Patent trolls

Just your friendly neighborhood patent troll.  Beautiful image courtesy of WIPO illustrator, Bob MacNeil

Just your friendly neighborhood patent troll. Beautiful image courtesy of WIPO illustrator, Bob MacNeil

A post from our student blogger Roberto

Staying up to date on intellectual property news is tough.  In a field centered on the advancement of technology it’s no surprise that there are things always going on.  Doing a quick search on Google for “Intellectual Property” returned more than 15,500,000 results in the “news” category alone.  Lately, one of the most trendy and talked about topics is “patent trolls”, which are also known as “non-practicing entities” (NPEs) because of their tendency to never actually produce a product covered by the patent, and “patent assertion entities” (PAEs).  The term “troll” is pretty descriptive and, even without any further understanding of the concept, one immediately conjures up a negative image in their head.  For instance, some may imagine a mammoth forest green creature with warts the size of golf balls covering them from head to toe whom is wielding a massive sand barbaric wooden club.  Taken in a patent law context, that creature with warts is often a corporation swinging around the weight of its potentially damaging patent portfolio.  In many instances, patent trolls are corporations that acquire and own patents simply for the purpose of chasing down potential “infringers” and doing all they can to get the most money possible out of them.  At first, many of these trolls send the infringing entity a letter asking for a reasonable royalty to continue doing whatever it is the troll believes is infringing their patent.  Now, either the “infringing” company gives in to the troll’s demands or they do nothing and wait for the troll to potentially file a lawsuit against them.  Often times after not getting their royalty, the trolls file lawsuits which, in the end, cost companies on average around $2M.  While some large corporations can easily absorb that cost many small startups cannot and are permanently crippled as a result.

While patent trolls have existed for a long time, by some accounts since the turn of the 20th century, there has been a recent push to reform current laws to combat patent trolls.  On March 18, 2015, there was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on patent reform titled The Impact of Abusive Patent Litigation Practices on the American Economy.  At this hearing a large amount of focus was placed on finding ways to eliminate trolls from existence.  The troll destroyers, as I have termed them, argue that patent trolls have cost American businesses a lot of money.  Further, many fear that patent trolls could attack vulnerable small startups and force them out of business when they don’t have the funds to enter into a lawsuit or pay the royalties demanded by the trolls.  It is no surprise that over the past four years ten bills that attempt to combat patent trolls have appeared before Congress without any of them getting through.  These bills have not only met a tough audience, much of congress is not particularly well versed in patent law or related issues, but also has met a battalion of resilient and powerful patent troll lobbyists.  Many of these past reforms focused on increasing the penalties on trolls for losing patent infringement lawsuits and the same plan of attack is still being pursued by some Senators today.

Given all of the hatred on the patent trolls, by people like the troll destroyers, it makes sense to ask yourself how anyone could possibly be in favor of patent trolls.  Well take a journey with me as I transform you into just that, a patent troll abolitionist and war chief.  Imagine yourself coming up with a great idea for a brand new windshield for your car.  This windshield is amazing, it’s hydrophobic causing rain and water bead up and roll off it, it’s internally heated by invisible resistance heating elements that melt snow on contact and prevent ice from forming on it, it has an integrated and invisible photovoltaic cell array that charges the car’s battery, and it attaches to the cars computer to regulate the temperature of the glass so that it never gets fogged up.  After developing the product and working with your friendly neighborhood patent agent you are granted a patent on your awesome new windshield.  You call all your family members and friends and ask them to pitch in money to help you get a company started.  After investing all that time and money you finally get your first sale.  Sales over the next few months are slow, and you decide to approach Ford about licensing the windshield from you for use in future vehicles.  Much to your surprise, it is almost impossible to figure out who to talk to and how to get them to listen.  After pitching your idea to several “VPs” they tell you that they aren’t interested and send you on your way.  Discouraged, you decide to continue to try and sell it on your own, figuring that your awesome product would catch on and people would buy them once they saw how great they are.  One weekend you are sitting at home watching the commercials during the Packers game when you see it.  A commercial for the brand new Ford Raptor, a truck that has a never-before-seen windshield that has all the same features as your prized creation.  You are in an utter state of shock.  You run to the computer and do a quick online search.  You immediately notice that the windshield is identical to yours and it is getting all kinds of publicity causing orders for the new truck to go through the roof.

This is almost identical (minus the awesome windshield idea I came up with) to the stories of many inventors, including a U.S. veteran named Fred Sawyer, whose amazing story can be read here.

What do you do?  You could try to bring legal action, but that takes funding you simply don’t have. You would need to have the funding to compete with a mega-corporation that plans to simply out spend you.  What is most likely to happen is that you lose out and go out of business.  Today, inventors can turn to patent trolls to team up and go after that big corporation using the funding the patent trolls have.  Without someone like the patent trolls the small inventors would have no chance at competing in arena where the price of entry is north of $2M.   Without trolls there would be no way to practically enforce patent rights because of these financial realities.  Still, inventors pay a heavy price for partnering with the trolls, often forfeiting 95% of their patents value after winning a patent infringement case.  Even if the inventors decide to go to battle alone the act of waging war on an all-powerful corporation often earns them the title of “patent troll” as well.

So, now that you have seen both sides of the coin, what are we to make of patent trolls as a whole?  I believe the term “patent troll” is misleading and that the trolls are actually divided into two camps.  One camp that wants to pillage every possible piece of intellectual property and make as much money as possible through downright exploitation of the system, these are the trolls that (almost) everyone agrees we need to address in some way.  The other is the camp of trolls that exist to provide balance and security for the small inventors against the big corporations that they otherwise would have no chance against (included in this camp are the single inventor “trolls” going at it on their own).  Any potential patent reform needs to be wary of these two distinct camps and the effects any legislation would have on this precarious balance of power.  Take away too much of the troll’s power and with it goes the security of the single inventor.  Figuring out an answer that protects inventors while combating wasteful litigation will be difficult but is necessary to preserve the integrity of our patent system.

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

A post from our student blogger Sarah Goodman

During the Fall semester our MSPL class has attended several presentations on the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This Act was signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2011. The America Invents Act changes some aspects about patent law in the United States and also includes new material. Most of the changes have already been implemented, and the final modifications will be implemented on March 16, 2013. Presented in this blog post are a couple of the major changes.

One of the best-known adjustments to patent law is the shift from the current First-to-Invent system to a First-Inventor-to-File system. This change will come into effect on March 16, 2013. This adjustment is based on the change to 35 U.S.C. §102 which states that a U.S. patent will not be granted if “the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” The filing date of the earliest patent application to which a U.S. patent application claims the benefit of priority is considered the effective filing date. This provision eliminates the legal concept of an “invention date.” It is important to remember that an individual cannot claim inventor status unless that individual actually invented the material claimed in the patent application.

Another important change was implemented on September 16, 2011 concerning the best mode requirement. The best mode is defined as the preferred mode for practicing the invention. The disclosure of the best mode ensures that the inventor fully enables the public to have access to the best method of using the invention. Previously, lack of disclosure of the best mode was a basis to invalidate or cancel an issued U.S. patent. The America Invents Act has modified 35 U.S.C. §282 by removing the lack of a best mode as a rationale for potential U.S. patent invalidity. However, 35 U.S.C. §112, which addresses the requirement for inclusion of the best mode has not been amended. Therefore, patent applicants must still comply with the requirement to disclose the best mode contemplated by the inventor for carrying out the invention.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will affect U.S. patent applications that are filed on or after the dates of specific law implementation. Therefore U.S. patent practitioners will need to have a working knowledge of the laws before and after the new changes of the America Invents Act.

Coastal Opportunities for Patent Agents

Job prospects for patent professionals are about to get a lot more… coastal.

Plans for the Silicon Valley office of the USPTO have begun to firm up. Last week, acting U.S. Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank told city officials that the office will open within “12 to 18 months,” employ 125 people, and be “the biggest modernization of the patent office we’ve ever seen.”

The news comes just in time, considering that Silicon Valley is ground zero for high-profile patent lawsuits. Apparently in the world of computer software and hardware, with engineers playing musical chairs between companies, it’s all too easy to step on each others’ toes and infringe on intellectual property.

But the new satellite offices should help curb that. Says Rebecca Blank, “these new offices give us the ability to do higher-quality patents, and could mean fewer legal challenges.”

And not to mention less plane tickets for patent agents headed to to Virginia, home to the original USPTO. It’s fair to say the Patent Office has been all a-flutter about the new offices, which in addition to Silicon Valley, are slated to open in Denver, Dallas, and Detroit, which will be the first to open and was actually dedicated just last week!

Patent Litigation Abuzz in Silicon Valley

It is no exaggeration to say that what’s stirring the pot in Silicon Valley right now isn’t the latest i-Gadget—it’s tech patents. Licensing intellectual property is a big money-maker out there, where something as intangible as an algorithm is often the hottest commodity. Protection of IP is the sign of the technological times—consider that a majority of the half-million patents applied for each year are tech-related.

And a behemoth tech-company like Google, which has quickly become a part of our everyday lives, (and profits very well from that fact), is not surprisingly taking the lion’s share of patent-related lawsuits.  Fresh from litigation with Oracle, a software company that claimed Android devices infringed on its Java programming, Google is now back in court with IP Engine, concerning the very web search algorithm that made Google, well, Google.

Because the 14-year history of this particular algorithm is perhaps more complex than how it works, here’s the IP Engine/Google fiasco in a nutshell according to Fast Company: in 1998 engineers Andrew Lang and Donald Kosak patented an algorithm that allowed search engines to scour the web and filter the results. While the patent was bought and sold since, it is now owned by IP Engine, who claims Google and other companies like AOL have used the algorithm and therefore owe a royalty. Given that Google alone makes 38 billion annually, a mere fraction of that would be a tidy sum.

As is common with many patent lawsuits, the devil is in the details, or in this case, the definitions. “Scanning” is the term in question—whether it refers to the traditional hand-visor surveying to pick out a particular thing, or the more technical method of “spidering” that is the M.O. of many a search engine.

This is, of course, just the groundwork being laid out as the case goes to trial. We’ll have more for you as the drama unfolds.

Steve Jobs Patent Exhibit at Smithsonian

Though the exhibit was at the USPTO offices for some time, The Patents and Trademarks of Steve Jobs: Art and Technology that Changed the World has made it’s way to the hallowed halls of the Smithsonian and will be there for about a month longer, ending July 8th.

If a wall of patents doesn’t seem like museum material, consider the impact those inventions had on culture around the world, and the fact that the objects of those patents earned Apple assets that eclipse the national treasury.

And of course, Jobs was known for his artistry as well as his ingenuity. According to NPR, the now seemingly-antiquated design for the first flat-screened iMac, that seems to hover over it’s rounded base was inspired by sunflowers his wife grew in their Palo Alto garden.

And if you can’t get to D.C., here’s a fascinating interactive look at Jobs’ patents at the New York Times, everything from Apple packaging to product prototypes that never made it to the showroom floor.

Patent Pros Highly Sought After

How’s this for a start to a recent article in the New York Times:

“Patent lawyers are in such demand that their specialty may account for more than 15 percent of law firm job openings while representing just 3 percent of lawyers in the United States.”

Yes, intellectual property is booming in the U.S., thanks in part to the America Invents Act, which allows for more patents to be applied for and issued.

One of the central hubs for patent careers is in the San Francisco Bay area, where a close proximity to Silicon Valley  the demand for protect all the innovation coming from the myriad tech businesses there. Hip, temperate, and cosmopolitan, with plenty of fine restaurants and endless cultural happenings—not a bad place to start a career…

Interestingly, the article also states that overall hires “among law school graduates continue to weaken… the employment rate among American law school graduates fell 4.7 percent last year” according to the National Association of Law Placement.

Which is another plus for patent professionals, who with the help of a Masters in Patent Law from Notre Dame, need only to pass the patent bar to be able to prepare patent applications and administer cases with the USPTO—all without the time and expense spent at law school.

In keeping with the haute opportunities available to those with a patent background, it seems if the world of law were the world of cuisine, it’s fair to say that patent professionals would be the succulent black truffle mushroom: rare, in great demand, and able to fetch a premium price!

Google / Oracle patent lawsuit at fever pitch

The Google/Oracle patent lawsuit is a bell-ringer of a bout when it comes to IP and technology. And if you happen to use an Android device, you’re holding Exhibit A in your hot little hand.

The gist of it: Oracle claims Google infringed on two patents related to its Java programming platform. (Remember that coffee cup that always pops up wanting you to update? Turns out, it’s very important.)

Not only does Oracle claim infringement, they say they were willfully infringed upon—that Google knew it was lifting patented technology when building the Android platform. This question of willfulness has a heavy bearing on the amount of reparations should the jury rule in Oracle’s favor.

The nuts and bolts of the case are, in essence, a technical he-said, she-said. Oracle claims Android works like Java, Google says it works differently. If you know your code and programming, you can check out the specifics at Wired.

The spectacle, however, is the courtroom drama and corporate intrigue—Oracle makes its case for “willful” infringement on the fact that one Android engineer worked with Java at Sun Microsystems (which Oracle bought, along with all their patents), and another is listed as co-inventor on one of the patents in contention.

The case also has a bearing on the intellectual protection status of API’s—application programming interfaces—basically, the specifications that allow software to “talk” to each other. The Oracle/Google case could set a precedent on whether API’s are subject to copyright.

And the most recent twist—a juror has been dismissed, leaving just 11 people who are now deliberating on the outcome.

For tech business, patents are power

You may not know it, but patents are working behind the scenes in virtually every part of our lives, including everyone’s favorite social network.

In advance of their initial public stock offering, Facebook recently bought a set of 750 patents from IBM, with the apparent aim of bolstering its patent portfolio in defense of a infringement lawsuit brought on by Yahoo.  The patent infringements are said to be linked to advertising technologies, as well as customization and messaging features.

Spokespersons for Facebook say they intend to “vigorously defend ourselves,” as an unfavorable outcome “could be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations.” It is speculated that some of the patents Facebook purchased may actually be licensed to Yahoo and essential to their operation, which would put Facebook in a state of advantage during the pending litigation.

Though the dust has yet to settle, this all goes to show that in a world where business is increasingly intertwined with technology, patents are power. And just as powerful as patents are, so is an education that provides the valuable skills required to work with them.

USPTO to open offices in Detroit, elsewhere

Proof that the patent field is booming: this spring the US Patent and Trademark Office is opening a brand new branch in Detroit! The office opens this July in a historic riverfront building and will provide over 100 new high-paying positions, a number that could expand over time if the new Regional Patent Office model proves successful.

The new Detroit office is just the beginning—the USPTO has engaged in President Obama’s Nationwide Workforce Program, and plans to hire more patent examiners and seek out additional technical expertise in locations across the country. There’s an apparent backlog of patent applications in Washington, and several more regional offices are slated to open up around the country to remedy the situation. That’s good news for new patent professionals—who’ll now be able to take their pick of location!

Detroit was singled out for the first phase due to the high percentage of scientists and engineers in the workforce, access to major research universities, and a high volume of patenting activity in the area. It seems cars aren’t the only thing that’s “imported from Detroit”—the city is a wellspring of newfound innovation and vitality.

And if that wasn’t enough, here’s a fun fact: not only does the state of Michigan rank 7th in patents issued in the United States, but if Michigan were a country, it would rank 9th in the world.

Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, says the regional expansion outside Washington is “part of our ongoing effort to recruit and retain the nation’s top professionals.” Will you be among them? Apply to Notre Dame’s Masters in Patent Law and be a part of the country’s resurgence of invention and innovation!