Category: Innovation

Categories
Innovation Patent Law Supreme Court

CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief Urging Consideration of Claimed Inventions as a Whole

U.S. Supreme Court buildingLast week, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and I filed an amicus brief on behalf of 15 law professors, including CPIP’s Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, and Mark Schultz. We urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in TDE Petroleum v. AKM Enterprise and reaffirm that any analysis of an invention must be of the claimed invention as a whole.

Unfortunately, lower courts and the Patent & Trademark Office have been applying a test of patent eligibility that allows breaking up an invention into parts and then analyzing the parts separately. Sometimes, as in the case here, a court will completely ignore an element of the invention. This needs to be fixed. Any invention is defined by its entirety, not by its isolated parts.

As I discussed before, TDE Petroleum’s patent claims a method of operating an oil rig. Part of the method uses software. But as the claim discussed in our brief makes clear, the end result of the method is control of a physical well with a drill running inside the earth. However, the courts that have looked at this patent so far have only considered the function of certain software elements and pretend the oil rig is not important. Such unimpeded dissection of claims makes it easy to invalidate important patented innovation notwithstanding the contribution to the field.

The full amicus brief can be found here. In addition to showing that the claimed invention is a method of operating an oil rig, we show why the claim precisely parallels a claim to a method of molding rubber found patent eligible by the Supreme Court 36 years ago.

Categories
Innovation

How IP Helps Individuals

the word "inspiration" typed on a typewriterThis is the second in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference, “Intellectual Property and Global Prosperity.” The Conference was held at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University on October 6-7, 2016. Videos of the conference panels and keynote address, as well as other materials, are available on the conference website.

The second panel of CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference discussed the positive impact of intellectual property (IP) on people’s lives. Day or night, wherever we are, IP is around us—from movies, music, books, smartphones, and computer tablets to essentials like transportation, clothing, food, and medicines—each involving some aspect of IP. Yet we rarely think of how these products are brought to us, or more importantly, the ways in which they have changed our personal and professional lives.

The panelists, Prof. Kristina Lybecker (Colorado College), Ken Stanwood (WiLAN), Howard Rachinski (Christian Copyright Licensing International), Stephen Bock (Church Music Publishers Association), and Prof. Mark Schultz (Southern Illinois University School of Law, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property) revealed how intellectual property benefits individuals by creating jobs, promoting cultural diversity, and bringing innovative products, services, and medicines to marketplaces worldwide.

Prof. Kristina Lybecker discussed how intellectual property helps individuals by promoting innovation, job creation, and international trade. She presented an international competitiveness index showing that the most innovative economies have the strongest IP regimes. The opposite is also true, and economies with weaker IP protection are less innovative and competitive on a global scale. Comparing data from the top-30 countries that comprise nearly 80% of the global economy, including the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, Australia, and Singapore, Lybecker showed that the correlation between innovation and IP protection is indeed very strong.

Likewise, intellectual property contributes significantly to jobs, wages, and trade. Lybecker presented data showing that there are 55 million jobs in the U.S. supported by IP-intensive industries, representing 46% of all private sector employment. These industries contribute $5.8 trillion to U.S. output each year, accounting for nearly one-third of total GDP. Wages in IP-focused industries are 30% higher than in other sectors, and 74% of U.S. exports come from IP-related industries. Lybecker noted that stronger IP regimes attract greater foreign direct investment and R&D spending, which increases the spread of technology and spurs market growth.

Finally, Lybecker discussed the strong correlation between drug availability and IP rights in the pharmaceutical industry. Data shows that countries with the strongest IP protection enjoy the quickest launches for new medicines and the greatest availability of treatments and cures for their populations. The U.S., for example, has the strongest IP protection for both pharmaceutical products and processes, and it is a global leader in pharmaceutical innovation.

Ken Stanwood from WiLAN highlighted the role that intellectual property in the wireless sector plays in improving people’s lives. WiLAN invented a fundamental technology that is used in the Wi-Fi physical layer that was a significant stepping stone toward broadband cellular technologies like smartphones. Since then, wireless IP has created new markets and provided better access to existing markets. For example, wireless communications and GPS technology enable popular services such as Uber and Car2Go.

Stanwood discussed how wireless IP empowers women in developing countries. For instance, Grameen Bank’s “village phone” program provides microloans to women in Bangladesh to purchase cellphones that are then shared with others in their villages. Not only has this program improved the lives of individual women by increasing their role in the family, but it has also created social and economic benefits for the entire community by providing better access to health care, education, and business transactions.

The introduction of the portable eye examination kit in Africa was another of Stanwood’s examples of how wireless IP improves people’s lives. A special portable camera attached to a smartphone enables schools, remote health providers, emergency medical workers, nurses, and general practitioners to perform various eye exams for afar, including pupil assessment, retinal evaluation, cataract examination, and even to diagnose cerebral malaria.

Howard Rachinski and Stephen Bock discussed how IP in the church music industry benefits congregations. With over 350,000 churches in the U.S. and 2.18 billion Christians around the globe, the industry is massive both in publishing and consumption. Before the digital age, publishers distributed hymnals to churches while paying royalties to songwriters and copyright owners. Congregants sang only those songs found in the hymnals, which could often be decades old. The digital age, however, changed this paradigm, and people now want a larger variety of songs. This change in music consumption has brought many challenges.

Rachinski and Bock noted that the entire church music industry reconsidered its practices and searched for new ways to empower worship by facilitating access to legal content. Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) contracted with copyright owners to aggregate their rights and make them available to churches for an affordable annual fee. CCLI currently works with 250,000 churches in 40 countries to provide more than 100,000 licensed songs of worship. Not only has this licensing scheme ensured the very survival of the church music industry, but it has also enabled more Christians to become professional songwriters.

Prof. Mark Schultz discussed how IP helps bring products to consumers. Organizations like the Gates Foundation often talk about how hard it is to bring medicines to people. In some places, vaccines are delivered on the backs of camels and donkeys. The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 2 billion people around the globe have no access to medicine. And yet, Schultz noted, some products are available in every corner of the world. For example, Coca-Cola sells 2 billion servings of its products daily across the globe.

Indeed, Schultz pointed to Coca-Cola as a valuable case study on international network distribution and asset management. The protection of its brand allows Coca-Cola to secure returns on investment, protect its good will, and prevent copying of its products. Coca-Cola reduces costs by working with nearby distributors to produce, bottle, and ship its products locally. Finally, Coca-Cola has a network of local stakeholders (licensees, distributors, and consumers) who are interested in genuine products being delivered to the market. Schultz noted that the system works best when the local IP system is stable.

Lastly, Schultz turned to the evidence establishing the correlation between strong IP rights and economic growth. He referred to one economic index that demonstrated a positive relationship between patent protection and importations into developing countries. Likewise, Schultz discussed the index he created with Prof. Douglas Lippoldt illustrating that the strength of the trade secret system has positive effects on exports. They found that stronger IP regimes lead to the delivery of more pharmaceuticals and the introduction of more technological services.

Together, the five panelists gave concrete examples of the critical role of IP in helping individuals both domestically and internationally. Not only does IP create jobs, new markets, and business opportunities, but it also enables access to healthcare, medicines, education, and technologies. A strong IP system bolsters innovation, invites investment, and brings products to people. With the right IP strategy, companies can continue innovating and making a positive impact on people’s lives.

Categories
Innovation Software Patent

Trading Technologies v. CQG: Federal Circuit Gets One Right On Software Patents

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"The Federal Circuit issued another important opinion yesterday affirming that software is a patentable invention in the United States. In Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., the court determined that a graphical user interface (GUI) for a commodities trading platform was patent eligible. Ten law professors, including CPIP Senior Scholars and others, filed an amicus brief in support of Trading Technologies, explaining that its GUI patents were a patentable inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act and that this is exactly the type of twenty-first-century innovation the patent system is intended to promote and secure. (CPIP’s Adam Mossoff was one of the co-authors of the amicus brief as well.)

The accused infringer in this case argued that Trading Technologies’ two patents were unpatentable because they were an “abstract idea” under § 101 of the Patent Act. This opinion arose from the infringer raising this defense in response to Trading Technologies’ lawsuit against it for patent infringement. Despite the defendant’s arguments that the patents merely broadly referred to the abstract idea of “commodities trading,” both of the GUI patents describe technological improvements in the interface that commodities traders use. The court discussed how the inventors’ specific improvements in this GUI program increases the efficiency and accuracy of trading—a real-world, valuable function in a twenty-first-century technological innovation. Thus, these patents cover inventions that are more than just an abstract idea.

As described by the law professors’ amicus brief, the defendant’s broad argument about the “abstract idea” exclusion in patent law would eviscerate the patent system. Any invention can be described at a high level of abstraction, and thus an overly broad understanding of “abstract idea” would invalidate patents on thousands of legitimate patents on valid inventions, such as the telephone, GPS, typewriters, and optical discs. In this case, the court properly recognized that this framing of the “abstract idea” rule in patent law necessarily incorrect. Hopefully, this decision will stem the tide of massive invalidations of patented innovation, as more courts recognize the value in software inventions and that patents are important for promoting and securing this innovation.

Categories
Economic Study Innovation

Creative Upstarts and Startups: How IP Creates Opportunities and Opens Doors

the word "inspiration" typed on a typewriterThis is the first in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference, “Intellectual Property & Global Prosperity.“ The conference was held at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University on October 6-7, 2016. Videos of the conference panels and keynote address, as well as other materials, are available on the conference website.

The opening panel of CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference examined how intellectual property (IP) creates opportunities for startups and creative upstarts. Unfortunately, IP policy debates often refer to a misguided notion that intellectual property hinders innovation and creativity, especially among smaller businesses. The panelists, Prof. Deepak Hegde (NYU Stern School of Business), Brian Detwiler (Cobro Ventures, Inc.), Prof. Jerry Liu (University of San Francisco School of Law), and Antigone Peyton (Cloudigy Law, PLLC), illustrated how this notion ignores the fact that intellectual property provides incentives and security for startups and small businesses entering the market and enables returns on investments.

Prof. Deepak Hegde discussed a study he undertook to measure the extent that patents benefit startups. Patents provide incentives for innovation by affording the right to exclude others from making, selling, or otherwise using the patented invention. This incentive is ensured by increasing the cost of imitations, while facilitating licensing and access to venture capital by innovators. At the same time, there is a concern that patents are not as effective for smaller entrepreneurs because patents take too long to issue (three years on average), they are costly to obtain ($20,000 in patent application costs on average), and are expensive to enforce once infringed. The study, however, shows that timely patents do substantially benefit startups.

Hegde noted that measuring the causal effect of patent rights on startups is often an empirically challenging task due to the lack of complete data on issues like rejected patent applications, firm outcomes, and correlations between patenting and startup success. However, Hegde was able to show a positive causal relationship between approval of the first patent application and various measures of startup success such as persistent employment growth and higher sales.

For instance, Hegde found that approval of the first patent application by a medium-sized firm with eight employees leads to three more employees (on average) hired within the five years following approval. Likewise, a medium-sized firm with $4.3M in revenue has $2.3M higher sales over the five years following approval of its first patent. Moreover, approval of the first patent application leads to a 66.4% increase in the number of subsequent applications, a 48.4% growth in the number of approved patents, and a 68.5% increase in the number of total citations.

On the other hand, Hegde discovered that delays in the patent approval process reduce sales growth, with each year of delay reducing growth by 28.4% over the five years following approval. Delays also reduce the quality and quantity of subsequent innovations, with a 14% decrease in number of subsequent applications and a 8% reduction in number of total citations. Even more so, a five-year approval delay is comparable in effect to not granting a patent at all. Finally, Hegde showed that patent approvals causally increase the probability of venture capital funding by 57%, and thus, help to set startups on a growth path.

Brian Detwiler discussed the challenges startups face from a more practical point of view. Specifically, Detwiler focused on two startups that Cobro Ventures is currently managing. Measures of success differ among the two. For a health & fitness center, the issue is profitability, and for a tech startup, the concern is typically acquisition or an initial public offering. Because Cobro Ventures is a self-funded company, it does not encounter some of the funding challenges as other startups. It does, however, face the same intellectual property issues as others in the industry.

The critical issue for a startup in the fitness industry, Detwiler noted, is building a strong brand identity to distinguish itself from other companies in the crowded marketplace. CrossFit is one good example of how a strong brand makes a business successful: CrossFit generates its revenues solely from licensing its brand out to gyms and fitness centers, without operating any of its own.

Tech startups, continued Detwiler, are more invested in the value of their patents because patent due diligence is a major component of any tech acquisition. Bundles of patents and open continuations are what acquirers value the most. The former allows acquisition of all patents associated with a particular technology; the latter provides opportunities to expand claims to pending patents down the road. A patent by itself does not necessarily guarantee the merit of a particular technology, but it certainly shows that at least the Patent Office believes that the particular technology was unique in the marketplace at the time of issuance. Patents can also be used as weapons in protecting a company’s interests and as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

Detwiler stated that trademark registration is equally accessible to startups and big corporations because it is inexpensive (the filing fee is about $300 per class of goods/services), easy to file (only 10 minutes), and fast (around 3-4 months). With patents, the biggest challenge is getting a notice of allowance. There is a common misconception that all patent applications have the same value. This may be true for big corporations that file thousands of patent applications each year. But for startups, which usually have only two or three applications that they depend on, each such application is incredibly important, and if rejected, causes a lot of frustration.

Even though startups have more executive involvement in the patent approval process and are more willing to accept reasonably narrow claims at the outset, Detwiler said the patent examination process is still too lengthy. To get the best of it, he suggested that applicants explain in plain terms what they want to protect, examiners explain in plain terms what they found in their prior art searches, and both sides explore how to capture the claimed invention.

Prof. Jerry Liu talked about the study he undertook on market incentives and intrinsic motivations in the creative industries, particularly in the Chinese music industry. He focused his study on how online piracy affects the music industry and how real-world artists respond to copyright incentives. According to Liu, the Chinese music industry is significantly underdeveloped as compared to the United States. While the overall Chinese economy is fast approaching the size of the U.S. economy, the Chinese music industry represents only 1.5 % of the U.S. music industry.

Liu found that this outcome has little to do with the overall economic environment in China. Even though the music industry experienced a substantial decline since 2005, the economy as a whole enjoyed about 10% of annual growth. Nor is this a consequence of the infamous censorship system in China. Unlike the music industry, the book industry in China has demonstrated growth by 129% for the last decade. The likely reason for this difference is that the piracy rate in the music market is much higher than it is in the book market.

Empirical data collected by Liu establishes the correlation between online piracy and the Chinese music industry downturn. Online piracy surged in 2005, the very same year when music production started to decline significantly. As a result of such widespread piracy, music products have become undervalued among consumers. Only 25.4% of Chinese consumers are willing to pay for music, and only 5.9% actually pay for music. Online piracy has also caused a significant imbalance in the development of the digital music market. Notably, the Chinese government itself recently recognized that uncontrolled piracy has devastated the digital music marketplace.

In China, Liu said that online music services, including downloads and streaming, account only for 1% of the total digital market, while mobile sales (e.g., ringtones) hold 99% market share. But only 32.6% of music consumers are accessing music on their mobile devices, while 96.8% of users access music online. This shows that Chinese consumers pay the least for the most popular channel of music consumption. Additionally, online piracy affects business models in the music industry. For instance, record labels have moved away from their traditional role as investors. They are now working with new artists either on a self-funded basis (labels only provide services and artists bear all the risks of investment) or under so-called “360-degree deals” (labels sign artists for long-term contracts and retain more control over their careers and even their personal lives).

Finally, Liu highlighted the paradox of intrinsic motivations: 92% of the surveyed artists named emotional benefits as their incentive to create, and 97% of those artists also recognized the importance of economic benefits for creation. Importantly, many artists started their career in music not because of the money, but many of them also gave it up because of the money. In this way, copyright protection may provide a powerful incentive for artists to create in that it preserves their artistic freedom while ensuring a decent level of living and a fair return of production costs.

Antigone Peyton talked about strategies for tech companies to protect their assets. In this regard, she noted the importance of contracts at the early stages of the product development cycle. From the copyright prospective, contracts help to establish whether hired developers are employees or independent contractors and to ensure that their rights are assigned to the company. Without a written, explicit assignment of a copyright, a company may get in trouble down the road. For instance, when registering its work with the Copyright Office, enforcing its rights, or selling its assets to a third party.

Peyton stressed that companies working with the government need to understand what intellectual property rights they are giving away and to avoid assigning away all of their rights. Government contracts often include IP provisions that provide the government with a fully-paid license and allow it to bring in another contractor to continue the job. Another important aspect involves privacy policies, especially in the cyber security area. Companies that innovate in this sector usually bring people and know-how to the table, but not necessarily anything that is patentable. To protect its know-how, such a company should consider signing non-compete agreements with the people working with the company.

The barriers to entry for starting up a company in the software industry are small, said Peyton. But that means there are a lot of such companies out there trying to compete with each other for market space. To this end, companies need to think carefully about brand development and brand recognition, as well as how to protect their markets from competitors.

Peyton noted that if a company believes it has patentable subject matter, it should consider filing a patent application early on. However, patenting is the most expensive IP regime and usually requires the help of a patent professional (even with provisional applications). Patents are particularly critical in the biotech, chemical, and pharma industries that are money-intensive endeavors, which largely depend on attracting venture capital investment as early as possible. Generally, tech companies do not need to choose between copyrights and patents, and they may pursue both options to protect their software. But investing in copyrights and brand development is a relatively inexpensive way to start out and build an IP portfolio. Depending on the technology used, trade secret protection may also be an option for tech startups.

Together, the four panelists highlighted how intellectual property has a critical value for startups and small companies in the creative and innovative industries. Not only does IP ignite their businesses, but it also brings opportunities for future growth through sales, licensing, or acquisition. A strong IP portfolio is an invaluable asset, and building it early allows companies to open more doors.

Categories
Innovation Uncategorized

CPIP, USPTO, & Lemelson Center Host “Great Inventors” Panel Discussion at American History Museum

Logos for The Lemelson Center, the USPTO, and CPIP

On February 16, 2017, CPIP hosted a panel discussion, America as a Place of Innovation: Great Inventors and the Patent System, at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. The event was co-hosted by the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation at the Smithsonian Institution and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The panel explored the history of innovation and the broader social, political, and legal context in which it occurred in the late nineteenth century in the United States. The panel addressed the historical role of patents, research-intensive startups, litigation, and licensing in an important period of disruptive innovation.

Prof. Ernest Freeberg, University of Tennessee, discussed Thomas Edison and how the invention of the electric light impacted American culture. Prof. Christopher Beauchamp, Brooklyn Law School, discussed Alexander Graham Bell and the legal disputes that erupted out of Bell’s telephone patent. Prof. Adam Mossoff, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, discussed early American innovation by Charles Goodyear, Samuel Morse, and Joseph Singer.

The panel discussion was moderated by Arthur Daemmrich, Director of the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. Alan Marco, Chief Economist at the United States Patent and Trademark Office delivered the closing remarks.

The video of the event is available here, and the event program is available here.

Categories
Innovation Patent Law Uncategorized

Federal Circuit Improperly Extends Abstract Idea Exception to Industrial Machines

a gavel on a table in front of booksAn oil well drilling rig is not an abstract idea. A method of operating an oil well drilling rig is also not an abstract idea. This proposition should be clear to all, but in TDE Petroleum Data Solutions v AKM Enterprise, the Federal Circuit held that a method of operating an oil well drilling rig is directed to the abstract idea of “storing data, receiving data, and using mathematics or a computer to organize that data and generate additional information.”

Section 101 of the Patent Act has been interpreted to prohibit the patenting of abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. Although recent Supreme Court cases have universally found the patents at issue ineligible, Bilski, Alice and Mayo cite approvingly to a previous Supreme Court case, Diamond v. Diehr, which found a process for molding rubber articles with the aid of a computer to be patent eligible.

Alice and Mayo established a now-famous two-part test to determine whether a patent claims ineligible subject matter. The first step of the Alice/Mayo test asks whether the claim is “directed to” one of the prohibited categories. The second step asks whether the claim involves an “inventive concept” sufficient to confer patent eligibility. The Federal Circuit has applied this test with ruthless efficiency to invalidate patents, although sanity is slowly returning as the court has upheld patents improving computer animation of faces and the preservation of liver cells.

Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit rarely compares the facts of the cases before it to controlling Supreme Court precedent. The clear similarity between the claims to operating an oil well drilling rig in TDE and the claims to curing rubber in Diehr show how far off course the Federal Circuit has veered in interpreting section 101.

In Diehr, the claimed method used a computer to precisely control a rubber molding process. The computer allowed the inventors to measure and recalculate the time to cure the rubber while it was in the mold. At the end of the method, a rubber article was produced. In TDE, the claimed method used a computer to control the drilling of an oil well. The computer permitted the inventors to accurately determine the state of the well operation. Different claims provided for different ends of the method, including adjusting the operation of the drill (claim 30) and selecting the state of the well operation (claim 1).

A side-by-side analysis of representative claims from TDE and Diehr at the bottom of this post shows exactly how similar they are. Each claim recites (1) an industrial process that uses (2) initial data combined with (3) newly collected data that is (4) analyzed to (5) improve the output or operation of the industrial process.

It is worth repeating: in both Diehr and TDE, the claims were directed to an industrial process. The general industrial processes existed previously in the art. Molding rubber using the defined equation was well known. Drilling an oil well with consideration of the state of the well operation was known. The contributions in both Diehr and TDE were the addition of data collection and analysis to improve the operation of the industrial process. Neither portion of the Federal Circuit’s analysis in TDE cites to Diehr, let alone analyzes the obvious similarities between the claims at issue and those found patent eligible by the Supreme Court.

In a single paragraph of analysis regarding step one of the Mayo/Alice test, the Federal Circuit held that claim 1 of the TDE patent was directed to the abstract idea of “storing data, receiving data, and using mathematics or a computer to organize that data and generate additional information.” It completely ignored parts of the claim that required the data to be collected from an oil well drilling operation and to be used for the oil well drilling operation. Of course, ignoring these parts of the claim was required to find that the claim was directed to an abstract idea of data manipulation.

Also taking only a single paragraph, the Federal Circuit’s analysis of Mayo/Alice step two was similarly devoid of engagement with the explicit claim requirements of an oil well drilling operation. Instead, it focused only on what the computer was doing in the process, rather than the process as a whole. Diehr, along with many other cases, explicitly requires that the process be considered as a whole in the section 101 analysis.

The Federal Circuit’s error here is worse than it was in Ariosa v. Sequenom. In Ariosa, the court engaged with the closest factual Supreme Court precedent, although it felt bound by Mayo to find the claims ineligible. However, the court in TDE completely ignored and disregarded Diehr, the Supreme Court case that aligns in both law and fact with the claims at issue. Had the court analyzed or considered Diehr, it is likely the outcome would have been different.

To the extent that one asserts the final method of utilizing the data distinguished claim 1 in Diehr from claim 1 in TDE, dependent claim 30 of the patent at issue in TDE cured this defect. Claim 30 recites: “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising using the state of the well operation to evaluate parameters and provide control for the well operation.” (emphasis added). Thus, the patent in TDE explicitly claimed the actual operation of the industrial machinery, just as the claim in Diehr.

The Federal Circuit stated that it was not considering separately the remaining claims of the patent, ostensibly because TDE did not “distinguish those claims from representative claim 1.” On the contrary, TDE argued claim 30 and related claims separately on precisely the ground that claim 30 “closed [the] loop” and required control of the well.

At this point, it is clear that neither the Federal Circuit nor the Supreme Court are going to step in to fix the wayward path of patent eligibility law. It will therefore be up to Congress to affirm what should be apparent to all: an oil rig is not an abstract idea.

Diehr – Claim 1* (US Application No. 05/602,463) TDE – Claim 1 (US Patent No. 6,892,812) Analysis
1 – Preamble A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising: An automated method for determining the state of a well operation, comprising: Both claims are directed to industrial processes where the underlying process (rubber molding or oil well drilling) existed prior to the invention
2 – Initial Data providing said computer with a database for said press, including at least,

natural logarithm conversion data (ln),

the activation energy constant (C) unique to each batch of said compound being molded, and

a constant (x) dependent upon the geometry of the particular mold of the press,

 storing a plurality of states for a well operation; Both claims require data to be provided prior to operation of the method to interpret data collected.
3 – New Data Collection initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of the press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,

constantly determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding,

constantly providing the computer with the temperature (Z),

 receiving mechanical and hydraulic data reported for the well operation from a plurality of systems; Both claims require collecting data from sources that are specific to the machinery being operated. Therefore, both claims require specific machinery, not just a general purpose computer.
4 – Data Analysis repetitively calculating in the computer, at frequent intervals during each cure, the Arrhenius equation for reaction time during the cure, which is

ln v = CZ + x

where v is the total required cure time,

repetitively comparing in the computer at said frequent intervals during the cure each said calculation of the total required cure time calculated with the Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time, and

 and determining that at least some of the data is valid by comparing the at least some of the data to at least one limit, the at least one limit indicative of a threshold at which the at least some of the data do not accurately represent the mechanical or hydraulic condition purportedly represented by the at least some of the data; and when the at least some of the data are valid, based on the mechanical and hydraulic data, Both claims analyze the data.

Although not apparent on the face of the claims, the underlying data analysis existed in the art for both claims. The Arrhenius equation was well known. Validating well drilling data against a limit was known in the art although its usefulness was disputed.
5 – Utilizing the Data opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates equivalence. automatically selecting one of the states as the state of the well operation. Both claims use the data generated in the industrial process. Selecting an individual state of a well operation in a necessary component of operating the well.

*Claim 1 is representative for both the application in Diehr and the patent in TDE.

Categories
Innovation Inventors Uncategorized

New CPIP Report: The Global Patent Pendency Problem

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"Why are some of the biggest fights about patent policy almost pointless in some places? Because in many countries, including some of the world’s most important emerging economies, it takes so long to get patents that the rights have little meaning.

The Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) released a report today entitled The Long Wait for Innovation: The Global Patent Pendency Problem. For the first time, this report documents a growing global problem of patent backlogs, which has long been the subject of anecdotal complaints.

In many countries, processing times are eating up much of the 20 year lifespan of patents. Patent offices are failing to keep up with the growth of the innovation economy and the resulting growth in patent applications. It’s a basic governance problem that threatens to undermine the global patent system.

Some of the report’s more surprising findings:

  • It now takes over 14 years on average to get a patent for mobile technology in Brazil. That goes back to days of flip-phones and the infancy of 3G!
  • In Thailand, it takes more than 16 years on average to get a life sciences patent. In fact, Thailand regularly issues patents with mere months or weeks of life left before expiration.

The news isn’t all bad. Japan has become much faster at examining patents in recent years. The U.S. still does a pretty good job — but it’s not the fastest. Interestingly, new leaders in global innovation are emerging, as Korea and China both now examine patents more promptly than the US.

Here are some further details from the new report.

Figure 1 below shows the average granted application age for selected countries 2008-2015 (in years).

patent-pendency-figure-1: Korea 2.8; China 2.9; USA 3.5; Australia 3.6; Egypt 3.8; Japan 5.3; EPO 5.5; India 6.3; Argentina 6.4; Thailand 10.0; Brazil 10.1

Also, our study finds that with regard to specific industries:

  • The issue of lengthy pendency times for patent applications is not confined to cutting edge industries.
  • Lengthy pendency is an issue for both the high tech and life sciences industries.
  • In many industries, some countries’ average wait times render patents largely futile.

Figure 2: Average age of granted life sciences patents 2011-2015 (in years).

patent-pendency-figure-2: China a little above 3; Korea a little farther above 3; USA and Australia around 4; Japan and Argentina closely under 6; Egypt just under 6; EPO slightly beyond 6; India about 7; Brazil just under 12; Thailand around 13

Figure 3: Average age of granted mobile technology patents 2011-2015 (in years).

patent-pendency-figure-3: Australia at 3; USA and Korea about 4; Egypt and China slightly beyond 4; Japan about 4.5; EPO a bit beyond 6; India about 7; Argentina about 8; Thailand just under 12; Brazil around 13.5

The Long Wait for Innovation: The Global Patent Pendency Problem

To read the report, please click here.

Categories
Innovation Internet Patent Law Patentability Requirements Software Patent Uncategorized

Federal Circuit Again Finds Computer-Implemented Invention Patent Eligible

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"In Tuesday’s McRO v. Bandai decision, the Federal Circuit has once again reversed a district court’s determination that a computer-implemented invention (aka “software patent”) was not patent eligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act. This continues the Federal Circuit’s recent trend of clarifying the Supreme Court’s two-step patent-eligibility test under Mayo and Alice. The first step asks whether the invention is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. If so, the second step then asks whether there is an “inventive concept” that transforms the concept into a patent-eligible invention. While the Supreme Court gave little guidance on what “directed to” and “inventive concept” mean in practice, the Federal Circuit’s recent decisions have made the Mayo-Alice test far less abstract—rather ironic, given that the test itself assesses abstractness.

This past May, the Federal Circuit held in Enfish that, in the software context, the “directed to” inquiry looks at whether “the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself.” Since the database claims at issue focused on specific improvements to computer capabilities, they were not “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under Section 101. Two months later in Bascom, the Federal Circuit stated that an “inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” And even though each software claim, related to filtering content on the internet, was “known in the art” when taken individually, the Federal Circuit held that the claims, in combination, were patent eligible because they transformed “the abstract idea of filtering content into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea.”

Adding to this recent line of cases upholding the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions, the Federal Circuit’s new opinion in McRO v. Bandai sheds even more light on the Section 101 analysis under the Mayo-Alice test. The invention at issue involved automated lip-syncing for computer-generated animation, which the district court held was drafted too broadly to be patent eligible. The Federal Circuit reversed, noting that courts “must look to the claims as an ordered combination,” even under the first step of the Mayo-Alice test. The Court of Appeals thus found that the proper analytical centerpiece was “whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Since the invention constituted a “combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results,” the Federal Circuit held it patent eligible under Section 101.

Several commentators have praised the Federal Circuit’s decision. Bob Sachs, who specializes in patentable subject matter as a partner at Fenwick & West, points out that the Federal Circuit, for the first time, has used preemption to find that the invention was not “directed to” patent-ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit here looked at preemption as part of the first step of the Mayo-Alice test, finding it relevant to whether the invention was “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept in the first place. As Sachs explains, the Federal Circuit “confirms Enfish’s holding that the improvement provided by the specific claim limitations can be considered” under the first step of the Mayo-Alice test. Moreover, Sachs notes that the “panel here makes clear that a demonstration of meaningful non-preemption is sufficient to establish that a claim is not ‘directed to’ an abstract idea, and thus eligible at step 1.”

Other observers, including Erich Andersen, VP and Deputy General Counsel at Microsoft, and Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog, have applauded the Federal Circuit for making the patent-eligibility analysis even more concrete in light of the Supreme Court’s rather abstract abstractness test in Mayo and Alice. If anything, the Federal Circuit here has not only built upon its prior precedents in Enfish and Bascom, it has tied them together by explaining that ordered combinations are relevant to both the first and second steps of the Mayo-Alice test. In the end, the patent eligibility of a computer-implemented invention appears far more settled than ever before–a great result for inventors of so-called “software patents.” The Federal Circuit’s decision is certainly a far cry from the supposed death-knell for “software patents” predicted by several commentators after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Alice.

Categories
Copyright Innovation International Law Uncategorized

The European Union Extends Copyright in Design—and Critics Balk (Yet Again)

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"The European Union recently decided to support the productive labors of designers by extending legal protections of their works in all areas of copyright, design, and patent law. Just as past legislation in the United States extending copyright terms was attacked with histrionic allegations that this was merely rent-seeking behavior by politically powerful corporations, the EU’s extension of protections for designs have come under similar attack. In the US, the specter of Disney trying to keep “the Mouse” alive has become a stale trope trotted out in opposition to any sensible copyright protections. Thus, it is not a surprise that the same trope is being used to attack the EU’s new law. In both cases, the attack misses its target because it is rooted in a false assumption about why property rights are secured to innovators and creators.

First, a word about the change in European Union law. This law is important both in making creators’ rights more effective throughout the EU and in bringing those rights closer in harmony with EU intellectual property (IP) law as a whole. As of July 28, 2016, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act extends the copyright for a designer’s work from 25 years to 70 years. (A six-month grace period in the UK has been granted to allow retailers to clear their stock of works that might be in question under the new Act.)

According to David Woods, a British lawyer, the EU’s changes aligned its copyright laws with those governing literature and music, providing uniform legal protections for all products of creative labors. Further, as Mr. Woods properly points out, “[t]he intent of the change to the legislation is to stop ‘exact’ copies of existing industrially designed artistic works”—a measure that he predicts will result in the closure of websites producing bargain basement, mass-produced copies of furniture, “as after all, this was their business model.” In sum, the legislation is directly aimed at illegal internet operations whose deliberate “business model” is to steal the fruits of the labors of those working in the design industries.

This copyright legislation secures to creators their highly-valued furniture design and thwarts piracy. As in the protection of all property rights, this spurs creativity and sustains livelihoods of professional creators. This is an example of how securing property rights of all types is a key requirement in a growing innovation economy and flourishing society.

Who could object to this? Surprisingly, some ersatz advocates for property rights, such as some libertarian academics like Alex Tabarrok. Tabarrok recently attacked the new EU design law with the tread-worn criticism that one hears from ideologically committed IP skeptics: “The point” of the revamped EU regulations, he declares, is “not to spur creativity but to protect the rents of a handful of people whose past designs turned out to have lasting value.” (One can hear the echoes of the rhetorically appealing, but false, claim that Disney was solely responsible for capturing Congress in keeping Mickey Mouse under legal wraps.)

In the abstract and without regard to recognizing how property rights function in the free market, Tabarrok’s criticism might seem plausible. But there’s a key mistake in it. The fallacy over which Tabarrok stumbles is assuming that the sole purpose of copyright is only to spur the creation of new works—no more, no less. According to Tabarrok, copyright is merely a carrot dangled in front of creators, who like Pavlov’s dog are supposed to be sparked into creative activity. Certainly, this is a function of IP rights, as it is with all property rights—promising to secure the fruits of productive labors, whether in a farm, books, or inventions, spurs people to create more of these valued assets.

But, like all property rights, copyright is not merely an incentive to create. All property rights serve the central function of securing to their owners the free use and disposition of the property, which is what leads to contracts and other exchanges in the free market that enhance everyone’s lives. Thus, copyright is vital to sustaining creators’ rights in reaping the rewards of their creative and valuable labors—when the works are disseminated in the market and purchased by consumers for their enjoyment and use.

Ironically, Tabarrok hints at this when he says, in what is meant to derogate copyright extension, that “the actual argument for copyright runs—We have lots of popular designs and we need to keep selling them at a high price.” Indeed, the argument for copyright as such could be restated in the same way: “we have lots of popular designs and we should be allowed to sell them at the price they command in the market,” irrespective of whether that price seems “high.”

Tabarrok looks to support his argument with the example of mid-century design classics, such as Charles Eames chairs and Arco lamps. These works have become familiar to the public through the sale of replicas sold by furniture retailers, such as Design Within Reach in the US and Swivel in the UK. Another classic example is the Barcelona chair, an exquisite and iconic work designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. While the officially licensed version of the Barcelona chair sells at the Conran Shop in the UK for around £5,755, a replica can be found on websites such as Swivel for around £455.

The stark difference in price illustrates vividly why high-level furniture and “lifestyle” designers such as Sir Terence Conran, and fashion designers such as Stella McCartney, support the new EU law: their professional livelihood—their ability to benefit from specialization and division of labor, which Adam Smith taught us is the key to a flourishing free market—rests on their ability to profit from the fruits of their creative labors in a commercial economy. Their right to sell their designs at the prices they seek in the marketplace does not preclude the design and dissemination of new, original articles of design that are inspired by the inimitable works of the mid-century moderns referenced by Tabarrok. But their property rights should preclude the sale of pirated knock-offs, which bring nothing to the table in terms of originality, inspiration, or hard work and are simply cheap copies.

It is not surprising that Tabarrok and others of his ilk continue to resort to ill-founded and unsubstantiated attacks upon IP rights on the dubious grounds that at some point these rights do not directly encourage innovation. This is highly misleading, because the same can be said about all property rights. This rhetorical move also makes it seem like Tabarrok is on the “pro” side of creation and innovation, which is dissembling rhetoric at its best.

Tabarrok’s critique, however, rests on a misconceived view of the function of property rights as solely incentivizing creation. Patents and copyrights are property rights, and like all property rights, they do not merely incentivize creation and innovation. They serve the important function of enabling creators to earn a livelihood from their productive labors by securing to them the same rights of all property owners to control the conditions in which their property is sold in the marketplace. This reflects the longstanding economic principle that a growing free market and flourishing society requires securing to property owners the fruits of their labors – surely a central tenet of libertarianism!

Categories
Innovation Legislation Patent Law Patent Litigation Uncategorized

Law Professors & Economists Urge Caution on VENUE Act in Letter to Congress

Today, 28 law professors, economists, and political scientists from across the nation submitted a letter to Congress expressing serious concerns about the recent push for sweeping changes to patent litigation venue rules, such as those proposed in the VENUE Act. The letter is copied below, and it can be downloaded here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816062

Although proponents for the VENUE Act argue that the concentration of patent cases in a few federal district courts is bad for the patent system, this letter explains that the VENUE Act does not solve this problem. Studies show that similar restrictions on venue would only shift this concentration from the Eastern District of Texas to a couple other judicial districts – the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California. These two other districts are recognized as more friendly to defendants, such as the high-tech companies and retailers lobbying heavily for the VENUE Act. The letter also explains that Congress also should be wary of acting, because the rates and patterns in patent litigation are very fluid. For example, the percentage of patent lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Texas relative to other districts is now declining substantially.

For these reasons, among others detailed in the letter, these academics conclude that Congress should adopt a wait-and-see approach on the VENUE Act. In the very least, until the patent-weakening effects of the America Invents Act’s new PTAB proceedings and recent Supreme Court decisions are better understood, Congress should be reluctant to enact legislation that will further weaken patent rights and potentially harm our innovation economy.

Read the letter below or download it here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816062

Letter to Congress from 28 Law Professors
& Economists Urging Caution on the VENUE Act

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, Chairman Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Conyers:

As legal academics, economists, and political scientists who conduct research in patent law and policy, we write to express our concerns about the recent push for sweeping changes to patent litigation venue rules, such as those proposed in the VENUE Act.[1] These changes would vastly restrict where all patent owners could file suit—contrary to the general rule that a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against a corporate defendant can select any court with jurisdictional ties to the defendant.[2]

Given the recent changes in the patent system under the America Invents Act of 2011 and judicial decisions that have effectively weakened patent rights,[3] we believe that Congress should adopt a cautious stance to enacting additional changes that further weaken patent rights, at least until the effects of these recent changes are better understood.

Proponents of amending the venue rules have an initially plausible-sounding concern: the Eastern District of Texas handles a large percentage of patent infringement lawsuits and one judge within that district handles a disproportionate share of those cases. The reality is that the major proponents of changing the venue rules are primarily large high-tech companies and retailers with an online presence sued in the Eastern District of Texas that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions.

Indeed, the arguments in favor of this unprecedented move to restrict venue do not stand up to scrutiny. Specifically:

  • Proponents for the VENUE Act argue that “[t]he staggering concentration of patent cases in just a few federal district courts is bad for the patent system.”[4] As an initial matter, data indicates that filings of patent lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas have dropped substantially this year—suggesting a cautious approach until trends have stabilized.[5]
  • Contrary to claims by its proponents, legislative proposals like the VENUE Act would not spread lawsuits throughout the country. In fact, these same proponents have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered).[6] Instead of widely distributing patent cases across numerous districts in order to promote procedural “fairness,” the VENUE Act would primarily channel cases into only two districts, which happen to be districts where it is considered much more difficult to enforce patent rights.[7]
  • Proponents for the VENUE Act have argued that the Eastern District of Texas is reversed more often by the Federal Circuit than other jurisdictions, claiming that in 2015 the Federal Circuit affirmed only 39% of the Eastern District of Texas’s decisions but affirmed over 70% of decisions from the Northern District of California and District of Delaware.[8] These figures are misleading: they represent only one year of data, mix trials and summary judgment orders, and fail to take into account differences in technology types and appeals rates in each district. In fact, a more complete study over a longer time period by Price Waterhouse Coopers found that the Eastern District of Texas affirmance rate is only slightly below the national average for all districts.[9]
  • The Federal Circuit recently confirmed in In re TC Heartland (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2016) that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a corporate defendant in a patent case—like corporate defendants in nearly all other types of cases—may be sued in any district in which personal jurisdiction lies. Constitutional due process requires a “substantial connection” between the defendant and forum.[10] Thus, contrary to its title and the claims of its proponents, the VENUE Act does not re-establish a “uniform” litigation system for patent rights by requiring substantial ties to the forum. Instead, the Act thwarts the well-established rule that plaintiffs can bring suit in any jurisdiction in which a corporate defendant has committed substantial violations of the law.[11]
  • The VENUE Act would raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall. In recent years, the America Invents Act’s prohibition on joinder of multiple defendants in a single lawsuit for violating the same patent has directly resulted in increased lawsuits and increased costs for patent owners.[12] Moreover, the VENUE Act would also result in potentially conflicting decisions in these multiple lawsuits, increasing uncertainty and administration costs in the patent system.
  • The VENUE Act encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants who seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the VENUE Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.

Innovators and their investors have long been vital to a flourishing innovation economy in the United States. Startups, venture capitalists, individual inventors, universities, and established companies often rely heavily on patents to recoup their extensive investments in both R&D and commercialization. We urge you to exercise caution before enacting further sweeping changes to our patent system that would primarily benefit large infringers to the detriment of these innovators and, ultimately, our innovation economy.

[1] Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act, S.2733, 114th Cong. (2016),
https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s2733/BILLS-114s2733is.pdf.

[2] See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). See generally Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 527 (1990) (“a plaintiff . . . has the option of shopping for a forum with the most favorable law”).

[3] These include, among others: (1) administrative procedures for invalidating patents created by the America Invents Act, which have had extremely high invalidation rates, leading one former federal appellate judge to refer to these procedures as “death squads,” and (2) several decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit that have drastically curtailed patent rights for many innovators. See Adam Mossoff, Weighing the Patent System: It Is Time to Confront the Bias against Patent Owners in Patent ‘Reform’ Legislation, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 24, 2016), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/adam-mossoff-weighing-the-patent-system/.

[4] Colleen Chien & Michael Risch, A Patent Reform We Can All Agree On, WASH. POST (June 3, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/11/20/why-do-patent-lawyers-like-to-file-in-texas/.

[5] See Michael C. Smith, “Hot But No Longer Boiling“ – EDTX Patent Case Filings Down almost Half; New Case Allocation and Procedures (No More Letter Briefing for SJ motions), EDTexweblog.com (July 21, 2016), http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2016/07/edtx-patent-case-filing-trends-new-case-allocation-andprocedures.html.

[6] Colleen Chien & Michael Risch, What Would Happen to Patent Cases if They Couldn’t all be Filed in Texas?, PATENTLY-O (March 11, 2016), http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/03/happen-patent-couldnt.html. This study also finds that 11% of cases would continue to be filed in the Eastern District of Texas, concentrating nearly two-thirds of all cases in three districts. See id. The authors of this study are presently expanding their investigation to an enlarged data set, which will also capture additional aspects of the VENUE Act. Neither the data nor their results are available yet. However, we have no reason to believe that the expanded data or analysis will produce results other than what has already been shown: a high concentration of patent cases in a small number of districts.

[7] See PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2015 Patent Litigation Study (May 2015) (“PWC Study”), http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2015-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf.

[8] Ryan Davis, EDTX Judges’ Love of Patent Trials Fuels High Reversal Rate, LAW360 (Mar. 8, 2016), http://www.law360.com/articles/767955/edtx-judges-love-of-patent-trials-fuels-high-reversal-rate.

[9] See PWC Study, supra note 7 (finding an average affirmance rate of 48% for all districts, compared to an affirmance rate of 42% for the Eastern District of Texas).

[10] See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).

[11] See generally Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (“[T]he plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”).

[12] See Christopher A. Cotropia, Jay P. Kesan & David L. Schwartz, Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), 99 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 649 (2014), http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/REVISEDSchwartzetal_MLR.pdf.