Apple won. Bigtime.
Their patents officially declared infringed by a jury, Apple walked away from the Apple/Samsung trial with an enormous award.
Not quite sure what I think of a billion-dollar patent infringement award. I agree, of course, that patents should be enforced, and infringers should be held liable for their infringements, but a billion dollars?? I guess it hits Samsung hard enough in the wallet to be felt, but GEEZ.
The US Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announces that it is in the process of modernizing electronic patent application filing to allow applicants to submit electronic patent applications in a text format. Prior to submission, we can (and should) expunge metadata from an appropriately formatted text file. We can also run an optional analytics report to ensure the abstract length is correct, generate an automated claims tree, and identify any errors in claims numbering. Based on information submitted in the Application Data Sheet (ADS), the USPTO will be able to generate maps that show relationships between patent applications, or patent family maps.
Hurray!!!!! It’s about time that this arbiter of high technology gets around to joining the 21st Century in terms of its patent filing requirements.
Up until the time when the new file format actually hits the eCommerce site, the requirement for online patent filing has been and continues to be .pdf only. Even that is a decided improvement over the BeforeTime; before .pdf, filing was done in this weird MS Word amalgam thing that ran only on Windows (I’m a Mac geek) and gave me so many problems that I generally filed on paper.
They’re also replacing their current fee collection system to (1) expand self-service capabilities and (2) further integrate financial information with the patent and trademark businesses. The fee collection system replacement effort is in the beginning stages, and while they are looking to other successful eCommerce sites for best practices, they believe that USPTO customers may have unique needs. In the next few months, they will reach out to practitioners to solicit user input.
Again, it’s about time.
Seems Harvard has encoded data — a lot of data — in a DNA strand.
I’m not sure what I think of this. Is it WAY cool technology? You bet. However, the thought that a life-force molecule like DNA can be used to store 700 terabytes in one drop? Hmmm… WHAT data will now get stored? WHO controls the storage? HOW can data stored be expunged? WHEN will the data deteriorate or be eliminated? WHERE will the technology lead us? WHY do we do this to ourselves?
Sometimes, technology advances at such a fast pace that we plunge ahead without considering the ramifications. This particular technology has ramifications that boggle the mind; data storage is only a drop in the bucket. To paraphrase Michael Crichton, who said it best in Jurassic Park: “Sometimes we did it because we could without stopping to think about whether we should.”
Maybe this is one of those times.
Sometimes the Other Two types of patent get short shrift in the mainstream patent press. Not so this week. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has just decided In re: Walter F. Beineke, Dockets 2011-1459, -1460, ___ USPQ ____. Beineke appealed from the USPTO’s rejection of his claims for patent protection for varieties of white oak trees that exhibit stronger genetic traits than do other trees of that species that he found in a yard not his own. Those trees are about 115 years old, making proof of human intervention in their breeding — um — difficult. Beineke couldn’t show to the Examiner’s satisfaction that the trees were “cultivated.”
The patentability of plants is established under 35 USC 161, which states:
Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Beineke argued that, under 161, a human being need not participate in the creation of the new plant; the USPTO argued that, under 161, no plant is patentable unless a human being participate in its creation. This clash led to two rejected patent applications, two BPAI appeals and, finally, to the consolidated appeal before the CAFC.
The CAFC held that a plant must have been created by human activity and it must have been created by its inventor. Thus, a plant, it is now clear, cannot be patented unless there has been some human intervention in the breeding of that plant. The Court says, “[T]he … Act was not meant to include plants discovered by chance by plant explorers and the like.”
On September 16, 2012, the America Invents Act is slated to change who is entitled to the title of “applicant” in U.S. national patent applications, removing the requirement that inventors be named as applicants solely for the purposes of US designation. This impacts applicants who have filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and brings the US patent system further into alignment with those of the rest of the PCT signatory nations.
Congratulations to the new USPTO Law School Pilot Program participants! The newly selected schools are:
These schools join the law schools that are current members of the program. These existing schools are:
The law school pilot program promotes affordable intellectual property (IP) legal services to individuals and small businesses. Law schools participating in the program provide IP legal services to clients on a pro bono basis.
The USPTO accepts law schools into the program that demonstrate strong clinic programs. Overall the schools must possess solid IP curricula supporting a participating student’s hands-on learning in the program; a commitment to networking in the community; comprehensive pro bono services; and excellent case management systems. Students in the IP programs can expect to draft and file patent and trademark applications and respond to Office Actions. Each law school clinic program must meet and maintain the requirements for USPTO certification in order for student practitioners to practice before the USPTO.
That’s a surprise; I expected CJ Roberts to vote to strike down the Affordable Health Care Act. I guess he’s more of a switch hitter than I thought.
The Court upheld the Affordable Healthcare Act’s individual mandate not under the Commerce Clause — it acknowledges that not doing something can have no effect on commerce — but under the Taxing Clause.
This is really weird to say, but I actually agree with the dissent on this (although it’s a rare case that I agree with the conservative end of the bench on). Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy write in the dissent, “The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system. That obstacle can be overcome by granting funds to the States, allowing them to administer the program. That is fair and constitutional enough when the States freely agree to have their powers employed and their employees enlisted in the federal scheme. But it is a blatant violation of the constitutional structure when the States have no choice.
“The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in
mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding.”
While this Act may benefit millions by requiring health insurance for all (and by providing an affordable option, paid through taxes, for those who cannot afford private insurance), I’m not sure this is really the way to go. I don’t think we can afford the fiscal cost of insuring millions through the federal system under this program, and I disagree with the new taxes and the new limitations in quantity and quality we face in healthcare.
Socialized medicine, here we come. Let’s look to England for our model (we all know how — um — successful English healthcare is…).
On September 12, 2011, what purports to be the largest copyright infringement suit in history was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. At stake are copyrights in digitized works of authorship. Filed by several authors’ guilds from several nations, the suit takes to task the University of Michigan, the University of California, the University of Wisconsin, Cornell University, and the HathiTrust, a partnership formed in 2008 “to contribute to the common good by collecting, organizing, preserving, communicating and sharing the record of human knowledge.” In other words, HathiTrust’s mission is to copy and distribute works of authorship. They have a digital archive of library materials, many of which are protected by copyright under the laws of the United States and other countries.
The universities and HathiTrust, of course, argue fair use. The works in question are so-called “orphan works” — works whose authors cannot be found. Only the University of Michigan has announced that it has suspended the digitization of potentially copyrighted works pending the outcome of the case.
Plaintiffs’ choice of venue is not accidental. They could have brought suit in Wisconsin, Michigan, California, or in any district where the HathiTrust has a member. However, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York encompasses New York City, home to the publishing industry. This court is well versed in copyright law and has a large volume of precedent cases that are favorable to copyright holders.
There was a procedural hiccup in the case not long ago; some defendants, who exist far away from New York City, wanted their depositions to be taken in their own home territory. The attorneys have settled that matter out, but the consequence of this skirmish is that the close of discovery has been pushed back until June 8. This tightens the schedule for summary judgment. US District Judge Harold Baer wanted the summary judgment motions to be fully briefed by July 20. I don’t know if that’s still reasonable, since allowing the necessary time for each side to respond to the other’s papers means that the motions must be filed in mid-June, which is too close for comfort to the end of discovery.
Since Judge Baer has taken July off (Article III judges can do that…), it might be wisest to allow the parties to take July to brief their motions. I doubt that will happen, but it would likely result in a much better product for the Judge to rule on when he comes back.
Meanwhile, this behemoth of a case (which is closely related to the Google digital library case) rumbles on, with next due dates in mid-June when summary judgment motions are due.
Victor Willis, the former lead singer of the Village People, won a victory copyright case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In Scorpio Music S.A., et al v. Victor Willis, publisher Scorpio Music said Willis was not entitled to terminate grants of his copyright interests in such hits as “Y.M.C.A.” and “In The Navy” under Section 203(a)(1) of the Copyright Act. The judge thought differently: Willis had the right to terminate his grants notwithstanding that there were other co-authors of the works at issue.
The music industry needs to take a deep gulp of air until such time as the case is appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The ramifications of this are huge.
Last week, a unanimous US Supreme Court decided Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, interestingly citing the 150-year-old O’Reilly v. Morse which invalidated Samuel Morse’s attempt to get a patent to cover “electro-magnetism, however developed, for marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, letters, at any distance, being a new application of that power of which I claim to be the first inventor or discoverer.”
In Mayo, the patent was for a method to help doctors determine the right drug dose to give different patients, specifically patients with autoimmune disorders, but the Court said this was an innovation based on natural laws, so it can’t be protected by patent.
Although “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection,” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 187 (1981), “…the steps in the claimed processes (apart from the natural laws them selves) involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field.” slip op. at 4.
The laws of nature still cannot be patented.