Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?m=201804
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:50:28+00:00

Document:
I thought this was interesting — a Google search does not return any results for the terms “negative public franchise” or “negative franchise right.” We often think of patent rights as negative rights. So, I was curious if there are any other negative public franchises or negative franchise rights.
Now that we have been told that patents are “public franchises,” it might be useful for someone to discuss the tax implications of the Oil States holding. Does the holding of Oil States require any revision to the tax code? Can a “public franchise” be taxed? Can an owner of a patent be taxed for both “public franchise” purposes and “personal property” purposes? Do any companies with large patent portfolios now owe back taxes for failing to pay a “public franchise” tax? Are any owed a refund? Are some states better for “public franchise” tax purposes than other states? The Court notes: “Finally, our decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for purposes of the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause.” What about the taxing and spending clause?
Beyond the tax questions, are there any other complications caused by deeming a patent a “public franchise”? Residency? Nationality? Restraints on alienation?
Totally unrelated issue — if you can’t patent an “abstract idea” because it is “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men … free to all men and reserved exclusively to none,” should you be able to tax it?
If (a) the FCC grants a public franchise by granting a party sole use to a portion of the radio spectrum and (b) the radio spectrum is a natural phenomenon, is the FCC granting a public franchise to a natural phenomenon? Why should the FCC be able to grant public franchises on natural phenomenon if the USPTO cannot?
There were some interesting questions today in the oral argument of the ALJ case of Lucia v. SEC. I think it is interesting to look at tangentially related cases to see if they hint where the Court is going with its IP cases. Several of the questions focused on ALJ independence and accountability.
19 consideration for us in this case?
14 something that you’re not interfering with.
18 removal power that you hang over your head.
20 decide who gets the job or not.
4 judge does, but still something.
5 And you want to ratchet that down.
11 was the important one of accountability.
18 or decisions he would — he would take.
22 say: Don’t blame me. I didn’t appoint them.
1 that the drafters of the Constitution intended.
The transcript is available [here].
Earlier today, the USPTO issued guidance to examiners with respect to Berkheimer v. HP. You can see the memo [here].
The USPTO has requested comments on the Berkheimer Memo via a Federal Register notice that is available here: [Federal Register : Request for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element Is Well-Understood,].
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in WesternGeco v. Geophysical. The transcript of the oral argument is available [here].
Oral Argument of the Day: Mobile Telecommunications v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
The oral argument of the day is from Mobile Telecommunications v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Brenner v. Manson — footnote 6.
 We find no warrant for this curious limitation either in the statutory language or in the legislative history of § 1256. Nor do we find persuasive the circumstance that the Commissioner may not appeal adverse decisions of the Board of Appeals. 35 U. S. C. §§ 141, 142, and 145 (1964 ed.). As a member of the Board and the official responsible for selecting the membership of its panels, 35 U. S. C. § 7 (1964 ed.), the Commissioner may be appropriately considered as bound by Board determinations. No such consideration operates to prevent his seeking review of adverse decisions rendered by the CCPA.
Byron R. White: Mr. Bender, is the Board of Appeals in the Patent Office, under the control of the Commissioner or not?
Paul Bender: — the statute says the Commissioner is in charge of the whole Patent Office.
Paul Bender: The Board of Appeals is part of the Patent Office.
Byron R. White: He can’t go up from there, can he?
Paul Bender: No, he is part of the Board of Appeals.
Byron R. White: That’s what I wanted to know.
Paul Bender: Yes, there’s no question that he cannot go.
Byron R. White: But he’s part of the Board.
Paul Bender: Yes, he’s a member of the Board.
And I take it the reason is that he’s not only a member of the Board but the Board is under his jurisdiction, he is the head of the Patent Office, it wouldn’t make any sense.
The only reason to which they give is indeed what Mr. Justice White just mentioned.
Namely, that the Commissioner is the — cannot go to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and so they say therefore the Commissioner shouldn’t be able to go to the Supreme Court.
Well, the reason the Commissioner can’t go to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals is what we’ve just said.
He couldn’t challenge the decision he had just rendered, but the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals can as it has here decide against him.
And in view of that, I see no reason why he shouldn’t then be able to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
Dean Laurence: A primary examiner.
And at this point, let me very quickly describe, because I think Mr. Justice White asked a question whether the Board of Appeals was under control of the Commissioner.
Let’s look at the Patent Office for a moment.
We have — when an application is filed, a group of people called examiners and there is of course in the hierarchy a primary examiner.
Now, the primary examiner and all of his helpers are arms of the Commissioner.
The Commissioner is charged with examining the patent.
So as far as we are concerned here, a primary examiner is the Commissioner.
Or any other reason, then the applicant has recourse to a Board of Appeals.
Now the Board of Appeals is not under the control of the Commissioner.
The Board of Appeals is a separate body.
The members of the board are nominated by the President, confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and they sit as a board.
The Commissioner of Patents is a member of the Board of Appeals but he does not control the Board of Appeals and cannot reverse a decision of the Board of Appeals.
Insofar as I’m aware, it’s never been done.
If you were looking for a copy of Berkheimer’s brief in response to HP’s petition for en banc review in the case of Berkheimer v. HP, the brief is available here: [Berkheimerbrief].
The transcript is available here: [TRANSCRIPT].
You are currently browsing the 717 Madison Place blog archives for April, 2018.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1256
 § 7
 v.