Source: http://www.uspatent.com/tag/blake-r-hartz/
Timestamp: 2017-11-20 15:36:47
Document Index: 669052778

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101']

Blake R. Hartz | Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett, & Henry | Patent, Trademark & Copyright Attorneys, Indianapolis, Indiana
May 2015 Intellectual Property Litigation Lunch Presentation
The May litigation lunch presentation includes a discussion of the Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Et al. case in which total profits were awarded under 35 USC 289 for a design patent and the Supreme Court’s recent Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. decision. The presentation can be downloaded here.
October 2014 Patent Prosecution Lunch Presentation
October’s patent prosecution practice luncheon included discussion of a new Patent Document Exchange (PDX) program with China and adoption of the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system in Korea. Recent Federal Circuit cases regarding inequitable conduct, prosecution history estoppel, and means-plus-function claims were also reviewed. The presentation can be downloaded here.
Patent Eligibility at the Supreme Court
On December 6, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether computer-implemented inventions are patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13-298, involves computer technology related to reducing the risk that either of two parties to a transaction will default by employing a third party intermediary. The patents claim this technology in various ways, including as a method of exchanging obligations, a data processing system, and a computer program embodied in a storage media. This is an important case, in part, because it addresses many of the claim types commonly used with computer and software-based inventions. The question presented to the Supreme Court is:
Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions-including claims to systems
and machines, processes, and items of manufacture-are directed to patent-eligible
subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court?
The trial court concluded that all of the asserted claims were invalid under § 101. On appeal at the Federal Circuit, initially two out of three judges concluded that all of the claims were drawn to patent-eligible subject matter. Then the Federal Circuit reheard the case en banc, and produced a decision that ultimately affirmed the trial court (all of the claims invalid). However, the ten participating judges produced seven opinions with little agreement on the reasoning of how to consider the § 101 issue and why these claims are or are not invalid.
In addition to agreeing to hear the Alice case, the Supreme Court has also asked for a response brief for a similar petition, WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC, No. 13-255, which is asking the Court to answer the question “When is a patent’s reference to a computer, or computer-implemented service like the Internet, sufficient to make an unpatentable abstract concept patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101?”.
Patent-eligibility of some computer-implemented inventions has been uncertain since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2010). Since then, Supreme Court cases involving § 101 have focused on other fields, including biotechnology and medical diagnostics.
USPTO Implements Final First-Inventor-to-File Rules Effective March 16
The USPTO recently published final rules implementing the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) that take effect on March 16, 2013. The full text of the new rules is available here. The USPTO also published examination guidelines accompanying the new rules which include additional information on how the office plans to interpret the new statute and rules.
New USPTO Fee Schedule To Take Effect on March 19th
On January 18, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued new rules setting and adjusting patent fees. Under the America Invents Act (AIA), the PTO has increased authority to set and change the fees it charges in order to cover its expected aggregate costs of providing services. The PTO has estimated its costs for patent services for fiscal year 2013 at $2.53 billion, and adjusted fees based on forecasts about the number of filings and its costs for rendering particular services. These fees will, for the most part, take effect on March 19, 2013.
Significant fee increases for large entities include:
o The combined filing, search, and examination fee due at filing is up $340, for a total of $1,600.
o Excess claim fees are increased to $420 for each independent claim over three and $80 for each claim over twenty.
o Requests for Continued Examination (RCE) are increased to $1,200 for a first request, and each RCE after that will cost $1,700.
o Maintenance fees are increased by $3,740 over the life of the patent, to $12,600. The biggest increase is in the 11 ½ year fee, which will be $7,400, an increase of $2,590.
Significant decreases include:
o The fee for filing an ex parte reexamination request is down over $5,000 to $12,000.
o Fees for filing for inter partes review or post grant review have been reduced by thousands of dollars.
o Issue fees are reduced about 45% to $960, but this does not take effect until January 1, 2014. In the meantime, the issue fee is up $10 to $1,780. The publication fee (previously $300) is also eliminated, effective January 1, 2014.
Many fees are reduced by 50% for patent applicants who qualify as a “small entity”, and by 75% for those who qualify for the new “micro entity” status.
The full fee schedule that becomes effective on March 19, 2013 is available here.