Source: https://patentplanetblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:42:04+00:00

Document:
The European Patent Office (EPO) requires search results from a priority application be filed with the EPO if the European application that claims priority was filed on or after January 1, 2011. See Amended Rule 141(1) EPC.
Last year the USPTO and EPO agreed the USPTO would deliver its search results to the EPO at no charge to applicants. For details see Electronic Delivery of Search Results From the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the European Patent Office, 76 FR 82279 (December 30, 2011).
Tonight the USPTO reminds applicants must consent to release search results of an unpublished US patent application to avoid delivery charges.
The USPTO recommends filing Certification and Authorization form PTO/SB/69 for each priority application prior to filing the European application to ensure the search results of unpublished application reach the EPO without delay. Applicants using EFS-Web should select "PTO/SB/69 - Authorize EPO Access to Search Results" under General Transmittal.
Software Patent Eligibility - Ending 40 Years of Controversy?
Today, one of the most controversial topics in US patent law is whether and when software related inventions are patent eligible.
The Federal Circuit opinions in July 2012: CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation in favor of patent eligibility and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada against patent eligibility illustrate the controversy today.
Professor Crouch's article Ongoing Debate: Is Software Patentable? notes the different results seem to stem from differences in how to construe what is the invention (by the claim as a whole or by its "core inventive concept") and the frustration of watching the controversy remain unresolved after 40 years of case law. (Groklaw's Does Programming a Computer Make a New Machine? citing In re Prater in 1969 suggests this controversy goes back at least 43 years).
Because of the uncertainty associated with a Supreme Court that finds it difficult to affirm the Federal Circuit (See WildTangent v. Ultramercial - Supreme Court Rejects Federal Circuit Decision on 35 USC 101), the PTO community (applicants, attorneys, and examiners) should not keep chasing down if a claimed invention (or the slippery "core inventive concept") is an abstract idea.
Instead, let's address software patentability under tests that are readily applied as recommended by Director Kappos' Some Thoughts on Patentability under 35 USC 102 (novelty/statutory bars), 35 USC 103 (obviousness), and 35 USC 112 (written description, enablement, and definiteness), and recast the abstract idea exception to 35 USC 101 as an overclaiming test as proposed by Professors Mark Lemley, Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman, and Polk Wagner in the Stanford Law Review article Life After Bilski.
The Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial starts next week. Each party accuses the other party's smartphones and tablets of infringement of U.S. patents.
Public comment on the proposed rules and guidelines are due no later than October 5, 2012, and the final rules will become effective on March 16, 2013.
When Google announced its intent to buy Motorola Mobility in 2011, Larry Page stated Motorola had a strong patent portfolio capable of protecting Android. The speculation immediately arose Google was acquiring Motorola primarily for its patents to fight the patent infringement suits that Apple had filed against Android hardware manufacturers Samsung and HTC.
Google's Form 10-Q indicates this speculation was not off-base. In the Form 10-Q, Google notes it acquired Motorola expecting it would protect and advance the Android ecosystem. The "it would protect" suggests defensive use of the Motorola patents. One problem is Motorola's SEP will be fairly limited protection as any damages will be subject to FRAND and any injunctions would be unlikely.
Although it's a preliminary valuation, the Form 10-Q attributes $5.5 billion of $12.4 billion Google paid for Motorola to "patents and developed technology." The media somehow has converted this to Google paid $5.5 billion for the patents, but developed technology is not the same as patents. I am not certain why they are lumped together but it does blur the valuation of the patents. If you don't put an exact value on the patents, however, it makes it more difficult to evaluate the ROI, which in turn would allow Google more space with respect to investors to limit the Motorola patents to counterclaims to protect the Android ecosystem. Still Google should consider if a "Microsoft type patent licensing program" is in its own long term interest.
Joe Mullin's article Apple v. Samsung: hammering out details before a giant patent battle explains what happened at the pretrial hearing and the factors that may have prevented a settlement earlier this year. Huge money is at stake (e.g., several billions), the parties have different positions on damages and patent rights, and the outcome of this trial may be the tipping point on who is the long term dominant player since they currently share 54% of the market for mobile computing devices.
Barring settlement, the Apple v. Samsung trial will begin the third major mobile computing case to be heard in 2012. The first Oracle v. Google, covered in my blog posts (blog search: Oracle v. Google), resulted in Google winning both the copyright and patent trials. Judge Posner cut off the second case by dismissing Apple v. Motorola with prejudice. Both cases are on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
At this time, Apple's damages case makes more sense, but since Judge Koh plans to keep the Apple and Samsung cases together and has promised to make the trial public as possible we should learn more if the trial proceeds.
NTP Settles with Apple, Microsoft, Google, et al.
NTP announced it has reached a settlement with AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, Apple, HTC, Motorola Mobility, Palm, LG, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo to license eight patents "relating to the delivery of electronic mail over wireless systems."
Ron Epstein who represented NTP mentioned he has been traveling around the world since 2010 to reach this settlement. The settlement terms are confidential.
Some readers may remember NTP settled with RIM maker of the Blackberry for $612.5 million in 2006.
John Paczkoski's Some Apple Inventions Are So Great They Ought To Be Shared explains Google's and Apple's respective patent strategies. I found Google's patent strategy interesting in view of the on-going discussions regarding remedies available for infringement of standard essential patents in the ITC.
As most readers know, Google paid $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility obtaining many standard essential patents (SEP). Apple may be concerned that Google's strategy is to enforce the SEPs to get a cross-license to Apple's commercially successful non-SEP patents on the iPhone.
Apple and Google's GC's have now staked out positions on how their respective patents should be viewed before the Senate Judiciary Commitee.
Google's GC Kent Walker's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee argues "proprietary non-standardized technologies that become ubiquitous due to their popularity with consumers should be considered de facto standards."
Apple's GC Bruce Sewell responded in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "That a proprietary technology becomes quite popular does not transform it into a ‘standard’ subject to the same legal constraints as true standards."
As Mr. Paczkoski states: "Standardized technologies facilitate interoperability among disparate devices by giving them the same core functionality. They create a platform for competition. Non-standardized technologies differentiate those devices, create competition and drive innovation in the marketplace. Subjecting non-standards-essential patents to the same rules as those governing standards-essential ones will hamper innovation and harm consumers."
In my view, if a U.S. patent is not encompassing an industry standard, commercial success should not subject the patent to FRAND and limit a patent owner's rights to an injunction. Otherwise, free riders will eliminate the incentive to spend resources to innovate.
Eolas Web Browser Plug-in Patent Falls Short?
Joe Mullin's article Patent troll takes last shot at owning "interactive web," but falls short reminds us high stakes patent litigation often involves multiple defendants and can stretch on for years. Mr. Mullin's article is about the Eolas patent involving browser plug-ins asserted against Microsoft in 1999 and later many other tech companies. The subject matter is described in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,599,985 and 5,838,906.
I tuned into the case after a federal court awarded Eolas and the University of California $565 million for Microsoft's browsers infringement of the Eolas patent in 2004. I was hunting for a topic at the time, because U.C. Berkeley had invited me to speak in exchange for three nights at the Lair of the Bear family camp. Since the University of California stood to gain major money, and it involved the Web and Microsoft, the Eolas case sounded like a good topic. The University of California agreed and gave us a "speaker's cabin" with a faded tie dyed sheet door.
Oh well, the food was excellent, we met lots of great people, and to my surprise many showed up to hear me talk about patents at night. The question asked repeatedly was how much did the U.C. Regents stand to gain? 25% of $565 million! Everybody seemed happy to hear this.
Afterward Microsoft fought hard to overturn the judgment eventually settling with Eolas. The U.C. Regents part was reduced to a little over $30 million. After Eolas sued a number of tech companies which recently led to the patent being held invalid despite previously overcoming invalidity challenges from Microsoft in the courts and the PTO.
If you are interested in the Microsoft case, here's a link to my power point slides: Microsoft ordered to pay $565 million for infringing Eolas & UC's web browser patent. By Robert Moll Patent Planet July 11-13, 2004.
Bessen & Meurer The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes claims companies accrued $29 billion in costs due to non-practicing entity (NPE) disputes in 2011. This article was published June 28, 2012, and just before the hearing this month to limit NPE's access to the ITC. Well what can I say? Nice timing guys.
Today, the PTO announced final rules for America Invents Act (AIA) preissuance submissions of prior art by third parties in patent applications. The final rules become effective to all applications pending or filed after September 16, 2012. The Federal Register Notice of the final rules is here and the AIPLA's "red-line" version copy of changes from proposed to final rules is here.
The AIA added 35 U.S.C. 122(e) that states a third party may submit written prior art to the PTO that is potentially relevant to examination. The submission must contain (1) a concise description of relevance, (2) the PTO fee, and (3) a statement affirming the submission complies with the 35 U.S.C. 122. The submission must be filed before a notice of allowance, or if not allowed, before six months after publication or rejection of any claim, whichever is later.
The final rules add 37 CFR §1.290, Submissions by third parties in applications and delete 37 CFR 1.99, Third-party submission in published application and 37 CFR 1.292, Public use proceedings. Allegations of prior public use may be raised in post-grant review and protests under 37 CFR 1.291. No fee is required for up to three documents filed in the first submission, but a $180 fee is required for every additional 10 documents (or fraction thereof) submitted after this. The E-filing system can be used for submissions. Submissions will be allowed for even abandoned applications but won't be considered unless the application is revived. Service on an applicant is not required rather the PTO will notify applicants by email of compliant third-party submissions.
A federal jury found Blackberry Manufacturer RIM liable for $147 million in damages for infringing Mformation Technologies patent that describes software allowing access to cell phones for software upgrades, passwords, or data erasure on stolen phones. The royalty of $8/device for 18.4 million BlackBerrys connecting to the BlackBerry Server sounds unreasonable given royalty stacking that comes into play given the hundreds and even thousands of US patents that relate to the smartphone.
Thanks to Alan Cooper for the USA Today article: Blackberry Maker RIM loses patent suit over Software.
For a discussion on royalty stacking see Stanford Professor Lemley and UC Berkeley Professor Shapiro's Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking.
Here's an academic paper RAND Patents and Exclusion Orders: Submission of 19 Economics and Law Professors to the International Trade Commission that supports Senator Leahy Questions Whether Injunctions Should Be Granted on Standard Essential Patents.
Yesterday, I posted a brief article here that notes the FRAND issue has become pivotal in Apple v. Motorola Mobility.
Now as the ITC considers whether to ban importation of the Xbox and iPhone based on Google's Motorola Mobility's standard essential patents, Senator Leahy is questioning whether patent owners should be able to obtain injunctions for infringement of a standard essential patents. Senator Leahy notes the iPhone and XBox and called the FTC and Department of Justice to a hearing to "explore the competitive impact of ITC exclusion orders and whether more needs to be done to ensure consumers are not the victims of the tech patent wars." Since the ITC only affords an injunction, eliminating injunctions would remove standard essential patent disputes out of the ITC or require another remedy.
See Ars Technica: As ITC mulls Xbox, iPhone import bans, Senators target patent system.
Microsoft and Google's Motorola Mobility filed a joint motion to stay three U.S. patent lawsuits until the fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) issue is resolved. The court's decision on FRAND will be especially important to Google since Motorola Mobility was presumably bought in part for the value of the standard essential patents. It sounds like unreasonable high royalty demands (e.g., 2.25% for a standard essential patent) when hundreds of patents must be licensed to practice the standard are about to become even less popular.
Here's news about the PTO's effort to implement the America Invents Act. The PTO has implemented seven provisions and has 13 provisions and two programs in progress. Director Kappos testified on implementation of the America Invents Act before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 20, 2012.
Read Director Kappos' full testimony here.
Staying in Bed Until the Patent War Ends!
The Wall Street Journal's article Corporate America to Patent Trolls: 'Well, Two Can Play at This Game' is worth reading. Ashby Jones of the WSJ notes how the divide between tech companies and non-practicing entities (i.e., patent trolls) is disappearing. Yes, the tech industry still complains about patent trolls while it spins out companies to license and sue on its patents and sells patents to trolls to generate cash. The article had no comments from tech companies on this trend. I guess the patent troll designation has a case of situational ethics.
In an interview this week, Judge Posner told Reuters that the tech industries high profits and volatility makes patent litigation attractive for companies looking to wound competitors. As Judge Posner stated: "It's a constant struggle for survival." "As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal, all their teeth and claws that are permitted by the ecosystem." The language is that colorful. See Judge who shelved Apple trial says system out of sync.
I know Judge Posner, 73, is a Harvard trained lawyer, a federal appeals court judge, quite influential, and has written many books, including one on the economics of IP law, but is he acting within his role as a judge to make such comments? If nothing else, someone turning to the courts for redress for patent infringement is characterized as a jungle animal looking to use its teeth and claws to wound the infringer.
Further, Judge Posner questions whether patents should protect software or most other industries. He claims pharmaceuticals have a better claim to IP protection, because of the enormous investment required to produce a drug. In contrast, advances in software and other industries cost much less and software companies benefit by being first to market, which would still exist if there were not software patents. Congress has not limited patents to pharmaceuticals or excluded the computer industry, but somehow being outspoken about one's personal views makes an interesting story.
We need to return to something basic a federal judge is not asked to legislate the law. I know there is considerable latitude in applying the law but if Congress has not limited patents to pharmaceuticals nor excluded computer related inventions, why should you tell us how you actually don't agree with Congress?
Plus timing of this interview is right after Judge Posner issued 38-page order dismissing with prejudice the Apple v. Motorola patent case. Should we question whether or not Judge Posner's anti-software patent bias was a factor in the dismissal with prejudice? I think Judge Posner's opinion is excellent, but it does raise questions on why the opinion was rather harsh in tone.
It's a concern when you see Judge Posner's philosophy in his book, How Judges Think: "Ivan Karamazov said if God does not exist everything is permitted, and traditional legal thinkers are likely to say that if legalism (legal formalism, orthodox legal reasoning, a "government of laws not men," the "rule of law" .....) does not exist everything is permitted to judges--- so watch out! Legalism does exist, and so not everything is permitted. But its kingdom has shrunk and greyed to the point where today it is largely limited to routine cases, and so a great deal is permitted to judges."
A great deal is permitted to judges, but a judge shouldn't be contrary to Congress. If Congress has not made such subject matter exclusions, the outspoken and sweeping statements about what industries can benefit from patents raises the concern that Judge Posner's intuition and belief rather than just evidentiary gaps in the damage case motivated the terms of the dismissal.
On June 20, the USPTO announced it extended the After Final Consideration Pilot scheduled to end on June 16, 2012 to September 30, 2012. The PTO gives details in this press release.
The pilot allows entry of an amendment after a final rejection if (1) the amendment was filed after March 26; and (2) the examiner decides he or she can review the amendment, perform any required search, and assess allowability within three hours. No special request for consideration of the amendment is required. Not surprisingly, preliminary reports indicate applicants have increased allowance rates and reduced the number of requests for continued examination (RCE) filed in the PTO.
The PTO gives details of the pilot in this press release: After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP).
Dilbert Cartoons - Patent Lawyers Nowhere to Run and Nowhere to Hide!
When Dilbert cleverly mocks the state of affairs with US patents, we have a clue that patents have fully seeped into America's corporate consciousness. For patent attorneys who have a suspect moral compass it looks like Martha Reeves and the Vandellas' song Nowhere to Run may just apply!
See Dilbert by Scott Adams Comic strip on June 29, 2012 Huge patent infringement liability leads patent attorney to life off the grid.
See Dilbert by Scott Adams Comic strip on June 30, 2012 Patent troll promises company "for my huge fee ... together we can strangle innovation and plunge civilization into the dark ages."
USPTO Satellite Office in San Jose!
On July 2, the USPTO is expected to announce the opening of satellite patent offices in as follows: San Jose, Denver, and Dallas.
To fully leverage on-site interviews, SF Bay patent attorney's cases should be assigned to the staff of examiners working in San Jose, CA.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v.