That’s why the USPTO has made outreach to underrepresented groups a top priority. Last week, we held the inaugural meeting for the National Council for Expanding American Innovation. Chaired by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, the council is comprised of top leaders from academia, industry, and government. The mission of the council is to help us develop a national strategy that will provide a long-term comprehensive plan for our country’s continued success as a worldwide innovation leader. This is no idle exercise. Recent studies show that by harnessing the creative talent of all Americans, we could quadruple the number of inventors and increase the overall level of U.S. GDP per capita by up to 4.4%. 

In addition to working with industry and academia to expand participation in the innovation ecosystem, we will also continue highlighting the accomplishments of past and present women inventors, and inventors from other underrepresented groups, to inspire and grow more of those future innovators. We must all work together to grow a powerfully diverse innovation ecosystem and fuel our economy for decades. 

All of these initiatives will help us build the strongest IP system possible. We owe the inventors and entrepreneurs of this world no less. IPO plays a critically important role in all of these efforts, and I want to thank you all for your leadership, engagement, and guidance.

Thank you for your dedication and commitment to IP, and thank you to IPO for inviting me to be part once again of your annual meeting."

Copyright © 2020 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.


Monday, August 31, 2020

IP Watchdog Annual 11-day Free Virtual IP law conference (September 1-30)

Gene Quinn's IP Watchdog Annual Meeting 11-day virtual conference (September 1-30) with IP law speakers starts at 9 AM (PT) tomorrow: IP Watchdog free registration page.

Copyright © 2020 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Saturday, August 29, 2020

RPX - Infringement Is the Top District Court Issue Appealed to the Federal Circuit

RPX published a nice summary on what US patent issues are appealed to the Federal Circuit:

"RPX data on the Federal Circuit show that infringement is the most common issue appealed from district court patent cases, appearing in over 450 appeals. Claim construction and invalidity (under Sections 102/103/112) are the next two most frequent issues, each of which appears in over 300 appeals. Two other key issues round out the top five: damages/fees/costs (appearing in around 275 appeals) and invalidity under Alice/Section 101 (just over 240 appeals)."

Note the low reversal rates of many issues appealed point to the importance of winning at trial. As Judge Rich might say, "the name of the game is the claim."

For more detail: RPX Infringement Is the Top District Court Issue Appealed to the Federal Circuit

Copyright © 2020 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Saturday, May 30, 2020

Mueller - Patent Law Sixth Edition 2020

Janice Mueller's Patent Law (2020, Sixth Edition) was released on May 18, 2020. It looks like another useful edition. It is an introduction to US patent law with lots of detail (1296 pages). It also looks complete based on my review of the table of contents.  I am not affiliated with the author nor her publisher and only post because it has merit for those that need an introduction or review of US patent law. I like the Kindle version so its on several devices, but if you like things in paper here's the link. To get a Kindle version just click on the e-textbook tab.

Copyright © 2020 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

USPTO - Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Revised on January 25, 2018

Today, the USPTO announced that it has revised the MPEP:

"On Jan. 25, the ninth edition, Revision 08.2017, of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) was made electronically available as an update to the eMPEP.

The revision includes changes to chapters 200, 700-1000, 1200, 1400, 1500, 1800, 2000-2300, 2500, and 2700. Each section that has been substantively revised in this revision (published January 2018) has a revision indicator of [R-08.2017], meaning that the section has been updated as of August 2017. Appendices L and R were revised to include the laws and rules current as of Aug. 31, 2017, and Appendices T and AI were revised to reflect the PCT Articles, Rules, and Administrative Instructions that were in force effective July 1, 2017.

Learn more on the MPEP web page."

The MPEP is published by the USPTO to give guidance to examiners. However, I found it useful because it gives details not discussed in the 35 USC, 37 CFR, and federal court decisions, and also the USPTO's interpretation of the legal authority. It is free, in PDF and HTML, and searchable.

Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Professor Stephen Haber - Patents and Wealth of Nations

Tonight, I recommend reading Professor Stephen Haber's article Patents and Wealth of Nations. This article debunks the myth that the US economy is harmed by patents. I haven't read the entire article, but whatever I read made sense and was interesting. For example, please check out this passage addressing Bessen and Meurer's misleading claim that PAE's resulted in a $29B tax on innovation:

"There is also no convincing evidence that PAEs negatively affect innovation. Professors Schwartz and Kesan, for example, analyze the data and methods employed by Bessen and Meurer to produce the widely cited claim that in 2011 PAEs generated a direct tax on innovation of $29 billion.

Their analysis effectively undermines the Bessen-Meurer claim. Kesan and Schwartz point out that the Bessen-Meurer estimate is generated from a survey of eighty-two business enterprises regarding their experiences with PAE litigation, but those firms were neither randomly selected nor chosen so as to generate a representative sample. Rather, Bessen and Meurer relied on a survey sent to “‘about 250 companies,’ which include ‘RPX clients and nonclient companies with whom RPX has relationships.’” RPX is a business enterprise that describes itself as a defensive patent aggregator. There are therefore multiple reasons to be concerned about sample selection bias.

Kesan and Schwartz also demonstrate that Bessen and Meurer conflate “costs” with “transfers.” Slightly less than one-quarter of their $29 billion figure ($6.7 billion) represents actual litigation costs; the vast majority of the $29 billion is composed of settlement, licensing, and judgment amounts, which are the rewards that patent holders should have received for their intellectual property in the absence of infringement.

Kesan and Schwartz also point out that Bessen and Meurer do not ask whether the $6.7 billion in litigation costs is a large number in relation to some benchmark. They ask how $6.7 billion compares to the amounts spent by operating companies that regularly sue each other for patent infringement (e.g., cases such as Apple v Samsung). We would point out deadweight losses are usually assessed as a percentage of GDP, and on that basis the $6.7 billion in PAE litigation costs in 2011 amounted to only 0.05 percent of America’s $15.5 trillion national product. To put this in context, $6.9 billion was the amount Americans spent in 2015 on Halloween.

Finally, Kesan and Schwartz note that any analysis of costs must be balanced by an analysis of benefits, but these are ignored by Bessen and Meurer. Recall here the history of the laser. The initial patents generated lengthy and costly litigation financed by a PAE. But who would maintain that those costs represented a deadweight loss to the U.S. economy in light of the hundreds of billions of dollars generated by the commercialization of laser-based products over the past five decades?"

Copyright © 2017 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

WSJ - Senate Tees Up Bipartisan Bill Aimed at Patent Litigation

Today, I suggest reading the WSJ article Senate Tees Up Bipartisan Bill Aimed at Patent Litigation:

"Last year, the House of Representative cast a vote in support of patent reform, specifically for measures intended to clamp down on a flood of patent lawsuits. Corporate defendants, academics and others thought plaintiffs were abusing the court system, filing 'nuisance' lawsuits that were likely to trigger quick settlements. But the Senate's effort to play ball with the House died amid a flurry of finger-pointing. Earlier this year, the House reintroduced its bill — the Innovation Act — and Wednesday afternoon, the Senate offered up a companion to the House bill that seems to have bipartisan support among some influential senators. The bill was introduced by Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.); John Cornyn (R., Texas);Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) and that committee’s ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy (D., Vt).

This bipartisan bill shifts the legal burden back onto those who would abuse the patent system in order to make a quick buck at the expense of businesses that are playing by the rules," said Sen. Schumer, in a statement. 'I'm hopeful we can move quickly and in a bipartisan way to get this bill passed in committee and on the Senate floor this summer.'"

The article gives a summary of the Innovation Act that loses me on several points. The article never talks the dramatic decrease in patent infringement lawsuits last year. Is this carelessness or related to the sources of the article? It fails to talk about the defendants overwhelming success in the America Invents Act (AIA) trials. Defendants have had a long losing streak there, and the Innovation Act seeks to remove the estoppel provisions. Why isn't this discussed? The article exaggerates support for patent reform in 2014. It didn't die because of "finger pointing" in Congress. It died because it changed decades of how we conduct patent litigation. Congress hit a snag because it tried to pass laws that would weaken patent owner rights. Each party pays its own attorney fees unless it's an exceptional case in the USA to encourages patent owners to come to court if they cannot settle a patent infringement case. However, the Bill proposes mandatory attorney fee shifting for losers in patent litigation. Mandatory fee shifting would reduce patent troll lawsuits, but would also discourage patent owners with legitimate claims. It proposes to tilt the playing field further in favor of big companies who can shift all their legal fees on small companies who make the mistake of suing for patent infringement and losing the case.

I don't know if patent reform will pass this year. What seems more certain to me is tech lobbyists will push for patent reform (even reviving what failed) and present it as in the public interest and protecting us from those patent trolls. It's getting impossible to not conclude it's really about lowering costs of doing business (e.g., paying patent licenses) of big tech in the USA.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Congresswoman Kaptur - The Innovation Act is Bad News for America's Patent System

Today, I suggest reading Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur's article in IP Watchdog: The Innovation Act is Bad News for America’s Patent System. Ms. Kaptur states certain ways this proposed Act would weaken US patent owners rights. I agree this Act is not what is needed today.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Professor Ronald Mann - Is the Patent Act more like the Sherman Act or the securities laws?

Professor Ronald Mann has a thought provoking article Is the Patent Act more like the Sherman Act or the securities laws? He discusses how the Supreme Court interprets various sections of the US Patent Act in very different ways.

As Professor Mann puts it: "In some areas, the Justices view the language of the statute as calling for them to pour judicially created content into vague and general words in the statute: the most obvious examples are patentability cases like Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. I’d probably put the Court’s analysis of definiteness in Nautilus v. Biosig in the same pile."

"In other situations, the Court seems much more inclined to treat cases as purely statutory, to be resolved almost entirely by parsing the statute, however detailed or general it might be. Here I’m thinking of cases like Octane Fitness v. Icon and Highmark v. Allcare, cases that (in Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s words) “begin and end with” the language of the Patent Act. Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies – or at least Justice Samuel Alito’s explanation of the result – is another example."

In my opinion, Professor Mann is right. And we have watched the Supreme Court pour more judicial content into 35 USC 101. But why not resolve software patent eligibility standard by parsing the literal broad terms of 35 USC 101? I know talk about 150 years precedent, but also consider when Benson added an abstract idea exception to the broad language of 35 USC 101, the Supreme Court in effect wrote a "narrower 35 USC 101." Justice William Douglas apparently was seeking to not allow wholly preempting mathematical algorithm and expressed that patenting of software programs in general was a policy question and the Court was not competent to decide.

Further, Justice Douglas stated: "If these programs are to be patentable, considerable problems are raised which only committees of Congress can manage, for broad powers of investigation are needed, including hearings which canvass the wide variety of views which those operating in this field entertain. The technological problems tendered in the many briefs before us indicate to us that considered action by the Congress is needed."

It has been a while since the suggestion was made, but it seems maybe this is where the entire issue needs to go now-- before Congress.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

After Alice v. CLS Bank - Software Patent Eligibility & 3D Printing?

In evaluating the impact of Alice v. CLS Bank it is important to recognize that "all software is not created equal."

1. In both Alice and Bilski, the US Supreme Court held business methods are not categorically excluded and patent ineligibility arose from improperly claiming an "abstract idea." Yet lower courts are interpreting Alice as nearly always preventing patent eligibility of business methods. Thus, you may get a business method patent in the USPTO, but expect both issuance and enforcement to be a challenge.

2. Non-business method software patents are still issuing in great numbers. In Patent Reform: Impact of Alice on Business Method Professor Dennis Crouch observes a chart in James Bessen's article that indicates a slow-down in issuance of business methods, but no decline in other software categories.

3. Software invention claimed properly in conjunction with a physical process are not likely to held an abstract idea under Alice v. CLS Bank. For example, Diamond v. Diehr held a method for curing synthetic rubber including steps using a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer was patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.

4. US patent claims like those in Diamond v. Diehr will issue may play a role in 3D printing technology because a great patent portfolio define the industry leadership.

Here's some commentary on what other attorney's think:

In 3-D Printing: Challenges and Opportunities (Part I), Michael Rosen describes how 3-D printer technology likely relates to IP and patents in the US.

In Many 3D Printing Patents Are Expiring Soon: Here’s A Round Up & Overview of Them, John Hornick and Dan Rowland discuss key 3D printing patents that are expiring and the recently settled 3D Systems v. Form Factor case.

In Formlabs, 3D Systems settle their 3D printing patent battle, Signe Brewster notes the 3D Systems v. Form Factor settlement after two years of litigation, but cautions that startups should not draw too much comfort given the patenting efforts in this industry.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

IP Watchdog - A Strong Innovation Ecosystem is Needed for Job Creation

Tonight, I recommend reading Gene Quinn's article: A Strong Innovation Ecosystem is Needed for Job Creation, which summarizes Jay Walker's talk at the 2014 IP Dealmakers Forum on November 6, 2014.

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Professor Dennis Crouch - Rise of Computer Patents

Tonight, I suggest reading Professor Dennis Crouch's Rise of Computer Patents.

Professor Crouch says it's difficult to define "software patents," but has a graph that indicates US patents with an independent computing claim (i.e., reciting "computer, processor, software, machine readable, information, memory, data, virtual, or storage media") increased from about 5% in 1976 to 35% in 2014. The graph also shows 40% of US patent will include an independent computing claim in 2015, but it's not clear how this can be determined.

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.