Archive for patents
Patents: Sucking the Lifeblood from the Economy??
Posted by: | CommentsThere’s an anti-patent sentiment in some parts of the public that argues that they are destroying the economy rather than helping. There is particular resentment against non-practicing entities (NPEs), often called trolls, for owning (and typically acquiring large numbers of) patents for products and processes that they don’t actually use themselves. That sentiment, naturally, is most likely to be held by large companies who want to make a lot of money by making and selling whatever they want without some little guy’s patent getting in the way. Trolls with their patents are, we are told, sucking the lifeblood out of the economy. They are especially deadly in the areas of greatest innovation such as software. The related field of business methods is one where the whole concept of patenting is viewed by some as especially dangerous and destructive.
A healthy perspective is now offered by Jeff Wild in his post for IAM Magazine’s blog, “If trolls are destroying US jobs, why is the apps sector booming?” Here is an excerpt:
Last week a shocking report was produced by an organisation called TechNet. Based in the US, it describes itself as “the preeminent bipartisan political network of CEOs and senior executives that promotes the growth of technology-led innovation”. Where the Jobs Are: The App Economy claims that more than 450,000 app-related jobs have been created in the US during the last five years and that the app economy could now be generating annual revenues of up to $20 billion. What’s more, there seems to be no sign of a let-up in the good news. “In the year ending December 2011, the average number of tech want ads containing the word ‘app’ was still 45% higher than the previous year. That’s rapid expansion by anyone’s standards,” the report states.
As I say, it’s shocking stuff. For those of us who remember the multiple news stories and blog pieces during 2011 that focused on NPEs such as Lodsys taking action against app developers in the US, the idea that the sector is actually booming and creating jobs at breakneck speed is hard to comprehend. Weren’t the “trolls” supposed to be destroying a nascent industry and driving jobs and dollars away from the US? How can it possibly be that the reverse seems to be happening? Indeed, how can a serious report on the American app sector not mention NPEs or trolls at all?
Surely, it must be an amazing oversight. Or perhaps not. Maybe all the outrage and doom-mongering last year was overhyped hysteria. Maybe the reality is that NPEs, or “trolls”, or whatever you want to call them, are really not a decisive issue in the app economy at all. And maybe that applies to NPEs and trolls generally: in the great scheme of things, they are not a big deal.
In a piece published by Forbes last week, Ken Lustig, head of strategic acquisitions at Intellectual Ventures, points out that the number of patent suits initiated in the US has remained relatively flat for the last 10 years and that only around 100 actually go to trial. What’s more, there is much less patent litigation now than there was in the 19th century, supposedly a golden age of American innovation. Indeed, says Lustig, revered names such as Thomas Edison used the NPE model to diffuse their inventions and grow rich. What is being reported today in such dramatic and negative terms is what has always happened in the US when new technologies appear:
Every major technological and industrial breakthrough in U.S. history—from the Industrial Revolution to the birth of the automobile and aircraft industries and on up to today’s Internet and mobile communications revolutions—has been accompanied by exactly the same surge in patenting, patent trading, and patent litigation that we see today in the smartphone business. This is how the rights to new breakthrough technologies have always been distributed to those best positioned to commercialize them—to the benefit of the whole nation in terms of new jobs, new medical advances, and new products and services.
He also summarizes the important research compiled by Michael Risch of the Villanova University School of Law. The bottom line is that both sides in the debate about NPEs have made mountains of molehills, though the defenders of NPEs do have a valid point in one particular area: “the evidence does support one defense of NPEs: they provide a better way for individual inventors to enforce their patents than bringing lawsuits themselves.”
NPEs don’t just include patent aggregators like Intellectual Ventures or Acacia. Universities and numerous lone inventors are often not (yet) in the business of producing and marketing goods but have significant inventions to market. Based on the research about the impact of NPEs and their patents, there is no need for alarm and no need to revise patent laws to stamp them out. Doing so could stamp out the fires of innovation that have brought us out of the stone age into the booming knowledge economy. IP needs to be protected and nurtured, not vilified and weakened. And certainly not discouraged with much higher fees at the USPTO, which the current Administration is proposing. Taxing innovation and other steps that discourage inventors by making it harder to protect their inventions are far more likely to suck the lifeblood from the economy than the existence of NPEs. More innovation fatigue is not what this economy needs.
On Sept. 16, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith “America Invents Act” which supposedly will strengthen innovation and improve our patent system. It’s a radical change in our patent system–one that seems to have been drafted by people who don’t fully understand patents or innovation.
Does this bill promote innovation as advertized? What about that 15% rate hike for patent fees–a new 15% tax on the IP that entrepreneurs need. That’s the most immediate and obvious change. Guess which way that increased burden tilts the balance? Economics 101 suggests that making innovation more expensive is not likely to make it more abundant. But Congress may know better.
Congress apparently recognizes that we have a problem with the patent system, where huge backlogs exist that cause enormous delay and expense for inventors. The backlog and efficiency problem they are allegedly fixing, however, does not require all the unintended consequences of revising patent law but simply improving the administration of the PTO. For example, if Congress would refrain from siphoning off many millions of dollars of PTO funds each year, effectively taxing innovation and crushing the ability of the PTO to properly staff itself and keep its systems up to date, then the backlog could be easily resolved, in my opinion. Unfortunately, we seem to have another case of politicians proposing costly solutions that won’t solve the costly problems that they caused. As long as Congress can redirect funds received by the PTO, the administrative problems at the PTO will not be resolved by changes in patent law. (See “Patent Reform–A Tax on Innovation?” and “Let the Patent Office Keep Its Money.“)
While probably not solving the problems it allegedly fixes, the America Invents Act clearly raises a host of new problems that may lead to unpredictable results in costly litigation for years to come. The radical changes involving who gets patents and what is prior art use confusing language that strips the bill of the “certainty” that its proponents allegedly sought to restore in the system. See excellent reviews of the controversies in these sources:
- Joshua D. Sarnoff, “Derivation and Prior Art Problems with the New Patent Act,” 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal, http://www.patentlyo.com/files/sarnoff.2011.derivation.pdf.
- Eric Guttag, “Some More Heretical Thoughts on Strategies for Coping with First to File Under the America Invents Act,” IPWathdog.com, Oct. 5, 2011.
- Gene Quinn, “Prior Art Under America Invents: The USPTO Explains First to File,” IPWathdog.com, Oct. 4, 2011.
Harold C. Wegner of the respect form Foley and Lardner has published an analysis of the law (3rd edition, Sept. 29, 2011) which highlights its pervasive ambiguity due to poor drafting. This is a serious issue which will cloud patent law and hinder the quest for patent rights for years to come. Wegner also rules that the new law may increase backlogs because appeal judges will have to continue dealing with their heavy load of existing cases as well as take on added cases of “post-grant reviews” and other new administrative procedures (supplemental examination and transitional examination of business method patents) which are provided in the new law. The backlog is sure to increase and fees will be raised even more to cope. Meanwhile, the new post-grant review process has “dractonian” elements, as Wegner observes, that may further impede the ability of an inventor with a real invention to obtain a patent. Further, there are numerous details Wegner identifies in his 177-page text showing potential harm to “upstream” entities like universities and small inventors while benefiting those downstream entities that want to use the innovations of others for their business as cheaply as possible. I smell innovation fatigue.
In my view, the bill reflects fundamental ignorance about the nature of invention. The perplexing provisions on prior art highlight this. Years of litigation that will be needed to clarify what on earth is meant by the new prior art provisions as patent professionals already express exasperation over issues of derivation, inventorship, and prior art in the new law.
A crucial part of the ignorance here is on the nature of invention itself, amplifying the confusion created by the judiciary regarding what is patentable. Viewing business methods and software as somehow being non-technical, in spite of typically involving highly technical systems and tools, opens many cans of worms. If something is novel, useful, and non-obvious, why should it not be patentable if it involves computers and electronic data? But the judicial backlash against vaguely defined “business method patents” has been institutionalized in this new law, where business method patents dealing with the financial services industry (thank you, Wall Street lobbyists) have been given special treatment, allowing Wall Street to have a special route to invalidate patents that otherwise have survived basic prosecution, reexamination, and prior litigation. Section 18 of the law describes how those being sued by a “covered business method patent” can have a special hearing to invalidate the patent. That section includes this gem to define that key term:
(d) DEFINITION.–
(1) IN GENERAL.–For purposes of this section, the term “covered business method patent” means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.
(2) REGULATIONS.–To assist in implementing the transitional proceeding authorized by this subsection, the Director shall issue regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention.
The drafters of this law apparently view “business method” inventions as distinct from “technological inventions.” If science were to rule, it would be clear that one cannot clearly distinguish between “technological inventions” and a claim involving data processing or management of a financial product or service when technology is involved. Why is a new use of a computer to advance financial services not “technological”? Why is it a less worthy invention than a new use of a polymer or of amide chemistry or of coherent photons? This probably relates to the non-scientific but widely held view among judges and politicians that information, data, and electronic signals are somehow not part of the physical universe and should be viewed as abstractions rather than concrete entities that relate to physical measures such as entropy and require tangible matter and real energy to manipulate. Note that “technological” is undefined, perhaps because it cannot reasonably be defined in this unreasonable provision of an fatigue-generating law. I wish the best of luck to the Director of the PTO in clarifying this opaque miasma.
The richest innovations transforming our era involve inventions rooted in the processing and manipulation of information and these innovations must be encouraged and rewarded, not excluded from patent coverage because some failing but well-connected ‘too big to fail” entities don’t want patents from others to stand in their uncreative way. The AIA clearly shows the power of those Wall Street entities in guiding legislation and giving them special breaks, breaks that will do anything but strengthen innovation. Like much of the rest of the law, it’s directed at fixing the wrong things in the wrong way. May wiser heads quickly repeal or massively revise this legislation before backlogs explode and innovation fatigue is further spread across the US system.
Meanwhile, from my vantage point in Shanghai, I see China increasingly strengthening incentives for innovation and strengthening patent rights. This bodes well for the competitiveness of China in the future. America will soon be wondering how to catch up. How about some real patent reform down the road?
For a rather optimistic but definitely helpful overview of the impact of the AIA on patent practice, see PLI’s page, “America Invents Act: How the New Law Impacts Your Clients and Your Patent Practice.”
Why Smart Startups File Patents
Posted by: | CommentsStartup companies, unlike our “too big to fail” banks, can’t afford to make too many Enormous Mistakes without perishing or losing much of their value. One of the Enormous Mistakes that some startups make is neglecting intellectual property. That includes neglecting opportunities to protect their business, as well as the need to make sure they aren’t infringing other patents. These are separate issues and require separate efforts and tools. Some of the common mistakes and misconceptions of startups regarding IP are addressed in the slideshow presentation below, “What Do Startups Need to Know about Patent Law” by Jeffrey Schox.
An important point that Schox makes is that reasons smart startups file patents aren’t necessarily because they expect to license their technology or successfully sue a competitor. But having an issued or pending patent with some degree of quality is essential for attracting investor support. Investors typically expect a startup (in many fields, at least) to have IP that can be of value to the business for many years to come and can help limit the harm of competitive copying. Without that in place, that startup is much less likely to get the funds needed to thrive.
Patents play different roles at different stages in the life of a company. But neglecting IP at any stage is an Enormous Mistake that can lead to extinction.
The Bogus IP Registration Scam: Becoming a Global Phenomenon, Beware!
Posted by: | CommentsThe good folks at the China Law Blog recently discussed a common scam that occurs in China. Actually, this is a scam that is shaking down small and large companies and lone inventors all over the globe. I’ve warned against it in the US for a long time and was intrigued to see it is going full-bore here in China.
When you file or obtain trademark registrations or patents, scammers are likely to send you an invoice asking for some large sum of money in return for being “registered” in their international database of patents or trademarks. In the Chinese version of the scam, you may received a bound volume of Chinese law with an enormous invoice. Failure to pay, they will tell you in annoying repeat calls, could result in all sorts of problems. Don’t pay. Don’t waste your time with them.
In US and European versions of the scam, the invoices sometimes come from Serbia or Croatia. But they can come from anywhere. If it’s from the government where you registered or filed your IP, throw it away. Unfortunately, enough businesses and gullible inventors just routinely pay invoices without asking tough questions that the scam is successful, thus causing it to spread. Don’t be fooled. When your innovation results in being ripped off, you’re on your way to innovation fatigue. Steer clear.
Subtle Corruption? The Weakening of US Patent Rights
Posted by: | CommentsOne of the troubling trends in US patent law, a trend I first heard about roughly a decade ago in a course “Drafting and Crafting Winning Patents” from Patent Resources Group, was the tendency for courts in patent litigation to twist the claims to limit their scope. Among the many examples of courts finding language or lack of language in the specification to import unintended and often questionable limitations into the claims is a 2011 case, Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.. It took creative mental gymnastics by the court to rule that the “body” of the claimed syringe must not read on two-piece bodies, contrary to logic and evidence within the claims themselves. See the response of IP Watchdog to see how this decision may contradict fundamentals of established patent law. The Patent Prospector blog offers this view:
Somewhat subtlety, but most assuredly corruptly, the courts are on a continuing crusade to limit patent protection. In the past four years, the capriciously subjective Obzilla (KSR) has trampled many patents, where an objective evidentiary standard would have left them standing. In this episode, Retractable Technologies v. Becton, the crusade against patent enforcement continues, but from a different angle, with the CAFC distorting well-settled claim construction precedent to squeeze the scope of claims.
The courts seem increasingly ill-disposed toward protecting property and intellectual property rights, especially those of individuals and small companies lacking political clout. Is that due to corruption or just the twisted anti-property (well, anti-other-people’s-property) ideological bent that many of our leading universities impose on students? To be fair, many large companies also bemoan US patent law trends where intellectual property is increasingly taxed and stalled (e.g., through high costs and delay at the USPTO, and the siphoning of patent fees by Congress to pay for their excesses elsewhere), where claim scope is being limited, and where the capricious uncertainties and cost of litigation are ominous. To revive the US economy, there really is a need to strengthen innovation by strengthening and accelerating our patent system and strengthening, not diluting, property rights.
Meanwhile, here in China, there are serious efforts to strengthen enforcement of IP rights, to encourage patent pursuit (e.g., with generous tax incentives and some special incentives that local governments may add in some areas), and to facilitate enforcement. There is a rush in China to create IP and it will have profound long-term effects in terms of global competitiveness. I think that China will become the technology leader of the world and the IP leader, and the U.S. will pay dearly in the end–royalties and more. The U.S. needs to regain its IP and innovation momentum and abandon capricious judicial changing of the rules at the expense of innovators.
A Carbonated Toast to Innovation in Packaging
Posted by: | CommentsDo you recognize how much innovation is behind the simple pleasures of life like a carbonated beverage? A great deal of clever physics and science has gone into the subtle innovations that allow us to enjoy these beverages without, say, risking blindness every time we open a bottle of Sprite. In the early days of soda innovation, there was some risk in opening a screw-top container because the pressure was locked in by the interconnected threads until the screw cap came off: then the high pressure in the container could propel the up and away. Packaging engineers tacked the problem, leading to the first big breakthrough described in a 1961 patent, “Gas Escape Closure Cap” by Leo Garvey, US Patent No. 2,990,079. There were other earlier solutions proposed, including more complex venting caps, but the solution of grooves in the threads is elegant. Part of the patent is shown below, where in the lower right-hand corner you can see a drawing showing grooves in the ridges of the threads of a cap that help allow pressurized gas to escape while the bottle is being opened. A variety of later patents build on that theme, with 21 different patent families citing the Garvey patent. Today grooves in the threads of the bottle are also used, as shown, for example, in US Pat. No. 4392055 of Owens Illinois, providing the same kind of safe venting that Garvey sought. (That also reminds us of the need to consider alternative solutions in pursuing patent coverage.)
Gas venting threads are a tiny tweak of the bottle design that many people overlook, but they play an important role. There are numerous subtle innovations in almost every aspect of the soda bottle, from the design of the flange, the materials use to make it, the shape of the foot of the bottle allowing it to stand without the need for a separate stand or ring, the attachment of labels, the design of the cap, and the basic bottle manufacturing process itself. It’s all worth a toast the next time you have a sip. Innovation adds fizz to our daily lives–and safety.
Graphene: A flat layer of carbon atoms bonded in a honeycomb crystal lattice a single atom thick.
gbrumfiel writes
“As we discussed on Tuesday, Andre Geim won this year’s Nobel prize in physics for graphene, but he never patented it. In an interview with Nature News, he explains why: ‘We considered patenting; we prepared a patent and it was nearly filed. Then I had an interaction with a big, multinational electronics company. I approached a guy at a conference and said, “We’ve got this patent coming up, would you be interested in sponsoring it over the years?” It’s quite expensive to keep a patent alive for 20 years. The guy told me, “We are looking at graphene, and it might have a future in the long term. If after ten years we find it’s really as good as it promises, we will put a hundred patent lawyers on it to write a hundred patents a day, and you will spend the rest of your life, and the gross domestic product of your little island, suing us.” That’s a direct quote.’”
While some people, including some in the anti-patent community, see this as a self-evident case for the problem with patents, it’s actually just the opposite, in my opinion. Tim’s a sharp thinker and great entrepreneur, but I have to disagree on this one.
Look at the story again. A genius on the verge of filing a foundational patent for a major breakthrough in technology approaches a large corporation who might benefit from the technology. The company learns that the inventor is about to file a patent. A valid patent would mean that the company would have to pay royalties for the invention, perhaps very expensive royalties. If no patent is filed, the company can use the technology for free and develop its own patents without having to cross-license or worry about what Andre Geim owns. Hmm, which would be better: paying a lot, or paying nothing? Having to work with an inventor or tech transfer office or new patent owner who may end up thinking an invention is worth billions, or having the whole thing pretty much gratis? Tough call, but I think the corporate leader was quick to recognize the advantages to nipping the patent threat in the bud. How could he talk the inventor out of a patent? What negotiating tactic to deploy? ah, how about the Hindenburg? That’s where you explain to the other party that their intended course of action would be a flaming disaster, with burning bodies falling out of the sky–oh, the humanity!–resulting in the adversary becoming toast themselves.
The Hindenburg: A flaming disaster and a common negotiating trick
Baloney! All bluff and bluster. But the intimidation and scare tactics work. “OK, OK, I won’t file my patent. Sorry for even thinking about that. Now I see that patents don’t help the little guy, Mr. Big. Here, take what I’ve got for free. I’m just honored to watch you commercialize my work.”
Patents are the great equalizer. It’s what gives lone inventors a fighting chance against the big corporation that wants to take what they’ve got for free. It’s not easy and may not work, but with patents you’ve got a chance and corporations know it. Good ones respect that and will work with out. Others will try to take what you’ve got anyway, or better yet if they can, talk you out of pursuing a patent. Without one, you’ve already surrendered. You might as well throw the keys of your car to any passing stranger and hope they will pay you someday after they drive away.
The story isn’t about why patents don’t help the little guy. In fact, I think it’s about how much some big corporations despise and loathe patents in the hands of little guys. So much so that they would make outrageous statements to trick a brilliant scientists into NOT doing the one thing that could have helped him most: filing a patent. Instead, he handed them his inventions for free. Score one for the big guys.
It would be fun to go back in time and be with Dr. Geim when he was given the Hindenburg treatment. I’d like to ask a quick question of the corporate executive who made the threat:
Wow, 100 patents a day. That’s so amazing, you know, because the world’s most prolific patent filers like IBM and Canon average less than 20 filings a day, and I would be surprised if they ever hit 100 patents a day, and certainly not on one single project and certainly not over an extended period of time. So how many US patents did your company get last year? Wait, it’s right here at USPTO.gov – hey, based in your pathetic past filing rate, it looks like you could never ramp up to 100 a day. You’re trying to spook me. So just what are you afraid of? Oh, I see, my patent. Nice try, Mr. Big. I’m going to file, especially now that I see how much you care. Now go ahead and hire a hundred lawyers and create your own little fiscal Hindenburg, or we can talk about collaboration.
Oh, one more thing. You need to work on that Hindenburg act. The flames shooting out of your ears were a bit freaky.
Chemical engineers interested in innovation and entrepreneurship should consider attending the AIChE 2010 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City. On Wednesday, Nov. 10, I will chair a session featuring four outstanding speakers on topics that should be of interest to many engineers, including university researchers, corporate researchers, and managers. If you are conducting research that could lead to a new business, if you are involved in leading or managing R&D, if you are part of an effort where intellectual property could make a difference, then you should attend our session, “Intellectual Assets in the Digital Era.” You need to register for this conference through AIChE.
Time: Wednesday, November 10, 2010: 8:30 AM-11:00 AM
Location: Salt Palace Convention Center, Grand Ballroom G, Salt Lake City, UT
Chair: Jeff Lindsay, Director of Solution Development, Innovationedge, Neenah, WI
Co-Chair: Ken Horton, Gore School of Business, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT
Schedule of Papers and Abstracts:
8:30 AM, Paper #406A, “Business Development, IP, and Manufacturing Success: Perspectives From Utah’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership” by David Sorensen, Executive Director of Utah’s Manufacturing Extension Program. (See biographical information below.)
Abstract: The Manufacturing Extension Partnership of Utah has assisted many companies in strengthening their strategy for success and continued growth. We will discuss what it takes to advance your business, including lessons relative to leadership, vision, intellectual property, and coping with changing regulations and policies.
9:10 AM, Paper #406b, “The Role of IP in Successful Startups,” Mike Alder, Director of Technology Transfer, Brigham Young University.
Abstract: Many AIChE members will be involved with a startup at some point in their career. While the capabilities of the management team is of utmost importance, in numerous cases, the success of the startup also depends on the quality of its intellectual property. In this era, an IP-savvy team can take several steps to secure competitive advantage and realize greater value from the technology, products, or services the company offers. This presentation will draw upon experience with many startups and startup teams and will provide guidance to researchers, business leaders, and future entrepreneurs on how to better prepare for success.
9:45 AM, Paper #406c, “An Introduction to IP Law: The Underpinnings of Intellectual Assets,” Ken Horton, Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, UT
Abstract: An understanding of the basics of intellectual property law can help chemical engineers in advancing their own research, in evaluating competitive efforts, in building their own business, or in general advancing their career. This presentation will cover some of the key concepts that engineers should know, including the nature of patents, the different kinds of patents (provisional, utility, design), the role of trademarks and copyrights, what it takes to be patentable, and how changes in patent law may affect your career and business.
10:20 AM, Paper #406d, “Cost-Effective Pursuit of IP in a Down Economy,” by Jonathan Lee
Abstract: How does one get the most protection and benefit from intellectual property when the economy is down? How can patents and other forms of intellectual property be obtained in a cost effective manner when budgets are tight? In this presentation, an experienced patent attorney shares insights into cost effective IP with guidance directed to managers, research leaders, inventors, and entrepreneurs.
Biographical information:
David Sorensen
Mr. Sorensen has over 35 years of experience in a wide variety of technical and managerial assignments requiring comprehensive knowledge in several disciplines relating to engineering, manufacturing, information technology and business systems. He has been directly responsible for major contracts with industry and government agencies and has a proven record of technical competence, customer relations, and business planning in rapidly expanding technical companies. Mr. Sorensen has held increasingly responsible positions in product and service organizations. He is innovative, resourceful, and aggressive in accomplishing assigned responsibilities with major strengths in strategic planning, marketing and management. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering Science and a Masters in Manufacturing Engineering Technology from Brigham Young University.
Since 1995 he’s been the Director of the Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP-Utah), serving primarily the 6,200 manufacturers in the state of Utah. MEP-Utah was selected to initiate and manage the NIST Information Technology Network for over 60 MEP Centers nationwide. Mr. Sorensen is also a BYU adjunct faculty member and the Associate Dean of Technology, Trades and Industry at Utah Valley State College. With a staff of 18, in one year MEP-Utah helped create or save 2,719 jobs in Utah, increased manufacturing sales by more than $121 million and increased employee payroll by more than $84 million.
He’s been the Chairman & CEO for Echo Solutions, a start-up software products and services company; Executive VP of Eyring Research Institute; General Manager of EG&G Services; Director of Engineering at EG&G Idaho Inc.; Manager of Architect Engineering and Construction at Aerojet Nuclear Company and Manager of Power Generation Equipment at Bunker Ramo. He also has experience with GE’s Nuclear Instrumentation as a Senior Applications Engineer, and in engineering positions at Kennecott Copper, Intermountain Industries, and F.C. Torkelson Engineers.
Michael Alder
Mike is Director of Technology Transfer at Brigham Young University, where his work has been nationally recognized by BusinessWeek and others for their success. Mike is also Chair of the Board for WestCAMP Inc. where he has also chaired the National Centers of Excellence (NCOE), a division of WestCAMP. Mike is formerly the CEO of the Biotechnology Association of Alabama. He was also a Venture Partner with Redmont Venture Partners, Inc. He has been heavily involved in the founding of Tranzyme, Inc.; Vaxin, Inc.; Folia, Inc.; Chlorogen, Inc.; Allvivo, Inc. and Cr3, Inc. All but one of these are biotechnology companies (Folia produces specialty biopolymers).
Mr. Alder has 30 years of experience in leading technology-based startup companies. He was previously CEO of Emerging Technology Partners in Birmingham, Alabama from 1997 to 2003. Prior to coming to Alabama in 1994 he co-founded the Grow Utah Fund that focused on creating technology-based businesses. In 1989 he was asked by the Utah Governor to head the State’s Office of Technology Development, which he did for 5 years as its Executive Director, helping bring Utah’s Centers of Excellence programs to national prominence. In 1973 he founded NPI, a plant biotechnology company in Salt Lake City, Utah and served as President, COO and Vice Chairman of that company for 15 years as it grew to over 700 employees.
Ken Horton
Ken Horton is a member of Kirton & McConkie‘s Intellectual Property Practice Section in Salt Lake City. His practice includes domestic and foreign patent prosecution, patent opinions, intellectual property litigation (including both state and federal court actions), domestic and foreign trademark prosecution, trademark opinions, copyrights, trade secrets, intellectual property evaluations and due diligence, as well as technology and intellectual property agreements. Mr. Horton has extensive experience in both pharmaceutical and semiconductor technologies. He is a frequent speaker on the topic of intellectual property law and strategy, speaking both at the 2007 and 2010 A.I.C.H.E. annual conferences and the 2009 A.C.S. annual conference. Additionally, Mr. Horton is an Associate Professor in these topics in the MBA Technology Management Program at the Gore School of Business of Westminster College.
Jonathan Lee
Jonathan Lee is a registered patent attorney and a member of the Utah State Bar practicing at ALG (AdvantEdge Law Group). His practice focuses on adding real-world value to companies, both large and small, by acquiring, securing, and protecting intellectual property rights.
Mr. Lee has prepared and successfully prosecuted hundreds of patent applications throughout his career, primarily in the electrical, electro-mechanical, and computer engineering fields. He currently helps a number of Fortune 1000 companies manage and develop their domestic and worldwide patent portfolios. He also regularly counsels clients in other aspects of intellectual property law, including litigation, licensing, and opinion work, as well as due diligence examinations, copyrights and trademarks, and patent reexamination proceedings.
Prior to joining ALG, Mr. Lee worked for nationally recognized law firms in Washington, D.C. and Salt Lake City, Utah.
Mr. Lee was recently selected as a Mountain States Rising Star by Super Lawyers, a peer-reviewed publication.
Used Patents: A Potentially Deadly Part of Your Portfolio
Posted by: | CommentsIn Conquering Innovation Fatigue, we explain how “Patent Pain” is one of the external innovation fatigue factors that can slow down innovation. This factor includes actions by courts and lawmakers that add to the difficulty and expense of protecting intellectual property rights. A new aspect of this problem is the recent explosion in risk to patent holders–particularly the holders of “used” patents (patents directed to products that the patent holder markets). This risk stems from a recent Federal Circuit decision, Forest Group, Inc. v Bon Tool Company (link is to the PDF file of the Dec. 28, 2009 decision). The controversial aspect of this decision is that it suddenly changes the way the law has been applied in a way that could severely punish patent holders for what might be an innocent mistake.
The law provides a penalty of up to $500 per offense for false patent marking–inappropriately marking a product with a patent number such as one that has expired. It can be an act of intentional fraud or, in many cases, a simple mistake. That $500 penalty per offense has long been interpreted as $500 per continuous false marking act, not as $500 for every falsely marked product. All that changed a few months ago, thanks to the Federal Circuit Court’s decision. Now if you sell a billion packages of diapers and one of the patents listed happens to have expired a few months ago (oops, clerical error!), you could be sued and face up to $500 billion in penalties. Even if reduced to a mere, say, $50 million, it’s extremely dangerous for a corporation. Naturally, this has drawn in swarms of lawyers and looks like it could create a whole new cottage industry based on sucking capital out of the veins of those who actually use the patents they obtain. Patent holders are rushing to check their patent markings more carefully and to redo packaging (an expensive process, unfortunately) to ensure that expired patents are taken off.
The social harm of listing an expired patent on a product seems virtually negligible. A competitor interested in copying the product will naturally look up the patent and determine if the claims might be a barrier, and in this process can readily see whether it has expired. Yes, it’s a form of false advertising, but not because a real patent wasn’t obtained, only because it eventually expired and the marking wasn’t updated yet. Not as serious as making up a bogus patent number and listing that for honor never earned. $500 for a continuous act of false marking may seem too light a punishment (the law was written back when $500 was worth something), but up to $500 per product strikes me as ridiculous and threatens to only further penalize and discourage producers and innovators.
Here’s hoping that Congress will correct the abusive application of the law by the Federal Circuit and make owning a used patent less dangerous.
Related story from the Wall Street Journal: “New Breed of Patent Claim Bedevils Product Makers” by Dionne Searcey. This story discusses a more recent ruling that overturned a decision saying an attorney suing Brooks Brothers for expired patents had no legal standing to sue. Now lawyers everywhere can join in the feeding frenzy.
Update, Sept. 3: One of my favorite IP strategists asked what constructive steps we could be taking to help clients deal with this threat, apart from diligently checking every marking. Tough question. What if products were marked with codes—could be simple six-character strings that you plug into tinyrul.com or some other website–to bring up a page with the current patents applicable to a product? The page could be automated so it is tied in to patent databases so that only current patents are displayed, and/or status information was displayed for the patent. Thus, if a product does have a patent associated with it when packaging is designed, instead of listing the patent number(s), why not list something like: “For related patents, see PatentMarking.com/14Zq2″.
Could this indirect approach fully meet the demands of patent marking and provide sufficient notice? Perhaps not without a tweak of the law, but I’d be happy to see an electronic solution.
When I gave the example with PatentMarking.com, I hadn’t yet checked out that URL and was just throwing out what sounded like a good domain name for such a tool. Turns out that OceanTomo owns it and is using it for a related purpose. Cool! Glad to see that they are advocating online marking of patents.
So why not print each product or its packaging with a code that links the product to a website for automatically updated information, with disclaimers and means for flagging corrections to reduce corporate liability if something goes wrong with the automated process? Could this help reduce the future threat of patent marking sharks trying to shake down companies for millions of dollars for innocent and hard-to-eliminate marking errors?
Another update: Greg Aharonian‘s latest PATNEWS newsletter mentions the WSJ article, rejects the outrageous notion that false marking of patents is a serious evil, and contends that Congress should make these lawsuits illegal that seek to shake down companies for millions due to a marking mistake. May that happen swiftly! Thanks, Greg.
Startups and Patents: New Study Sheds Light on Practices and Reasons for Filing
Posted by: | CommentsThe recently published Berkeley Patent Survey is one of the most comprehensive studies to date on the use of patents by startups and entrepreneurs. PatentlyO discusses the study and offers some helpful insights. The study shows that startups are using patents more than was previously recognized, for past analysis based was limited by incomplete USPTO data on patent assignments. Search results for patents owned by a particular startup may miss the patents owned by founders and others that are being used by the startup but may not yet be listed in the USPTO database as being assigned to the company. By interviewing entrepreneurs, the authors were able to determine that:
[A]bout 40% of our respondents hold patents or applications, with the figure rising to about 80% for startups funded by venture capital firms.
As expected, this figure varies widely by industry—for example, 97% of venture-backed biotechnology companies hold patents or applications, while only 67% of venture-backed software startups do. And among the general population of software startups responding, the rate was only about 25%.
–From Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law and Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law, in “Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part I of III),” PatentlyO.com, July 19, 2010.
In our experience, many of the best startups take IP seriously and seek to file patents when they have something potentially patentable. In our experience, Venture Capitalists look for patents as a way to increase the chances of meaningful returns. Patents are an important part of the recipe for success and long-term profits for a startup. Don’t neglect them!