Blawg Review #274

Welcome everyone to Blawg Review #274! Blawg Review is still the place to find out where the best law blogs are posted, and because today is the 20th anniversary of the Americans Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) I am going to share some informative and interesting stuff about the ADA. But I will also try to point your browser at a few excellently written posts by Blawgers.

Although the legal community may be thinking of other things on July 26, 2010 I thought I would let you know that this particular piece of legislation signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush advanced the rights of a large segment of the citizens of the United States of America. The ADA was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990 to "establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability."

Even though George H.W. Bush signed the act into law, it is Justin Dart, Jr., who is thought of as the “father” of the ADA. Stephanie Woodward, Transportation Systems Advocate commemorates this in a nice Center for Disability Rights blog post  A Short History of Justin Dart, Jr., “Father” of the ADA.

The protection of the rights of individual United States citizens has come a long way since John F. Kennedy was president, I believe that he was our moral compass and set this country in the right direction. 

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue, it is old as the scriptures and is clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities? Whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated?

"The ADA is kind of like our own civil rights act," said Rick McWilliams, program manager for the Westmoreland County Disabilities Task Force to Cody Francis of the Pittsburgh Tribune. "We liken it to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We like to not only make people with disabilities aware but also increase public awareness that people with disabilities are like everyone else."

I don't think anybody really wants to be like everyone else. Today kids get tattoos so as to separate themselves from the crowd. But being separated from the crowd because of something negative is not what anybody strives for. I like the idea of taking pride in who you are, knowing that no matter the level of your ability you can help make society a better place. 

Jonathan R. Mook writes a comprehensive history how the act came about as well as how it evolved through the courts in the past 20 years in the Workers Compensation Law Blog:

This month, therefore, is a time for celebration of what has been termed the “declaration of independence” of individuals with disabilities. For far too long, individuals with disabilities had remained largely hidden due to discriminatory attitudes and misconceptions which prevented them from working, taking mass transit, going to theaters, museums, and restaurants, and other places where the public gathers.

There were many events to commemorate the ADA that occurred in the past week and are planned for today.

Seriousinjurylaw Blog  reminded us that The Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation called on people to help it smash the Guinness World Record for the most wheelchairs in a moving line.

Disability pride parades were held this weekend in Chicago and San Jose. I think the idea of not hiding in the closet because you have any disability but to revel in who you are is wonderful. The theme in San Jose was "Say it loud, We're disabled, and we're proud."

A guest post for the Fehribach Group Blog Juli Paini, the director for the City of Indianapolis Office of Disability Affairs, says that "The ADA helped raise my comfort level talking about my disability, as well as the comfort level of the people around me.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability. The ultimate goal of the ADA is to break down the stigma associated with people with disabilities and to "to promote equal opportunities for persons living with disabilities" in all major life activities such as:

  1. Employment: Employers may not discriminate against an individual with a disability in hiring or promotion if the person is otherwise qualified for the position. Employers must provide “reasonable accommodation,” such as job restructuring and modification of equipment when necessary.
  2. Public Entities: State and local governments must remove communication and physical barriers that restrict people with disabilities from using their services and activities.
  3. Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities): Auxiliary aids and services must be provided to individuals with hearing or vision impairments.
  4. Telecommunications: Telephone companies must provide telecommunications relay services for hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals 24 hours per day.

The Deaf News Today Blog has a nice breakdown of what The Americans with Disabilities Act covers and does not cover in Getting to Know.. ADA.

In a guest post at Disability Blog, Harvard Law school graduate, Carrie Griffin Basas, Esq. stated that

“When I asked Harvard if it tracked disability as a diversity category among alumni, and how I might reach others with disabilities, I didn’t receive a lot of support, let alone understanding. Why would we track disability? Isn’t that a bad thing, one we don’t talk about?”

Generally speaking, “Disability” under the ADA means a person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. While it is important that the act defines the term "disability" in the end it is just a matter of semantics.

FWD/Forward Blog FWD (feminists with disabilities) for a way forward has an ongoing FWD/Forward series called "Ableist Word Profile "in which they explore ableism and the way it manifests in language usage. Are you an Ableist?

What's in a name anyway? The term "retardation," once viewed as clinical and neutral, is now considered so demeaning that it required "Historic" legislation signed by Gov. David Paterson to remove the term "mental retardation" from the title of the New York’s agency “Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities” and from anywhere in the state statutes and regulations. Now it is the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities.

You may be wondering by now why a patent and trademark attorney was asked to host Blawg Review. I lost my hand and part of my right arm in an accident in 1972. But I continued to participate in many sports. People that know me don't consider me disabled. But believe me there is a stigma with name calling as children and it carries over as discrimination in the job market and other areas of life when we become adults.

Although Rick McWilliams says he wants to be like everyone else, I think what he really means is he wants to be treated like everybody else. Click on the picture below and take a look at the video of me demonstrating how to catch and throw a ball with one arm with my daughter and let me know if you think I'm disabled or if you have an opening for me on your softball team.

a girl named pants

Are you disabled? Think of a number in your mind. How many times do you need to fall before you give up? What about Aaron Fotheringham? There is no number of times for this guy, he doesn’t know how to give up. Watch the number of times he falls in the beginning of this video and then go and get your in-line skates or bike and try to do what he does in the wheel chair. Not too many takers? I thought so.

What about just getting community-based services to help you bathe, dress and eat?

Michele Haddad, a 49-year old mother, was in a motorcycle accident with a drunk driver which caused a spinal cord injury that left her paralyzed. Michele needed community-based services for the bare necessities of life. The state of Florida would only provide her the services if she would first enter a nursing home for 60 days even though it would have been less expensive just to provide the services. Haddad’s lawsuit argued that by failing to provide community-based services to Medicaid-eligible individuals with spinal cord injuries who are at risk of institutionalization, the State of Florida violated the ADA because it would deprive her of her right to live in her community.

The ADA requires that individuals with disabilities be provided services in the most integrated setting appropriate, as determined by the Supreme Court in the landmark decision Olmstead v. L.C.

What do you do if you are refused access to a RV park because of your disability?

Charles Glover was undergoing treatment for late-stage non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He and his wife, Sylvia, were in the process of adopting their two-year-old foster-child, C.G., who was born with HIV. The Glovers reserved an RV campsite at Wales West RV Resort for the month of July. After one day in the park they were asked to leave because of their medical conditions even though no one else was put at risk.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against Wales West LLC, alleging that it violated Title III of the ADA when it unlawfully denied full and equal services. In January 2010, the Department and Wales West reached a settlement under which Wales West agreed to pay $36,000 in damages to the Glover family and $10,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. Wales West also agreed to adopt nondiscrimination policies at its RV resort and will annually train all staff on these policies.

While the Justice Department has had its share of success stories and Walter Olson's blog post at Cato@Liberty lists a few large monetary recoveries, he points out that it shouldn't be immune from criticism. Like any other well-intentioned act, there is no such thing as perfect.

Accessibility in the Digital Age

What we take for granted in the digital age is an obstacle for many with disabilities. With the high cost of print text books, colleges and universities nationwide are eliminating traditional print text and replacing it with electronic course materials. But in order for some individuals with disabilities to take full advantage of new technologies, those technologies must be accessible.

On June 30, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez and Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Russlyn Ali jointly issued a letter to colleges and universities expressing concern over their use of electronic book readers that are not accessible, and soliciting the assistance of university leadership in ensuring that emerging technologies used in education are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities in the future.

This resulted in a series of settlement agreements that the Department of Justice entered with colleges and universities using the Kindle DX in the classroom as part of a pilot study with Amazon.com Inc.

The Justice Department is fully committed to ensuring that all individuals, including those with disabilities, have equal access to new technologies in the digital age. Samuel R. Bagenstos, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties where he stated

“…access to the Internet and emerging technologies is not simply a technical matter, but a fundamental issue of civil rights. As more and more of our social infrastructure is made available on the Internet - in some cases, exclusively online - access to information and electronic technologies is increasingly becoming the gateway civil rights issue for individuals with disabilities.

What about pro-golfer Casey Martin, who was unable to compete at a high level of golf without the aid of a golf cart (which was prohibited by the rules of the Pro Golfing Association for tournaments). "Without the ADA I never would have been able to pursue my dream of playing golf professionally."

What about a simple thing like just going on a date? Here are some Quick Tips To Enjoy Disabled Dating Fun from The ZH Laywyer blog.

What about something as simple as walking up the stairs? AT Program News (ATPN) blog created to serve the common mission of the State Assistive Technology Act Programs bloged about how there  "Ain’t No Mountain High Enough."

"Twenty years ago this past spring, a group of ADAPT activists demonstrated the need for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by abandoning their wheelchairs at the foot of the United States Capitol and crawling up the steps that, at the time, afforded the only means of access to the legislative branch of the U.S. government.

This action, which is now an iconic part of U.S. civil rights history, was just one of a series of protests the group organized that week in D.C. As with previous civil rights movements, protesters were arrested for acts of civil disobedience; unlike scenes typical to earlier movements, however, the authorities had trouble carrying out their law enforcement obligations. At the time, few court houses, jail cells, or even elevators were accessible to law-breakers with disabilities.

See Tom Olin's photo of ADAPT members climbing the Capitol steps at DisabilityMuseum.org

One of the things you should note when you go to AT Program News (ATPN) blog is that there's a gadget to click labeled "listen now. "

I guess I should apologize to all the disabled readers that need this in order to participate in Blawg Review and read my blog. I will look into having this technology added to my blog.

In case you're wondering the construction of the U.S. Capitol began in 1793 and since that time, the U.S. Capitol and its stately dome have become international symbols of our representative democracy. But as a result of ADA people with disabilities have equal opportunities to visit.  

 

So you don't want to climb a mountain? What about being prevented from crossing the street because the curb is too high? Take a look at Media dis&dat blog where they are changing landscape of disability “news.”

Nearly five years after a federal judge ordered the City of Detroit to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by installing curb ramps at intersections, several streets still have not been fitted with properly constructed access ramps."

Some businesses and building owners wrongly believe that “we are ‘grandfathered in’ so we don’t have to do anything to make our buildings accessible." But  Kyle Glozier posted on the Center for Disability Rights Inc. blog that they may do less than what’s required for a newly constructed or significantly renovated building, but they are still required under Title III of the ADA, that ”Public Accommodations Built Before the ADA Must Make Readily Achievable Access Improvements.

Dog Law Reporter blog reported that the U.S. Supreme Court held that ADA requirements regarding disabled passengers applied to a foreign-flag vessels, so if you want to go on the cruise and your dog is considered a service animal you are covered under the ADA.

Unfortunately, the ADA does not guarantee access for emotional support animals in public places. The ADA and other federal and state laws do, however, support the right to emotional assistance animals in housing according to the Animal Law Attorneys blog.

It must be difficult to figure out what you can do and what you can't do to make sure you are in compliance with the ADA. That's why employment law blog posted a link to an online tool to help you figure out the dos and don'ts of the act entitled DOL Offers Disability Law Advisor Tool Online.

Because of the ever changing landscape in electronic technology, the Department of Justice announced Plans to Prepare a New ADA addressing:

  • the accessibility of websites,
  • the captioning and video description in movies shown in theaters,
  • accessible equipment and furniture, and
  • the ability of 9-1-1 centers to take text and video calls from individuals with disabilities.

Review of Other Blawg Posts

Well I guess that's enough of the ADA regulations for one blog post. There were some pretty good blawg posts this last week to review.

Intellectual Property (Patents, Trademarks, Copyright)

Starting with Erik Heels post about the Supreme Court decision in Bilski versus KapposA Mere Mortal's Guide To Patents Post-Bilski (Or Why §101 Is A Red Herring). God I wish I posted this one. Great job Erik! This post concludes the Supreme Court blew a chance to define what is patentable method of doing business, instead all we end up with is a bunch of questions.

I think that by simply ruling an abstract idea is not patentable (presumably including any business method) whether or not it (1) produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result, (2) is applied in a useful way, or (3) is reduced to a practical application may allow many legitimate new internet based methods of doing business go unprotected.

Doesn't the Supreme Court understand that many abstract ideas (such as virtual ways of doing business on the Internet) aren't tied to any machine or transformation?

Patently-O  has a nice 3 part series Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part I of III) where Guest Posters Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law and Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law answer the question "Why do entrepreneurs and startup companies file for patents?"

Legal Tech (iPad etc)

In Technology’s Effect on the Legal Profession, by Law Sites Blog, he looks back at some old stuff… right now writing this I feel enslaved but I do hope to feel empowered by the time I’m done.

What electronic portable electronic device do you bring to work with you? When Everyone Has Their Own Smart Phone, What Does That Mean for the "Workplace"? It means that today's companies should know that the firewalls on the workplace computers will not keep them "protected" from social media.

Do you think you can anonymously make comments on a blog or on an Internet webpage regarding a product ? Well you better be careful what comments you make on the Internet because as the Citizen Media Law Project will tell you in Internet Anonymity cases the federal courts have recently created an expansive category of "commercial speech" which is not entitled the same freedom of speech protections afforded to US citizens in the Constitution.

JD Supra Powers New LinkedIn Legal Updates, JD Supra content will now be seamlessly integrated into Linkedin. I haven’t tried this but it looks promising. I think I’m going to play around with it if I ever finish this Blawg review.

Flipboard Wades Into Murky Copyright Waters Where Google Lives points out Flipboard as a cool app for your I-pad, but does it violate copyright law?

Getting Files into the Cloud from your i-Pad is a great blog because of the practical tips it gives on how to make your i-Pad more productive.

Other Interesting Stuff

In the Blog of Rights post entitled Our Secret Security Establishment: the Big Picture, Jay Stanley tells us the government is spending $75 billion to obtain information and that much of  the information is obtained in violation of our civil liberties. As usual the US government is drowning in a sea of information..."it is no exaggeration to say that our secret intelligence establishment has spun out of control."

I hope we don’t get nuked while the government protects Shrek, but if you want laugh at or cry about what the government is doing take a look at Department of Homeland Security Deploys Ogre-Protection Force.

The Influence of Law Blogs (2006-Present) gives blawgers evidence of their relevance in solid numbers. In fact you can download an excel spread sheet of all law blogs that have been cited in law journals since 2006.

Getting into blawging late in the game, I ‘m still trying to wrap my head around what it is all about.  Kevin O’Keefe calls it “sipping from the fire hydrant.” But I think Kevin’s got it right when he says it’s all about Relationships. I met Kevin in Toronto this past December when I started on this Social Network path and I understand why he is such a success, I feel as he is a friend I’d like have beer at a Cubs game with, because I know he will help me succeed and he's a cool guy. Relationships is again the reason Why blogs ought not drive traffic to your law firm's website.

Please comment on this post if you would like expand your network of relationships...I will reply.

Now  I would like to "handoff" the baton to the next host of Blawg Review, this month's host of Carnival of Trust, Charlie Green, author of The Trusted Advisor, at his blog Trust Matters. Good luck.

Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.

2010 National Trademark Expo

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is hosting the 2010 National Trademark Expo.

The deadline for trademark owners to apply for exhibit space at the Trademark Expo has been extended to August 16. Now is your chance to showcase the vital role trademarks have played in your business.2010 National Trademark Expo

The National Trademark Expo focuses on educating the public about the important role trademarks play in our society and the global marketplace, and highlights advances in the electronic filing and processing of applications for federal trademark registration at the USPTO.

The purpose of the National Trademark Expo is:

  • to illustrate the value of protecting brand names and other trademarks in the increasingly competitive global marketplace;
  • to showcase the breadth of marks used by one source;
  • to educate consumers on the variety of types of trademarks used in the marketplace;
  • to engage the public’s interest in branding;and
  • to educate the public about considerations factored into mark selection and brand development.

The Expo will include themed displays, exhibitors’ booths, costumed characters and much more. Exhibit themes may include, but are not limited to, celebrity trademarks, trademarks identifying products often subject to counterfeit, unusual trademarks (sound, scent, color, configurations, motion marks, etc.), certification trademarks, trademarks commonly misused as a generic term, the breadth of different types of trademarks used by one source, the evolution of certain trademarks, people behind the names of trademarks, 100-year-old trademarks, and interesting stories about trademarks and their creation.

Any owner of a United States trademark registration may apply to exhibit. Apply now to Exhibit.

US Celebrations for the 20th anniversary of ADA

Guest Blogger: Adam Singh

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),  was signed on July 26, 1990 by then President George H. W. Bush.  The ADA prohibits any discrimination based solely on a person's disability.

As defined by the ADA, a disability is "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The ADA provides a wide variety of protections for disabled US citizens in areas of every day life such as:

  • employment
  • public entities
  • transportation
  • public accommodations
  • telecommunications

"any form of retaliation or coercion, including threats, intimidation, or interference, is prohibited if it is intended to interfere [with the ADA]."

Around the nation, there are many celebrations planned to commemorate the signing of the ADA.  A few of  the celebrations include:

 

World Cup Trademarks

Congratulations to Spain for winning the World Cup in soccer. But the big money winner is the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) for the marketing of the event. The Hollywood Reporter said that 700 million people worldgoogle world cupwide watched the World Cup 2010 yesterday.

About 24 million Americans watched Spain win the World Cup over the Netherlands, while 106.5 million viewers in the US  watched the New Orleans Saints' 31-17 upset of the Indianapolis Colts on Superbowl Sunday on CBS.

So I got to wondering about how the trademark for the World Cup was being used, registered and protected around the world. I found a blog called the Worldcupblog.org which reported that FIFA owned a slew of trademark registrations/applications for many different trademarks all over the world. I searched the USPTO webpage and found that there were 150 trademark registrations/applications owned by the organization known as FIFA.

I also found that back in 2006 the World Cup Blog had their wrist slapped by the attorneys of FIFA for what they considered inappropriate use of the trademarks. Although the blog didn't agree with FIFA that their use was inappropriate, in fact the blog considered the use to be a promotion of the event. See how they comically recite why they took down the trademark as requested,

"We have complied with FIFA’s request but not because we agree in the least with their draconian rules. We are just nice people and the only lawyer we could afford to hire to represent us in this dispute was our brother-in-law whose entire legal education comes from watching Perry Mason, LA Law and Law and Order."

Google posted an innocuous drawing on their famous search engine search page. You can see they clearly tried not to infringe on any FIFA trademark. But do you think that the FIFA organization profited by the exposure on Google yesterday?

There have been many examples of overzealous attorneys sending cease and desist letters, the funniest one was the "other white meat" April fools ad for unicorn meat by Thinkgeek.com. In the Unicorn case there was a 12 page letter telling Think Geek Inc. how the National Pork Board was injured by the sale of unicorn meat.

So what does trademark registration protect? Non-commercial use of another's trademark is not actionable as dilution. What is fair use? A trademark can be used when the use does not suggest sponsorship or association with the trademark owner's product or services and therefore is not being used in a manner to confuse the reader.

Use of another's trademark is not considered to be infringement if it falls under one of the following categories of permissible use:

  1. Fair Use - this is most commonly seen in comparative advertising; i.e. "In a blind taste test, our cola ranked higher among consumers than Coca-Cola or Pepsi."
  2. First Sale Doctrine - Protects resellers/repackagers - this is illustrated by auction websites like Ebay. Resellers frequently list items using another's trademark without authorization, i.e. selling genuine Windows software without being an authorized distributor/retailer.
  3. Use in parody or speech - does anybody remember Weird Al Yankovic

Blawg Review #274 on July 26th

I'm scheduled to host Blawg Review to mark the 20th anniversary of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on Monday July 26, 2010.

Blawg Review is the blog website for everyone interested in law blogs.  "A peer-reviewed blog carnival,"  where the host of each Blawg Review decides which of the submissions and recommended posts are suitable for inclusion in the presentation.

Please submit blogs that can be used in the blog review by just leaving a comment here! Thanks.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

 

Location:Buffalo, New York United States

Senator Leahy Uses Bilski to Push Patent Reform

In an effort to push forward patent reform,  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)(D-Vt.) posted a press release using the highly publicized Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos (.PDF) as a reason as to why reform is needed.

Bilski affirmed a Federal Circuit decision denying a patent for a process for hedging on energy commodities because it was deemed merely an abstract idea.  Here is what he said:

In Bilski v. Kappos, the Court unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit that the application for a patent on a business method should be rejected. The Court’s opinion, joined by only five of the Justices, however, needlessly left the door open for business method patents to issue in the future, and I am concerned that it will lead to more unnecessary litigation.

Since the debate over comprehensive patent reform began many years ago, the Supreme Court has demonstrated an increased interest in patent law cases. The Court’s decisions have moved in the direction of improving patent quality. While today’s decision will take time to analyze and may not have advanced the law and created the stability and certainty that it could have, it appears to continue this trend, which is consistent with the goal of patent reform legislation pending in Congress. The courts, however, are constrained by the text of our outdated statutes, and it is time for Congress to act.

I wonder what he meant about needlessly leaving the door open for business method patents? Does he  believe a business method is not a viable subject matter for a patent? Does he believe that if a patent application for a business method passes the machine-or-transformation test it shouldn't be allowed a patent?

I wish there was more substantive information in the press release. But I guess it's a political maneuver to use a well-publicized case to draw attention to his pet project, the Patent Reform Act of 2010. Still, with summer recess approaching, even with the publicity that Bilski has drawn is it possible that we will see anything in the way of progress on S.515 until the fall?

Other related posts:

USPTO Sends Bilski Memo to Patent Examiners

Bilski vs. Kappos Decision

Bilski vs Kappos

Legal community weighs in on Bilski v. Kappos

Business method patents...what will the Supreme Court Do?

Patent Reform Act of 2010: An Overview

"Patent Reform Act of 2010" and "First Inventor to File" Rule Change

USPTO Sends Bilski Memo to Patent Examiners

usptoAlmost immediately after the Supreme Court handed down the Bilski decision Robert W. Bahr, Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy sent a memorandum to the patent examining corps which gave guidance as to how the USTPO examiners should interpret the case.

Bahr told examiners to examine patent applications for compliance with section 101 using the machine-or-transformation test as a tool for determining whether the claimed invention is a process under section 101.

If a claimed method meets the machine-or-transformation test, the method is likely patent-eligible under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is directed to an abstract idea.

Bahr summarized what the Supreme court decided in the short memo:

The Supreme Court confirms section 101 specifies four independent categories of inventions and discoveries that are eligible for protection: process, machines, manufacturers, and compositions of matter.

The Supreme Court confirms that laws of nature, physical phenomenon and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.

The Supreme Court decided claims of Bilski not patent-eligible because under section 101 because they are an attempt to patent abstract ideas.

The Supreme Court indicated machine for transformation test is only a threshold inquiry and is not the sole test for patent eligibility of processes under 35 USC 101.

Significantly, the Supreme Court also indicated that a business method is at least in some circumstances eligible for patent under section 101.

Bahr concluded by saying an examiner should continue to examine patent applications for compliance with section 101 using "existing guidance" concerning the machine-or-transformation test.

I tried to figure out what the existing guidelines are for the USPTO regarding the examination of a process claim. I found another memorandum dated January 7, 2009, by John J. Love, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, addressed to the Technology Center Directors and the Patent Examining Corps which explained that the Bilski machine-or-transformation test for a method claim is whether or not the claimed method is:

  1. Tied to a particular machine or apparatus; or
  2. Transforms a particular article to a different state or thing.

The "guidelines" go on to say that there are two corollaries to the machine-or-transformation test :

  • First, a mere field of use limitation is generally insufficient to render otherwise eligible method claim patentable. This means the machine or transformation test must impose and meaningful limits on the method claim scope to pass the test; and
  • Second, insignificant extra-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a credible process. This means for citing a specific machine work or a transformation of a specific article is an insignificant step, such a data gathering or outputting, is not sufficient to pass the test.

Other related posts:

Senator Leahy Uses Bilski to Push Patent Reform

Bilski vs. Kappos Decision

Bilski vs Kappos

Legal community weighs in on Bilski v. Kappos

Business method patents...what will the Supreme Court Do?

Bilski vs. Kappos Decision

To summarize today's Supreme Court ruling in Bilski (PDF), business method patents remain viable supreme courtsubject matter and the machine-or-transformation test enunciated as the sole test by the Federal Circuit is not the exclusive test, but merely one tool in the Examiner toolbox.

The court affirmed that Bilski’s risk-management method was not patentable subject matter. "Indeed, all members of the Court agree that the patent application at issue here falls out-side of §101 because it claims an abstract idea."

You can not patent laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.

Indeed, Justice Kennedy writing for the Court found that 35 U.S.C. §273 acknowledges the existence and statutory protection of business method patents.

Adopting the machine-or-transformation test as the sole test for what constitutes a “process” (as opposed to just an important and useful clue) violates these statutory interpretation principles. Section 100(b) provides that “[t]he term ‘process’ means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.”

"The Court is unaware of any “‘ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...of the definitional terms “process, art or method” that would require these terms to be tied to a machine or to transform an article..., under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis."

The Court found that the invention in Bilkski, is an attempt to patent an abstract idea as well as a mathematical formula to express that idea. The Court reasoned that this was not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.

In his concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Gindburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Stevens, Kennedy agreed with the majority that Bilski revolved around the attempt to patent an abstract idea and therefore ran afoul of §101.

Nevertheless, Stevens (and the concurring justices) would have taken this decision further by reiterating their position that business method “patents” are not patent-eligible subject matter in the first place.John Del Vecchio

I asked patent attorney John Del Vecchio of the Buffalo patent law firm of  Del Vecchio and Stadler about his thoughts regarding this much anticipated Supreme Court Decision, he highlighted the following quotes from the Biliski opinion (PDF):

Page 8
This Court’s precedents establish that the machine-or- transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under §101. The machine-or- transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible “process.”

Page 9
As a result, in deciding whether previously unforeseen inventions qualify as patentable “process[es],” it may not make sense to require courts to confine themselves to asking the questions posed by the machine- or-transformation test. Section 101’s terms suggest that new technologies may call for new inquiries.

Page 10
Section 101 similarly precludes the broad contention that the term “process” categorically excludes business methods.

Page 12
But beyond this or some other limitation consistent with the statutory text, the Patent Act leaves open the possibility that there are at least some processes that can be fairly described as business methods that are within patentable subject matter under §101.

Page 13
Petitioners’ claims are not patentable processes because they are attempts to patent abstract ideas.

Page 16
In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Act.

Del Vecchio concludes, "So, it looks like the machine/ transformation test is a great clue, but not the sole test under 101. And, it looks like business method patents are alive and well.

Too bad the Court failed to spell out what the other 101 clues are!!!  Seems like we might be back to the machine/transformation test as the only sure way of satisfying 101."

Based on today’s ruling and the concurring opinion of Justice Stevens, it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court will further define patent eligible subject matter and grant certiorari (PDF) in Mayo v. Prometheus (PDF) a case challenging the patentable subject matter of Prometheus Labs' patents that cover a method of optimizing the dosing of a drug.

Other related posts:

Senator Leahy Uses Bilski to Push Patent Reform

USPTO Sends Bilski Memo to Patent Examiners

Bilski vs Kappos

Legal community weighs in on Bilski v. Kappos

Business method patents...what will the Supreme Court Do?

Rights Protected in Trademark Registration

How does a trademark benefit your company? Every one knows the value of a name. I wonder what trademar symbolthe value of the Nike name and swoosh design is versus all the inventory and assets the company owns. I would guess the name has more value.

But what are the benefits of registering the trademark? Here is a list of benefits of owning a  Federally registered trademark in the United States:

  1. Registration is proof of validity;
  2. Proof of registrant's ownership of the trademark;
  3. Exclusive right to use the trademark in commerce;
  4. "Incontestability" after five (5) years registration (stops attacks based on prior use or descriptiveness of the trademark);
  5. Constructive notice nationwide of the trademark owner's claim;
  6. Nationwide rights in the trademark (trademark rights can be obtained by registering it in an individual state);
  7. Right to bring suit in federal court regardless of jurisdictional diversity;
  8. Registration rights under the Paris Convention can be used as a basis for obtaining registration in foreign countries;
  9. Registration may be filed with U.S. Customs Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods; and
  10. Allows you to use the ® symbol.

Bilski vs Kappos

What's taking the Supreme Court so long to hand down an opinion on thesupreme court Bilski vs Kappos case? Bilski was argued on Nov. 9, 2009... 225 days ago. There has been much speculation that the decision will be published when the Supreme Court next releases its opinions on Thursday (June 24, 2010) or next Monday.

Dennis Crouch's Patently-O blog posts a nice chart of Joseph Miller, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, which shows the length of time it took the Supreme Court to render decisions on 20 other patent cases. The range was between 35 and 153 days. Dennis Crouch concludes:

"If you feel like you've been waiting a long time to see the Bilski opinion, it's because you have been waiting a longer time than usual."

My first thought was how can you compare Bilski, a case that's going to have long reaching consequences to many existing patents and software companies futures, with any other patent case? Wouldn't you expect it to be longer than the rest?

But a quick glance at the list and I saw a couple of the seminal cases in patent law history and a big one is right there at 140 days- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., a case that was pending for almost twenty years and a case the Supreme Court looked at twice regarding the scope of prosecution history estoppel under the doctrine of equivalents.

The questions presented to the supreme Court in Bilski were:

  1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing ("machine-or-transformation" test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court's precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for "any" new and useful process beyond excluding patents for "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."
  2. Whether the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect "method[s] of doing or conducting business." 35 U.S.C. § 273.

The Bilski decision may affect whether any business method, software, e-commerce and/or medical diagnostic technology is patentable. It will be interesting to see what and when they decide this case. Stay tuned for my next post on the Bilski decision.

Other related posts:

Senator Leahy Uses Bilski to Push Patent Reform

USPTO Sends Bilski Memo to Patent Examiners

Bilski vs Kappos Decision

Legal community weighs in on Bilski v. Kappos

Business method patents...what will the Supreme Court Do?