Michael Webb, Nick Short, Nicolas Bloom, Nicholas and Josh Lerner's Harvard Business School (HBS) Entrepreneurial Management Working Paper No. 19-014 and HBS Finance Working Paper No. 19-014 Some Facts of High-Tech Patenting (July 2018) provides an overview on technologies people are seeking to patent. See the charts on pages 5-7.
From the abstract: "Patenting in software, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence has grown rapidly in recent years. Such patents are acquired primarily by large US technology firms such as IBM, Microsoft, Google, and HP, as well as by Japanese multinationals such as Sony, Canon, and Fujitsu. Chinese patenting in the US is small but growing rapidly, and world-leading for drone technology. Patenting in machine learning has seen exponential growth since 2010, although patenting in neural networks saw a strong burst of activity in the 1990s that has only recently been surpassed. In all technological fields, the number of patents per inventor has declined near-monotonically, except for large increases in inventor productivity in software and semiconductors in the late 1990s. In most high-tech fields, Japan is the only country outside the US with significant US patenting activity; however, whereas Japan played an important role in the burst of neural network patenting in the 1990s, it has not been involved in the current acceleration. Comparing the periods 1970-89 and 2000-15, patenting in the current period has been primarily by entrant assignees, with the exception of neural networks."
The article notes "the growth of software patents increased sharply after 2000, particularly when patent applications are considered. The number of software patent applications grew by 168.6% between 2000 and 2013. This growth mirrors that of patents more generally: patent applications overall grew by 122.6% over the same period. As we move into more recent technologies, such as cloud, drones, machine learning, and self-driving cars, the growth is far more dramatic. Meanwhile, the number of issued awards in internal combustion engines and pharmaceuticals, included for the sake of comparison, has been nearly flat."
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label patents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patents. Show all posts
Monday, January 28, 2019
Monday, December 3, 2018
United States Courts - The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors
In 2013, the United States Courts published a video on YouTube: The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors to help jurors. It is a nice introduction on US patents in plain English.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Farre-Mensa et al. - What is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent "Lottery"
Because of the expense of patenting in the United States, it can be a challenge for a startup to determine whether or not to seek patent protection. Some argue it's waste of money because even if a patent is obtained a startup cannot afford to enforce patent rights. If enforcement makes economic sense and the startup IPOs, it can afford it, and if the startup is acquired, the acquiring company typically has more resources.
Some argue in favor of patenting as a way to increase investor interest. For example, here's support for that view: Farre-Mensa et al., What is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent "Lottery". As stated in the abstract: "We provide evidence on the value of patents to startups by leveraging the random assignment of applications to examiners with different propensities to grant patents. Using unique data on all first-time applications filed at the U.S. Patent Office since 2001, we find that startups that win the patent “lottery” by drawing lenient examiners have, on average, 55% higher employment growth and 80% higher sales growth five years later. Patent winners also pursue more, and higher quality, follow-on innovation. Winning a first patent boosts a startup’s subsequent growth and innovation by facilitating access to funding from VCs, banks, and public investors."
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Some argue in favor of patenting as a way to increase investor interest. For example, here's support for that view: Farre-Mensa et al., What is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent "Lottery". As stated in the abstract: "We provide evidence on the value of patents to startups by leveraging the random assignment of applications to examiners with different propensities to grant patents. Using unique data on all first-time applications filed at the U.S. Patent Office since 2001, we find that startups that win the patent “lottery” by drawing lenient examiners have, on average, 55% higher employment growth and 80% higher sales growth five years later. Patent winners also pursue more, and higher quality, follow-on innovation. Winning a first patent boosts a startup’s subsequent growth and innovation by facilitating access to funding from VCs, banks, and public investors."
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Friday, November 3, 2017
Northwest University Kellogg School of Management - Waiting to Protect Intellectual Property Could Doom Your Startup
Northwest Kellogg School of Management's publishes a free online magazine that has a section on entrepreneurship with well written articles on innovation and intellectual property (IP) that is worth checking out. For example, here's an article that may help startups seeking to protect their IP: Waiting to Protect Intellectual Property Could Doom Your Startup. In this article, Mark McCareins, Northwestern's clinical professor of business law argues a startup really needs to spend time and money to protect its IP and interviews four patent attorneys' for tips on protecting IP.
Copyright © 2017 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2017 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Harvard and NYU Business School - The Bright Side of Patents
In The Bright Side of Patents, Joan Farre-Mensa of Harvard Business School and Deepak Hegde and Alexander Ljungqvist of NYU's School of Business investigate and conclude patents help startups. I would add this is my experience working with startups over two decades. I have seen startups mainly fail for lack of sales, but if you are a technology leader and have even moderate commercial success the world is ready to copy you. We have seen it too many times. Patents can help a startup acquire a sustainable competitive advantage. So if trade secret is not an option, you should definitely think about it.
From the Abstract: "Motivated by concerns that the patent system is hindering innovation, particularly for small inventors, this study investigates the bright side of patents. We examine whether patents help startups grow and succeed using detailed micro data on all patent applications filed by startups at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) since 2001 and approved or rejected before 2014. We leverage the fact that patent applications are assigned quasi-randomly to USPTO examiners and instrument for the probability that an application is approved with individual examiners’ historical approval rates. We find that patent approvals help startups create jobs, grow their sales, innovate, and reward their investors. Exogenous delays in the patent examination process significantly reduce firm growth, job creation, and innovation, even when a firm’s patent application is eventually approved. Our results suggest that patents act as a catalyst that sets startups on a growth path by facilitating their access to capital. Proposals for patent reform should consider these benefits of patents alongside their potential costs."
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
From the Abstract: "Motivated by concerns that the patent system is hindering innovation, particularly for small inventors, this study investigates the bright side of patents. We examine whether patents help startups grow and succeed using detailed micro data on all patent applications filed by startups at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) since 2001 and approved or rejected before 2014. We leverage the fact that patent applications are assigned quasi-randomly to USPTO examiners and instrument for the probability that an application is approved with individual examiners’ historical approval rates. We find that patent approvals help startups create jobs, grow their sales, innovate, and reward their investors. Exogenous delays in the patent examination process significantly reduce firm growth, job creation, and innovation, even when a firm’s patent application is eventually approved. Our results suggest that patents act as a catalyst that sets startups on a growth path by facilitating their access to capital. Proposals for patent reform should consider these benefits of patents alongside their potential costs."
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
USPTO - Major Power Outage and Service Interruption on December 22-25, 2015
The USPTO stated it had "a
major power outage on December 22, 2015, damaging equipment that
required the subsequent shutdown of many of its online and IT systems. This
includes its filing, searching, and payment systems, as well as the systems
used by examiners across the country. As of December 24, the USPTO estimates
that these systems will be impacted through at least the Federal holiday on
Friday, December 25, 2015."
"The USPTO web site at http://www.uspto.gov/blog/ebiz/ reports that under this emergency situation, it will consider each day from Tuesday, December 22, 2015, through Thursday, December 24, 2015, to be a “Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” under 35 U.S.C. § 21 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2(d), 2.195, and 2.196. Any action or fee due on these days will be considered as timely for the purposes of, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1058, 1059, 1062(b), 1063, 1064, and 1126(d), or 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 133, and 151, if the action is taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding business day on which the USPTO is open (37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a) and 2.196).
A subsequent notice is anticipated to be issued as needed if the USPTO’s systems are not fully operational by Monday, December 28, 2015.
Correspondence
Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(2), 2.195(a)(4), and 2.198, certain correspondence deposited in the Priority Mail Express® service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198 will be considered filed on the date of deposit (as shown by the “date accepted” on the mailing label) with the USPS.
Thus, any paper or fee properly deposited in the Priority Mail Express® service of the USPS on Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Wednesday, December 23, 2015, or Thursday, December 24, 2015, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198, will be considered filed on its respective date of deposit in the Priority Mail Express® service of the USPS (as shown by a “date accepted” on the mailing label).
Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(4) and 2.195(a)(2), patent- and trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the electronic transmission.
Thus, any patent- or trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO on Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Wednesday, December 23, 2015, or Thursday, December 24, 2015, will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the electronic transmission.
Patent correspondence successfully received by the USPTO through the Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) and filed in compliance with the EFS-Web Legal Framework will receive the date indicated on the Acknowledgement Receipt.
Trademark filings properly filed through TEAS, TEASi, and ESTTA will receive the date indicated in the e-mail confirmation sent at the time of a successful filing.
Status updates will be issued on the USPTO systems alert page (www.uspto.gov/blog/ebiz/) as they become available, as well as on the USPTO Facebook (www.facebook.com/uspto.gov (link is external)) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/uspto (link is external)) accounts.
For further questions, contact the Patents Electronic Business Center (PEBC) by telephone at 1-866-217-9197 or by email at ebc@uspto.gov. PEBC hours of operation Monday through Friday, from 6 a.m. to midnight."
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
"The USPTO web site at http://www.uspto.gov/blog/ebiz/ reports that under this emergency situation, it will consider each day from Tuesday, December 22, 2015, through Thursday, December 24, 2015, to be a “Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” under 35 U.S.C. § 21 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2(d), 2.195, and 2.196. Any action or fee due on these days will be considered as timely for the purposes of, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1058, 1059, 1062(b), 1063, 1064, and 1126(d), or 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 133, and 151, if the action is taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding business day on which the USPTO is open (37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a) and 2.196).
A subsequent notice is anticipated to be issued as needed if the USPTO’s systems are not fully operational by Monday, December 28, 2015.
Correspondence
Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(2), 2.195(a)(4), and 2.198, certain correspondence deposited in the Priority Mail Express® service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198 will be considered filed on the date of deposit (as shown by the “date accepted” on the mailing label) with the USPS.
Thus, any paper or fee properly deposited in the Priority Mail Express® service of the USPS on Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Wednesday, December 23, 2015, or Thursday, December 24, 2015, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198, will be considered filed on its respective date of deposit in the Priority Mail Express® service of the USPS (as shown by a “date accepted” on the mailing label).
Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(4) and 2.195(a)(2), patent- and trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the electronic transmission.
Thus, any patent- or trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO on Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Wednesday, December 23, 2015, or Thursday, December 24, 2015, will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the electronic transmission.
Patent correspondence successfully received by the USPTO through the Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) and filed in compliance with the EFS-Web Legal Framework will receive the date indicated on the Acknowledgement Receipt.
Trademark filings properly filed through TEAS, TEASi, and ESTTA will receive the date indicated in the e-mail confirmation sent at the time of a successful filing.
Payment Processing
The USPTO system outage has affected the ability for customers to process
Patent Maintenance Fee payments and submit Deposit Account replenishments
online via the Finance Online Shopping Page. Available alternatives include
the following:
Patent Maintenance Fees: Pay
by wire or mail as instructed at www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-your-patent.
The payment date will be the date received at the USPTO unless you are using
the certificate of mailing procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.8 or the USPTO
Priority Mail Express procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.10.
Deposit Account Replenishment: Replenish
by wire or mail as instructed at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/deposit-accounts/deposit-account-replenishment-options.
Note that replenishments will be processed as of the date received, but deposit
account balances will not reflect these replenishments until USPTO systems
are restored.
Public and Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) are
also impacted.Status updates will be issued on the USPTO systems alert page (www.uspto.gov/blog/ebiz/) as they become available, as well as on the USPTO Facebook (www.facebook.com/uspto.gov (link is external)) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/uspto (link is external)) accounts.
For further questions, contact the Patents Electronic Business Center (PEBC) by telephone at 1-866-217-9197 or by email at ebc@uspto.gov. PEBC hours of operation Monday through Friday, from 6 a.m. to midnight."
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Federal Circuit - Laches May Bar Damages for Patent Infringement Claims Brought With the Six-Year Limit of 35 USC 286
In SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, the Federal Circuit held the defense of laches (unreasonable, prejudicial delay in commencing suit) may bar recovery of damages on a patent infringement claim brought within 35 USC §286's six-year limit after considering the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. on laches in a copyright case.
The SCA court noted A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co. stated the following principles regarding the defense of laches:
1. Laches is cognizable under 35 U.S.C. § 282 (1988) as an equitable defense to a claim for patent infringement.
2. Where the defense of laches is established, the patentee’s claim for damages prior to suit may be barred.
3. Two elements underlie the defense of laches: (a) the patentee’s delay in bringing suit was unreasonable and inexcusable, and (b) the alleged infringer suffered material prejudice attributable to the delay.
4. A presumption of laches arises where a patentee delays bringing suit for more than six years after the date the patentee knew or should have known of the alleged infringer’s activity.
5. A presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of going forward with evidence, not the burden of persuasion.
The SCA court stated laches can prevent an injunction, but in such a case the infringer could be required to pay an ongoing royalty. The majority (6 to 5) issued a 60-page opinion that in the end states the US Patent Act of 1952 codified the case law which included the laches defense as one of the "unenforceability defenses."
Also see my related article: CAFC - SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC - Reviewing Laches and Equitable Estoppel.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The SCA court noted A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co. stated the following principles regarding the defense of laches:
1. Laches is cognizable under 35 U.S.C. § 282 (1988) as an equitable defense to a claim for patent infringement.
2. Where the defense of laches is established, the patentee’s claim for damages prior to suit may be barred.
3. Two elements underlie the defense of laches: (a) the patentee’s delay in bringing suit was unreasonable and inexcusable, and (b) the alleged infringer suffered material prejudice attributable to the delay.
4. A presumption of laches arises where a patentee delays bringing suit for more than six years after the date the patentee knew or should have known of the alleged infringer’s activity.
5. A presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of going forward with evidence, not the burden of persuasion.
The SCA court stated laches can prevent an injunction, but in such a case the infringer could be required to pay an ongoing royalty. The majority (6 to 5) issued a 60-page opinion that in the end states the US Patent Act of 1952 codified the case law which included the laches defense as one of the "unenforceability defenses."
Also see my related article: CAFC - SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC - Reviewing Laches and Equitable Estoppel.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Los Altos Town Crier - Robert Showen - Los Altos Scientist and Inventor of the Year 2014
I suggested reading Los Altos scientist named inventor of the year 2014 for a story on how US patents can play a role in a tech startup.
The Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Lawyers Association named Robert Showen for his inventions for ShotSpotter Inc. (now SST Inc.), a gunfire alert and analysis company, which has set up a vast network of microphones that detect gunfire, record the audio, map the location and send alerts to local patrol officers. It had a humble beginning with a computer on the grand piano connected to the rest of the prototype set up in rooms of his house, but is now a system implemented in 90 cities across the United States to reduce gun violence.
"'It was sort of a shot out of the blue,' Showen said of the honor. 'I hadn’t expected it.'"
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Lawyers Association named Robert Showen for his inventions for ShotSpotter Inc. (now SST Inc.), a gunfire alert and analysis company, which has set up a vast network of microphones that detect gunfire, record the audio, map the location and send alerts to local patrol officers. It had a humble beginning with a computer on the grand piano connected to the rest of the prototype set up in rooms of his house, but is now a system implemented in 90 cities across the United States to reduce gun violence.
"'It was sort of a shot out of the blue,' Showen said of the honor. 'I hadn’t expected it.'"
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Gizmodo - A Bizarre Statistical Fact About Patents and Theft in SF
Today, I suggest reading the Gizmodo article: A Bizarre Statistical Fact About Patents and Theft in San Francisco. Among other things, the article argues that the huge increase in patent filings in SF is somehow related to crime in SF. The companion book for this article? How to Lie with Statistics.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
USA Today - Tech firm Monster sues Beats and founders Dre and Iovine
Tonight, I suggest reading the USA Today article Tech firm Monster sues Beats and founders Dre and Iovine.
"The suit claims that Iovine and Dre (Andre Young) committed fraud in pirating the headphones away from Lee and Monster.
The suit, filed in San Mateo (Calif.) County Superior Court, charges that the Beats co-founders concealed the role of Monster and Lee in designing and engineering the headphone line, as well as educating them about engineering, manufacturing, distributing and selling the headphones that Monster and Lee invented."
The article doesn't give a link to the complaint or mention a patent infringement claim. Could it be that Monster was so busy inventing this new category of $300+ headphones that it had no time to seek patent protection?
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
"The suit claims that Iovine and Dre (Andre Young) committed fraud in pirating the headphones away from Lee and Monster.
The suit, filed in San Mateo (Calif.) County Superior Court, charges that the Beats co-founders concealed the role of Monster and Lee in designing and engineering the headphone line, as well as educating them about engineering, manufacturing, distributing and selling the headphones that Monster and Lee invented."
The article doesn't give a link to the complaint or mention a patent infringement claim. Could it be that Monster was so busy inventing this new category of $300+ headphones that it had no time to seek patent protection?
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 2, 2014
WSJ - 5 Reasons Patents Are On the Rise
Today, the WSJ Rani Molla reports 5 Reasons Patents Are On the Rise.
Rani Molla: "The rise in patent applications has accelerated in recent years — and isn’t necessarily because of increased innovation. Patent law has come to the forefront as so-called patent trolls have increased litigation and as the Supreme Court considers whether software — a huge issue for Silicon Valley — can be patented or not. Today, the Supreme Court reversed a previous ruling in a web technology patent case that will make it harder for companies to sue rivals for encouraging patent infringement. Still, as the number of patents rises so do the stakes. Here’s a look into some reasons for the rise in patents."
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Rani Molla: "The rise in patent applications has accelerated in recent years — and isn’t necessarily because of increased innovation. Patent law has come to the forefront as so-called patent trolls have increased litigation and as the Supreme Court considers whether software — a huge issue for Silicon Valley — can be patented or not. Today, the Supreme Court reversed a previous ruling in a web technology patent case that will make it harder for companies to sue rivals for encouraging patent infringement. Still, as the number of patents rises so do the stakes. Here’s a look into some reasons for the rise in patents."
Friday, May 9, 2014
Slate Article - American History of Patent Examiners
Tonight, I would point you to Professor Kara Swanson's The Surprisingly Engrossing History of Patent Examiners - In the 19th century, they were celebrities!
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Patent Bolt - Google Patent Applications - Smart Contact Lenses
Patent Bolt states the USPTO published Google seven patent applications describing smart contact lenses in An Avalanche of New Google Contact Lens Patents Come to Light. That's a smart way to expand the market for Google Glass, right? And it may also help with people who don't like Google Glass, as long as the user keeps the public at a "undetectable distance" while he or she snaps photos with the camera embedded in the contact lenses.
More seriously, the smart contact lenses could have real value in certain contexts. As stated in Patent Bolt: a blind person wearing Google's contact lens with a built-in camera may be walking on a sidewalk and approaching an intersection. The analysis component of the contact lens #265 (noted further below) can process the raw image data of the camera to determine a blind person is approaching intersection with a crosswalk and establish that there is a car approaching the intersection.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
More seriously, the smart contact lenses could have real value in certain contexts. As stated in Patent Bolt: a blind person wearing Google's contact lens with a built-in camera may be walking on a sidewalk and approaching an intersection. The analysis component of the contact lens #265 (noted further below) can process the raw image data of the camera to determine a blind person is approaching intersection with a crosswalk and establish that there is a car approaching the intersection.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
SCOTUSblog - GW Law Professor Orin Kerr - US Supreme Court
In the last decade the U.S. Supreme Court has been granting certiorari on patent cases at an increasing rate. And the cases can have a long term impact on patent law. Thus, it is useful to step back and consider how the Court operates, the value of predictability in the law, the politics of the decisions, and how a generalist court contends with technology. It is especially important as the Court works through a standard for what computer implemented inventions are patentable in Alice v. CLS Bank.
SCOTUSblog is publishing a five-part interview with former Supreme Court clerk, now Professor Orin Kerr of George Washington Law School that gives real insight into the Court:
SCOTUSblog on camera: Orin Kerr – Part one
SCOTUSblog is publishing a five-part interview with former Supreme Court clerk, now Professor Orin Kerr of George Washington Law School that gives real insight into the Court:
SCOTUSblog on camera: Orin Kerr – Part one
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
UC Berkeley Professor Suzanne Scotchmer: 1950 - 2014
UC Berkeley Professor Suzanne Scotchmer, a leading economist on intellectual property law and policy and innovation, passed away after a bout with cancer on January 30, 2014.
We probably have different stories about how we discovered Professor Scotchmer's writing. I was searching for "something else" on the Web and I stumbled across her articles on intellectual property: each article was unique and brilliant, which compelled me to read more. If you are not familiar, you might start with Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law, which elegantly describes patent incentives we should attribute to cumulative innovation.
If you are interested, UC Berkeley Center for Law & Technology is hosting a program to honor Professor Scotchmer on May 1, 2014.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
We probably have different stories about how we discovered Professor Scotchmer's writing. I was searching for "something else" on the Web and I stumbled across her articles on intellectual property: each article was unique and brilliant, which compelled me to read more. If you are not familiar, you might start with Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law, which elegantly describes patent incentives we should attribute to cumulative innovation.
If you are interested, UC Berkeley Center for Law & Technology is hosting a program to honor Professor Scotchmer on May 1, 2014.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Friday, February 14, 2014
USPTO - Deputy Director Michelle Lee's Speech to AIPLA on January 30, 2014
On January 30, 2014, USPTO Deputy Director Michelle Lee delivered a state of the agency speech to a gathering at the 2014 Mid-Winter meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), which is the largest organization of patent attorneys. I just read the speech, which is impressive and gives the USPTO's plans.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, January 20, 2014
USA Today - The Other Reason Google bought Nest: Patents
Today, Alistair Barr of USA Today wrote an interesting article The other reason Google bought Nest: patents. It notes bringing Tony Fadell and his group of talented x-Apple developers is not all that made Nest so valuable. I agree with Mr. Barr's article, and would add Nest's foresight to build a significant patent portfolio to protect its innovative technology is what many startups should be doing. Don't listen to anyone who tells you don't file on your inventions because you don't have money to enforce your patent rights in court. This assumes your company will not be bought by another company which does have financial resources to monetize the patents, that contingency fee representation does not exist, and/or that the patent(s) cannot be licensed and/or sold to a company able to best leverage the value in the patent.
Thanks to Alan Snyder for sending this article my way!
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thanks to Alan Snyder for sending this article my way!
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Paul Michel - Recollections of Judge Giles S. Rich
Not all readers are familiar with the legacy of Judge Giles S. Rich. If this is the case, you should consider reading Recollections of Judge Giles S. Rich where former Federal Circuit chief judge Paul Michel writes an eloquent tribute to this great man, the oldest full-time appellant judge (95 years old) in American history, and the primary architect of modern U.S. patent law.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader Speech - Patent Law and Litigation Abuse
Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader seems to relish poking the anti-patent crowd in the eye. On November 1, 2013, Judge Rader gave a speech Patent Law and Litigation Abuse in Plano, Texas.
Here's a passage from his speech:
"As an illustration of the crisis of confidence in the benefits of Patent Law, I wished to just discuss one unsubstantiated charge against the merits of this system of Constitutional dimension. Academics often charge the Patent system with creating a so-called "tragedy of the anti-commons." This academic canard suggests that a "thicket" of patents can actually inhibit innovation; that the administrative burdens of enforcing patents can multiply to frustrate the goal of the Act. Thus, the law of innovation supposedly works against itself. In an age of empirical research to verify every legal hypothesis, I would urge you and any policymaker to reject this academic supposition – whether it comes from a high court or any other source – until and unless it is verified by empirical data. By the way, the only studies on this topic that I have seen could not verify this guess but generally confirmed the opposite – that patents spur innovation.
May I offer a common sense rebuttal to this academic hypothesis? [Hold up my smart phone] This smart phone resides in the technological space most occupied by patents, perhaps in the history of patent law dating back to 1624. With design patents as part of the equation, this device probably includes easily more than a thousand active patents. If you count expired patents in this technology back to the advent of the computer age, this device would implicate tens of thousands of patents. If ever the administrative burdens of a concentration of patents would inhibit innovation, this technology would be the place to observe that encumbrance. Now you tell me: is this technology experiencing sluggish and encumbered innovation? I doubt that I could keep track of the pace of innovation in this technology if I devoted my full time to the project.
No doubt a study would show that the disclosure benefits of patents bring the entire world into the innovation circle that drives smart phone technology forward faster than any of us can fathom. I am afraid the “tragedy of the anti-commons” has its own tragedy: it simply is academic nonsense. The patent system does not inhibit
invention."
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Here's a passage from his speech:
"As an illustration of the crisis of confidence in the benefits of Patent Law, I wished to just discuss one unsubstantiated charge against the merits of this system of Constitutional dimension. Academics often charge the Patent system with creating a so-called "tragedy of the anti-commons." This academic canard suggests that a "thicket" of patents can actually inhibit innovation; that the administrative burdens of enforcing patents can multiply to frustrate the goal of the Act. Thus, the law of innovation supposedly works against itself. In an age of empirical research to verify every legal hypothesis, I would urge you and any policymaker to reject this academic supposition – whether it comes from a high court or any other source – until and unless it is verified by empirical data. By the way, the only studies on this topic that I have seen could not verify this guess but generally confirmed the opposite – that patents spur innovation.
May I offer a common sense rebuttal to this academic hypothesis? [Hold up my smart phone] This smart phone resides in the technological space most occupied by patents, perhaps in the history of patent law dating back to 1624. With design patents as part of the equation, this device probably includes easily more than a thousand active patents. If you count expired patents in this technology back to the advent of the computer age, this device would implicate tens of thousands of patents. If ever the administrative burdens of a concentration of patents would inhibit innovation, this technology would be the place to observe that encumbrance. Now you tell me: is this technology experiencing sluggish and encumbered innovation? I doubt that I could keep track of the pace of innovation in this technology if I devoted my full time to the project.
No doubt a study would show that the disclosure benefits of patents bring the entire world into the innovation circle that drives smart phone technology forward faster than any of us can fathom. I am afraid the “tragedy of the anti-commons” has its own tragedy: it simply is academic nonsense. The patent system does not inhibit
invention."
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Professor Colleen Chien - What To Do If You Get A Patent Troll Demand
Santa Clara University associate professor Colleen Chien has an interesting article What To Do If You Get A Patent Troll Demand in TechCrunch based on a detailed report Patent Assertion and Startup Innovation that examines 134 VCs and 173 startups' experiences with patent assertion from NPEs or patent trolls. Note the sample size was based on a total of 6,636 addressees not counting opt-outs and bounced emails and not specific to any industry. See the report for methodology and details.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)