Category: Patent

SIPO reports dramatic increase in patent applications for 2008

Posted on by Delain Law Office

I met Lynn Wang, a Chinese IP attorney who works in California, at a NYS Bar Association Intellectual Property Section meeting at Lake George’s Sagamore Resort a couple of years ago. Since that time, I’ve gotten weekly updates from her on the status of IP law in China.

Her latest tells me:

“According to the latest statistics on China’ State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) website, China received 828,328 patent applications last year, including the applications for invention, utility model and design, an increase of 19.4 percent year-on-year.

“The SIPO received 289,838 applications for invention in 2008?up 18.2 percent over the last year. Among them, 194,579 applications for invention were filed by Chinese applicants; a yearly increase of 27.1%. 95,259 applications for invention were filed by foreign applicants; a yearly increase of 3.4%.

“In 2008, totally 411,982 applications were granted, an increase of 17.1 percent year-on-year.”

China is quickly catching up to the United States in terms of the number of patent applications filed. They’re not there yet, but for a country whose IP protection has been nonexistent for millenia, they’re doing really very well. Patent protection (and trademark and copyright protection, too) represents a real shift in the Chinese people’s paradigm. The expression of ideas in China have been free for the taking forever; now, thanks to Western influence and market demand, the expression of ideas isn’t free for the taking anymore.

I visited the SIPO (the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office) website (http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/) and learned that 2009 is the first time for Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to give equal stress in his Government Work Report to the Three Strategies for China:

  • IP strategy
  • rejuvenation of China through science and education, and 
  • reinvigorating of China through human resources development . 

This equal stress on all three initiatives will further promote the development of China’s IP cause.

Thanks to Lynn for keeping me updated on the development of intellectual property in the country that covers 1/4 of the world’s land mass.

Plaintiffs file for writ of certiorari: In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation

Posted on by Delain Law Office

On March 23, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari in the Cipro litigation seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The antitrust case involves so-called “reverse payment” settlements of patent infringement cases between innovator and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment holding that no antitrust violation occurred, stating that “any anti-competitive effects caused by the Agreements were within the exclusionary zone of the patent.” It answers the question whether case “under the Hatch-Waxman Act … a settlement agreement between a patent holder and a generic manufacturer violates the antitrust laws.” The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that any anti-competitive effects caused by the settlement agreements between the defendants were within the exclusionary zone of the patent, and thus could not be redressed by federal antitrust law.

Patentee Bayer and the generic manufacturers (“B&G”) of CIPRO®, a popular antibiotic, entered into a total of four settlement agreements to end patent infringement litigation in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. These agreements, which were entered into before the Hatch-Waxman Act was modified to require settlement agreements to be filed with the FTC and Department of Justice for review, had Bayer, the patentee, paying the generic suppliers to not manufacture or distribute their generic drug until a certain date.

B&G got themselves sued over these agreements in the Eastern District of New York by several trade unions and HMOs, claiming that these agreements restricted free trade, inhibited competition, and thereby violated the Hatch-Waxman Act. The District Court issued a summary judgment that the agreements are fine under the Act (they do not violate antitrust because they fall within the exclusionary provisions of the patent), plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision.

The US Supreme Court now has the case; their options are (1) deny cert, which would let the Federal Circuit’s ruling stand, or (2) grant cert, which would have the Nine Wise Ones review the case and act on the Federal Circuit’s ruling.

Meanwhile, the question stands unanswered: Do reverse payments of this type violate the antitrust laws of the United States? In other words, who trumps … the exclusionary patent laws (mandated by the US Constitution) under which the agreements were made, or the antitrust laws promoting free trade and fair market pricing of goods and services? I doubt the High Court will phrase its Questions Presented in that manner (if they grant cert), but answering this question is the gist of why the Court should grant cert on this case.

The Federal Circuit’s opinion is online here as a .pdf; the Supreme Court is not yet showing the case in its docket.

The USPTO's Website

Posted on by Delain Law Office

Found at www.uspto.gov , the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s website provides its users with a huge amount of information about the Office and about patents and trademarks.

The site includes search engines for:

  • Issued patents (text entries from 1976, scanned entries before that)
  • Published patent applications (from 2001)
  • Trademarks – registered and applied-for

There are filing mechanisms for both patent and trademark applications; the mechanisms even work reasonably well.

I send clients to this site regularly; it is readable by those who do not possess the knowledge of an IP practitioner and those clients who actually go to the site come back with awe in their voices, telling me that they didn’t know there was that much information out there.

The home page is always a running flow of USPTO news. Two items in today’s flow are worth mentioning here.

  • The National Inventors’ Hall of Fame has found a home at the USPTO’s museum. This exhibit is well worth visiting. Find the full story here.
  • April 6, 2009 is Design Day at the USPTO. Starting at 9 a.m., design patent examiners, design managers, independent inventors and patent attorneys and agents will have the opportunity to exchange ideas, information, and knowledge about design patent practice. Hon. Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals) is the scheduled keynote speaker. Find registration information here, and find the agenda here. This event is FREE, but you have to pre-register.

PCT Signs 140th Member Country

Posted on by Delain Law Office

Chile is that long, thin sliver on the western edge of South America

WIPO-Administered Treaties.

It hasn’t even been added to the list on the internet as of this writing, but Chile has deposited its instrument of accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the administrator of the PCT, and will become the 140th PCT Contracting State. The PCT will enter into force in Chile on June 2, 2009.

Welcome, Chile, to the Wonderful World of the PCT!

The map, btw, is from GOOGLE Maps. Chile is that long, narrow strip of a country along the western shore of South America. Just west of Argentina. Argentina, btw, is currently in the process of signing the PCT, but has not yet deposited its instrument of accession with WIPO.

Nominees Sought for National Medal of Technology and Innovation (deadline is 29 May 2009)

Posted on by Delain Law Office

National Medal of Technology and Innovation

Nomination Guidelines.

According to the USPTO’s website:

“The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking nominations for the nation’s highest honor for technological achievement. The USPTO administers the NMTI program on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. The deadline for nominations is May 29, 2009.

“The nominations can be made for an individual, a team of up to four individuals, a company or a division of a company. The honorees are chosen for their outstanding contributions to the nation’s economic, environmental and social well-being through the development and commercialization of technological products, processes and concepts; technological innovation; and development of the country’s technological manpower.”

 

Nominate yourself if you want. Or nominate the inventor in the next lab. Or, if she’s an inventor, nominate your next-door neighbor. It’s quite an honor for an inventor to receive this medal. The contribution for which the medal is given DOES need to be something that really helps out in the art in which the invention lies. Examples of prior winners include Steve Jobs; Steve Wozniak; IBM; Industrial Light & Magic; Ralph Baer (the guy who basically invented video gaming); eBay; and others of like contributory scale. The President of the US awards the medal every year.

National Inventors Hall of Fame – 2009 Inductees

Posted on by Delain Law Office

NATIONAL INVENTORS HALL OF FAME ANNOUNCES 2009 INDUCTEES.

OK, ladies. Take a look at this listing. See if our gender is … um … underrepresented. The one gender-ambiguous name is Jean Hoerni (1924-1997) … and Jean was a he.

I find the lack of women on the 2009 National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees’ list somewhat disturbing; I’m not sure what trend or trends it displays. Should women complain? And, if we should, to whom should we speak? To the judges at the National Inventors’ Hall of Fame? Or to the teachers who traditionally encourage girls to head toward the softer sciences and the humanities while steering boys toward engineering and hard sciences?

In prior years, women have been inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, but the gender ratio leans heavily toward men in every year.

I find it hard to believe that women don’t change the world as much as men do. A woman invented:

  • the first electronic telephone central office (US Patent No. 3,623,007);
  • wrinkle-free cotton (US Patent No. 3,432,252)
  • adjustable bed lamps (US Patent No. 1,750,993)

Each of these, and many, many other, inventions changed the world in its own art.

I’d like to see one year (or maybe one year per decade) when one of the requirements for induction into the National Inventors’ Hall of Fame is two X chromosomes.

Microsoft Wins 10,000th Patent

Posted on by Delain Law Office

Microsoft Wins 10,000th Patent – Channel News by CRN and VARBusiness.

US Patent No. 7,479,950, issued to Microsoft, applies to Surface tabletop computing technology, which provides instant access to digital information in a novel, useful and nonobvious way, the goal being to make interactions between the physical and virtual worlds more seamless.

Microsoft is famous for aggressive protection of its intellectual property; that they now have 10,000 patents (and counting) backs that position up. They spend about $8 billion per year on R&D and regularly haul out the guns in patent warfare; their current target is open-source software, which they claim violates at least 40 Microsoft patents.

This is why Microsoft stock does well. This is why they survive, despite the worldwide snarl that the name engenders. Microsoft is a prime example of a company that has leveraged nothing but intellectual property into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.

And to think it all started with a college drop-out.

How do I choose a patent attorney or agent?

Posted on by Delain Law Office

How do I choose a patent attorney?.

This is a nice article on how to choose a patent attorney. Patent agents should be considered here, too (a patent agent, fyi, is an individual, not an attorney, who has been admitted to practice before the US Patent & Trademark Office).

Patent attorneys (or agents) are not one-size-fits-all. We have different interests, different areas of expertise, different strengths, different weaknesses. The trick is to find the particular attorney or agent whose combination of strengths, weaknesses, expertise and interests best meets your needs.

Doing a bit of research on the attorney or agent you’re thinking about hiring is simply due diligence. A patent is a major investment; make sure you’ve got someone who can take your matter and do the best possible job with it.

Bear in mind that if your matter involves any representation outside of the US Patent & Trademark Office, you will need an attorney; a patent agent cannot represent anyone (except him/herself) in court.

Patent Lens Home

Posted on by Delain Law Office

Patent Lens Home.

Patent searching is an art. This is one spot that touts its search engine for patents worldwide.

Different parts of the world have different patent laws; the page contains links to explanations of patent rights in different parts of the world. The site promotes “[t]ransparency of the worldwide patent system [as] an international public good.”

If you’re interested in searching out your invention, this site is likely to be a good starting place.