Source: https://inventorbeware.com/author/bradyconnors/
Timestamp: 2019-12-06 19:11:15
Document Index: 94734711

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 316', '§ 316', '§ 316', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 18', '§ 18']

Brady Connors – Inventor Beware
Author Archives: Brady Connors
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor that is issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.
The right conferred by the patent grant is “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. It is noteworthy that what is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.
Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.
An invention must meet several requirements to be eligible for a patent. The invention must concern patentable subject matter (section 101). The invention must be novel and the application for a patent on the invention must be timely (section 102). The invention must be non-obvious (section 103). Finally, the invention must be sufficiently documented (section 112).
A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A Servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms “trademark” and “mark” are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and service-mark.
It is essential to understand that Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks that are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the USPTO.
Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly; therefore, a copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing.
The PTAB consistently espouses its position that it cannot complete proceedings within the 1 year time frame proscribed in 35 U.S. Code § 316 (“The Code”) if applicants were given full opportunity to amend their claims. While it is accurate that, according to the Code, proceedings are to conclude within 12 months; that’s not the end of the story. The Code also expressly provides that the 12 month period can be extended up to an addition 6 months for good cause.
A PATENT FOR AN INVENTION IS THE GRANT OF A PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE INVENTOR
It is difficult to argue against the proposition that the owners of an invention (“a property right owner”) should not be foreclosed from all due process and procedural rights otherwise available to all property right owners; thereby, creating good cause to extend the 1 year time frame to allow an investor to both (1) enjoy full due process and procedural rights, and (2) avoid the prejudice that attaches to the inventor when their due process and procedural rights are extinguished.
35 U.S. Code § 316 – addressing the Conduct of the inter partes review (“IPR”) process under “Amendment of the Patent” states, that “During an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the patent owner may file 1 motion to amend the patent in 1 or more of the following ways”…including “For each challenged claim, propose a reasonable number of substitute claims”.
On May 09, 2016 the USPTO published a blog titled “Further Insight Provided on PTAB Amendment Motions with New Study” written by Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge Nathan Kelley (“Kelley”). It is overview of the Study the USPTO stated “But unlike in the examination context, the PTAB proceedings must be completed within a year, and there is no time for the back-and-forth between the applicant and the USPTO that happens during prosecution”.
The above statement is troubling because the PTAB is not constrained by the 1 year time frame, given the fact that the Code provides an additional 6 months (total 18 months) for good cause.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that there is no evidence that allowing time for “back-and-forth between the applicant and the USPTO” cannot be accomplished within the 1 year time frame, even if motions to amend were more readily available.
Allowing an inventor to enjoy the same due process and procedural rights provided to all property right owners; and, avoiding the prejudice that attaches to the inventor when their due process and procedural rights are extinguished, we respectfully suggest, meets the legal burden of showing good cause for a 6 month extension.
If 35 U.S. Code § 316 provides a patent holder with a “right” to amend “…each challenged claim, [and the right to] propose a reasonable number of substitute claims”, can the PTAB ignore this right using the 1 year time constraints as its only basis for denial?
Or, in the alternative, is the PTAB improperly interrupting the Code to provide that a patent holder’s only “right” is to file a Motion, which can be granted or denied by the PTAB?
In January 2016 the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a White Paper report recommending amendments to U.S. copyright law. The Report summarizes the comments and testimony received from stakeholders and sets forth its conclusions and recommendations.
The Task Force addressed Remixes, First Sale and Statutory damages. In connection with Remixes and First Sale, the recommendation is to do nothing at this time.
The Task Force recommends amending the Copyright Act to provide both more guidance and greater flexibility to courts in awarding statutory damages by incorporating a list of factors to consider when determining the amount of a statutory damages award. In addition, it advises changes to remove a bar to eligibility for the Act’s “innocent infringer” provision, and to lessen the risk of excessive statutory damages in the context of non-willful secondary liability for online service providers. The recommendations focus on the appropriate calibration of statutory damages in the contexts of individual file sharers and secondary liability for large-scale infringement.
Specify Factors in the Copyright Act to Consider in Assessing Statutory Damages
The Task Force recommended that Congress enact a new paragraph in Section 504 of the Copyright Act specifying factors that must be considered when determining statutory damage award amounts. According to the White Paper, the goal is to ensure a greater degree of predictability in copyright infringement cases and other concerns. , The Task Force concluded that a statutory set of factors would be preferable since they will be binding on all courts.
The Task Force noted that the nine factors described below should be non-exclusive to ensure that courts are not foreclosed from considering other factors that may be relevant in a particular case.
NEW CLAUSE IN SECTION 504 (c):
In making any award under this subsection, a court shall consider the following nonexclusive factors in determining the appropriate amount of the award:
*(9) In the case of willful infringement, whether it is appropriate to punish the defendant and if so, the amount of damages that would result in an appropriate punishment.
*Under current law, if a copyright notice accompanies a published work an accused infringer cannot claim to be an “innocent” infringer (meaning the infringer is not entitled to a reduced statutory damage award. If this provision is adopted, it will remove the bar to eligibility for the Act’s “innocent infringer” provision, and lessen the risk of excessive statutory damages in the context of non-willful secondary liability for online service providers.
in	Patent and Trademark Law , Uncategorized by Brady Connors
THE PTAB INSTITUTEDS A COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW ON A NON-BUSINESS METHOD PATENT-AND THE PATENT OWNER FIGHTS BACK
Case identifications: Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Trading Technologies” or “TT”) Case No. I6-0I20; and, PTAB: Instituted CBM2015-00161against the ’304 patent (owned by Trading Technologies International, Inc.)
On February 24, 2015 a federal district Court issued its final decision that Trading Technologies patents were not invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5938 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015).
After prevailing in federal district an alleged infringer filed the Petition that commenced CBM2015-00161. Notwithstanding the fact that Trading Technologies informed the PTAB of the decision of the district court; the PTAB panel instituted trial on the § 101 issue.
THE PTAB DOES NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO INSTITUTE A CBM REVIEW ON A NON-BUSINESS METHOD PATENT
The America Invents Act (AIA) Section 18, proscribes that the USPTO may institute a CBM proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method patent. A covered business method patent is defined as a patent that claims a method for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. The claims in Trading Technologies’ ’304 patent are not, in any way whatsoever, directed to a business method or to a method for data processing. Trading Technologies patent claims the structure, makeup, and features of an improved graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool that can be used for electronic trading.
Trading Technologies hit the proverbial nails on the head in the following statements from its Petition
•	The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is needed to correct a recurring jurisdictional error by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”): it improperly instituted a covered business method review (“CBMR”) under § 18 of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) against a patent that is clearly and indisputably not a CBM patent.
•	The ’304 patent is clearly and indisputably not a CBM patent within the PTAB’s jurisdiction under § 18 because (1) it claims a GUI tool, not a “data processing” or business method, and (2) it claims a technological invention. By instituting CBM2015-00161, the PTAB has exceeded its lawful jurisdiction, which should be corrected by mandamus. The PTAB has repeated this error and will likely continue to do so. TT has no other adequate means of relief and will be irreparably harmed if the jurisdictional error is not immediately corrected. Accordingly, this Court should grant this petition for mandamus and order the PTAB to vacate its institution decision in CBM2015-00161 and terminate that proceeding.
Trading Technologies ‘304 patent has been the subject of serial CBM petitions, which one could argue reaches the point of harassment.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TT-Mandamus-3-8-2016.pdf