Month: November 2015

Categories
Biotech Gene Patents Innovation Inventors Uncategorized

How IP-Fueled Innovations in Biotechnology Have Led to the Gene Revolution

scientist looking through a microscopeWe’ve released a new issue paper, The Gene Revolution, by Amanda Maxham, a research associate and writer at the Ayn Rand Institute.

Dr. Maxham explores how innovations in biotechnology, enabled by the intellectual property rights that protect them, have led to the “Gene Revolution,” where scientists use genetic engineering to dramatically improve human life. In order to combat widespread misinformation about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), she traces mankind’s long history of improving plants, animals, and microorganisms to better serve our needs.

We’ve included the Executive Summary below. To read the full issue paper, please click here.

The Gene Revolution

By Amanda Maxham

Executive Summary

Mankind has been improving plants and animals for millennia. Simply by selecting and breeding those they liked best, our ancestors radically improved upon wild species. Today’s biological inventors, with a deeper understanding of genetics, breeding, and heredity, and with the protection of intellectual property rights, are using the technology of genetic engineering to start a “Gene Revolution.”

In the field of medicine, custom-built genetically engineered microorganisms are brewing up rivers of otherwise rare human hormones, life-saving medicines, and much-needed vaccines. In agriculture, scientists are combining their understanding of plant genetics with laboratory techniques of modern molecular biology to “unlock” the DNA of crop plants. By inserting genes from other plants or even common microorganisms, they are able to give plants desirable traits, solving problems that farmers have faced for millennia—faster and more precisely than ever before.

But despite its successes and a bright future, biotechnology is under attack by activists who spread misinformation and foster consumer mistrust. They have been directly responsible for onerous regulations and other hurdles to innovation that are threatening to stifle what could and should be the “third industrial revolution.”

In an effort to combat this misinformation, this paper situates genetic engineering within mankind’s long history of food improvement and then highlights how genetic engineering has dramatically improved human life. In it, you’ll find 29 plants, animals, and microorganisms, from insulin-secreting E. coli to engineered cotton, from cheese-making fungus to chestnut trees, that represent the promise and possibilities that the Gene Revolution holds–if we hold precious and continue to protect the freedom to invent and the power of scientific innovation.

Categories
Administrative Agency Innovation Inventors Patent Law Patent Litigation Uncategorized

#AliceStorm for Halloween: Was it a Trick or a Treat?

The following guest post from Robert R. Sachs, Partner at Fenwick & West LLP, first appeared on the Bilski Blog, and it is reposted here with permission.

By Robert R. Sachs

Alice has been busy the last two months, continuing to haunt the federal courts and the Knox and Randolph buildings at the USPTO. Here are the latest #AliceStorm numbers through the end of October 2015:

There have been 34 district court decisions in the past two months, but the percentage of invalidity decision is holding constant at 70.5%. The number of patent claims invalidated is now over 11,000, but also holding steady at around 71%.

There have been no new Federal Circuit Section 101 decisions, but we’re going to see a flurry of activity in the next couple of months, as the court has recently heard oral argument in a number of patent eligibility cases, and more are on calendar for November.

Motions on the pleadings have soared, with 23 in the past two months alone, and the success rate is up a tick from 70.1% to 71.4%.

PTAB is a bit mixed: the CBM institution rate is down from 86.2% 83.7%, but the final decision rate is still 100%, with 6 decisions in the past two months invalidating the patents in suit.

Turning to the motion analysis, the motions on the pleadings are the second scariest thing to a patent holder after the specter of attorney fees under Octane Fitness:

The Delaware district court continues as the graveyard of business methods and software patents, with 31 eligibility decisions, up from 19 just two months ago, and their invalidity rate is up from 86.4% to 90.3%.

Jumping into second place is the Eastern District of Texas, with 23 decisions total (up from 16). Contrary to the rest of the rest of the bench, their invalidity rate is 34.8%. The Northern District of California edged up from 75% to 78.9% invalidity, and C.D. Cal is up almost 2%.

And finally, here is the run down on the all district court judges with two or more Section 101 decisions.

With today’s blog, I’m introducing some entirely new types of data, looking at the characteristics of the patents that have been subject to Section 101 motions.

As expected, business method patents are the most heavily litigated and invalidated (click to see full size):

The distribution of patents in terms of earlier priority dates shows a very large fraction of the invalidated patents were first filed in 2000:

Now compare that to the distribution of patent classes with respect to priority year as well:

Here too we see a very large number of the business method patents filed in 2000. I’ve coded all of the software related technologies as blue to group them visually.

Why the cluster around 2000? State Street Bank, which held that there was no rule against business method patents, was decided in mid-1998. As those of us who were practicing them remember, it took about two years before the impact of the decision was widespread. This was also the time of the Dotcom bubble when it seemed that just about everyone was starting up a business on Internet. Those two factors resulted in a surge of patent filings.

Of all the patents that have been thus challenged under Alice, only two have post-Bilski priority dates:

  • 8447263, Emergency call analysis system, filed in 2011, and litigated in Boar’s Head Corp. v. DirectApps, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98502 (E.D. Cal., 7/28/2015). The court granted DirectApps motion to dismiss, finding the patent invalid.
  • 8938510, On-demand mailbox synchronization and migration system, filed in 2010, and litigated in BitTitan, Inc. v. SkyKick, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114082 (W.D. Wash, 8/27/2015). BitTran’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied in part because of SkyKick successfully argued that BitTrans was not likely to succeed on the merits due to Alice problems.
  • 8,604,943; 9,070,295; 9,082,097; 9,082,098 and 9,087,313, all of which claim priority to March, 2012, and were invalidated just last week in MacroPoint LLC v. FourKites Inc., Case. No. 1:15-cv-01002 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 5, 2015). The court invalided all 94 claims in these patents, as being directed to the abstract idea of “tracking freight.” While the last four patents were issued in June and July, 2015, none of them overcome an Alice rejection, and the court noted that “Nothing in the Reasons for Allowance dictate a finding that these concepts are inventive on the issue of patent-eligible subject matter.”

Over time we’ll see more post-Bilski patents being litigated, and then eventually a true test: a business method patent granted after Alice that overcame an Alice rejection. By my count, there are about 80 such patents thus far, and about another 90 that have been allowed. It will not be too long then before one of these patents is challenged under Section 101.

In my next column, I’ll review some very disturbing decisions by coming out of the Delaware district courts.

Categories
Innovation Legislation Trade Secrets Uncategorized

Debunking Myths About the Proposed Federal Trade Secrets Act

By Mark Schultz

Today, CPIP is proud to release a paper authored by the nation’s preeminent expert on trade secret law, James Pooley. Mr. Pooley’s paper explains the arguments in favor of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015 (“DTSA”), which is currently being considered by Congress. To download the paper, please click here.

The DTSA would create a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. The legislation has been proposed via identical House (H.R.3326) and Senate (S.1890) bills. While trade secret theft has been a federal crime since 1996 pursuant to the Economic Espionage Act, civil claims have been left to state laws. The new bill would provide nationwide federal jurisdiction, while retaining the parallel state laws.

Trade secrets have become increasingly important at the same time they have become more vulnerable. Research in the US and Europe shows that trade secrets are the kind of IP most widely and universally relied upon by businesses. They are particularly important to small businesses. However, they can be stolen more easily than ever. Vital proprietary information that once would have resided in file cabinets and that would have taken days to copy now can be downloaded at the speed of light.

The DTSA is needed to improve the speed and efficiency of trade secret protection in the US. By some measures, as my own research for the OECD with my co-author Doug Lippoldt showed, the US has the strongest laws protecting trade secrets in the world. However, the multi-jurisdictional approach taken by the US presents a unique challenge to enforcing trade secrets quickly and efficiently. Investigating claims, conducting discovery, and enforcing claims in multiple states takes time. In an ordinary tort or contract case, such delays are usually manageable. In a trade secret case, even small delays can make the difference between rescuing a multi-million dollar secret and seeing its value destroyed utterly.

The proposed DTSA has enjoyed broad support from a coalition of large and small businesses. The bill has been largely uncontroversial, except among some legal academics. We have become accustomed to reflexive academic skepticism of improving IP rights, but some of the arguments against the DTSA have been truly puzzling.

The most puzzling academic argument against the bill is the claim that adding federal jurisdiction to trade secret enforcement will give rise to a new class of trade secret “troll.” It’s hard to see this claim as anything other than a mere rhetorical attempt to piggyback on the (largely specious) patent “troll” issue. According to research conducted for the European Commission, as well as widespread anecdotal evidence, firms routinely forego litigating trade secret claims for fear of revealing their proprietary information. It is thus hardly credible that they would expose their secrets in order to “troll,” especially merely because they now have easier access to federal courts.

Mr. Pooley’s paper explains the benefits of the DTSA while carefully refuting the “troll” myth and other arguments against the bill. The article includes a timely response to an academic letter released today expressing opposition to the DTSA.