Posts Tagged ‘patents’

USPTO Myriad-Mayo Guidance Still Not At An Alpha Standard

Tuesday, March 24th, 2015

This is a guest post from Paul Cole.

iStock_000029586246_SmallAs readers will be aware, the USPTO published revised Guidance on Section 101 eligibility in December 2014 together with Nature-Based Examples and Abstract ideas examples. These materials and the case-law on which they were based appear on a dedicated web-page.

A Forum on the revised Guidance was held on 21 January with contributions from Raul Tamyo on behalf of the USPTO and from eight members of our profession. Their slides are accessible on the web-page. It also promises a Forum Replay in three parts, but those wishing to hear in detail what was said will be disappointed because the three links are broken and play nothing. The comments period ended on 16 March, and the absence of a workable Forum Replay (which has been pointed out to the USPTO) would arguably in itself justify an extension of the comments period for our profession and for the public.

(more…)

“Changing The Horizon” Or “Lost Horizon”? – Kappos Pulls It Together

Thursday, March 19th, 2015

road in mountainsAt a meeting sponsored by Intellectual Asset Management (IPBC/Global), “Meeting the NPE Challenge,” former Director of the USPTO, David Kappos on March 13th (a Friday even) gave a speech that cogently summarized the state of the IP landscape both from the law and policy perspectives. If you have felt overwhelmed and even put off by (im)perfect storm of legislative proposals, judicial holdings, and simplistic editorials that is buffeting the patent system, you must take the time to read the text of his speech, which occupies only 14 pages, but covers almost every “incoming” that the patent system has had to duck, or endure, in recent years (Ed.: “Time flies when you are having fun”). (A copy can be found at the end of this post.) I am not going to attempt a summary here –the talk is not that long—except to say that it summarizes both “Legislative Reform” (“The AIA is working”) and more recent proposals, such as fee shifting and covered customer stays. Section 101 is covered –“the courts seems to have lost their way”—including the recent attacks on software patents—(“Software patents are not statistically prone to being ‘bad’ patents”).

(more…)

Takeaways from Chisum Patent Academy 2015 Seminar in Cincinnati

Wednesday, March 11th, 2015

Guest Post from Don Chisum

iStock_000017522821_SmallOn March 5-6, 2015 the Chisum Patent Academy held a two-day seminar at the 21C Museum Hotel in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio to discuss and debate current developments in U.S. patent law. The roundtable seminar group was limited to ten persons; sessions were led by treatise authors and educators Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller.

Attendees included experienced patent litigators and prosecutors from law firms and corporations in Detroit, Chicago, Phoenix, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, and the Washington, DC area. Participants enjoyed the 21C’s Museum Hotel’s provocative modern art collection, innovative food and accommodations, and lively seminar discussion.

Here’s our recap of the takeaways from the seminar:

(more…)

Universities Response to Patent “Reform” Legislation

Friday, February 27th, 2015

iStock_000015456314_Small copyOn February 24th, a letter sent by the Association of American Universities, signed by 145 universities, to Senators Grassley and Leahy and Representatives Goodlatte and Conyers, objected to parts of legislation such as “The Innovation Act, H.R. 9” that purports to deter litigation by non-practicing entities, such as patent “trolls.” The Universities emphasized the damage that fee-shifting provisions requiring the loser of an infringement suit to pay the winner’s costs and fees would do to educational and research institutions that already find it financially difficult to enforce their IP rights. The letter pointed out the chilling effect such provisions would have on attempts to license technology, especially to start-ups. Also noted was the fact that mandatory joinder provisions could draw a university and its inventors into litigation initiated by third parties over which the university has little control.