Patent Reform Act of 2011

The latest patent reform bill entitled “The Patent Reform Act of 2011" (PDF) , will be introduced to Congress by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on Jan. 25, 2011. Could this be the year it becomes law? The Judiciary Committee has introduced patent reform bills to Congress every year since 2006.

A bipartisan group of Senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Members Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), will introduceSenate Judiciary Committee patent reform legislation when the Senate returns to session next week.

Sen. Leahy plans to introduce the bill on the Committee’s first day of executive business, and has scheduled a mark-up session for Thursday, January 27, 2011.  I think he will try to fast track the bill again without permitting hearings or debate.

“This will be the first piece of legislation considered by the Judiciary Committee this year, and I hope the Senate will act promptly on this job-creating bill. Action by Congress can no longer be delayed. ..[t]he Patent Reform Act will keep America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

If the bill is legislated into law it will make the first significant changes to the nation’s patent system in nearly 60 years. But based upon the past 4 years that is a big “IF.”

Sen. Leahy notes that the bill “mirrors key improvements” to the legislation announced last March as the “Manager’s Amendment.” The Senate Judiciary Committee has held eight hearings in the last three Congresses examining the need for patent reform.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved patent reform legislation in 2009. In September 2010 , 25 Senators joined together to urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to schedule floor time to consider the legislation but it never made it to the Senate floor.

What’s in the Bill? The bill provides these specific provisions:

  • Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
  • Sec. 2. First inventor to file.
  • Sec. 3. Inventor’s oath or declaration.
  • Sec. 4. Damages.
  • Sec. 5. Post-grant review proceedings.
  • Sec. 6. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
  • Sec. 7. Preissuance submissions by third parties.
  • Sec. 8. Venue.
  • Sec. 9. Fee setting authority.
  • Sec. 10. Supplemental examination.
  • Sec. 11. Residency of Federal Circuit judges.
  • Sec. 12. Micro entity defined.
  • Sec. 13. Funding agreements.
  • Sec. 14. Tax strategies deemed within the prior art.
  • Sec. 15. Best mode requirement.
  • Sec. 16. Technical amendments.
  • Sec. 17. Effective date; rule of construction.

Although I have reviewed most of this before in my post Patent Reform Act of 2010: An Overview and the bill is "nearly identical" to the Manager's Amendment of S. 515 (PDF) from the 111th Congress (It includes similar or identical provisions on venue, best mode, false marking, and easing the residency requirements for Federal Circuit judges.) I’d like to highlight some of the major changes contained in the bill:

  • “First-inventor-to-file” system: Under the current law, it doesn’t matter who’s the first person to file a patent application, the United States has a “first person to invent” system.

Currently there is a statutory 102B bar that says if the invention was published, offered for sale or used in public more than one year before an application for a patent then everyone is barred from filing a patent application on that invention. But all that will change.

The new bill proposes to change the law so that any disclosure before the effective filing date will be a bar. However there is an exception to the bar, it will allow a one year grace period for disclosures by the inventor or someone who obtained the disclosure from the inventor.

The proposed change:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— ‘‘(1) 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; …

‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.— ‘‘…A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention— if the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

  • False marking: False marking cases will only be allowed if filed by persons who have actually been harmed by the alleged misconduct. False marking cases would also include a statute of limitations that limits the time to file such cases to 10 years after the alleged misconduct or 1 year after the plaintiff in such an action became aware of the alleged misconduct.
  • Damages: Change of the procedure for determining damages. The district court judges will have more control over evidence and jury instructions on as it relates to Damages.

The damages portion of the bill is considered by many as a "grand compromise" achieved by Senators Leahy, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and then-Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA). 

Senator Leahy states on his web page the new law will establish a “ rigorous gate keeping role for the court, pursuant to which judges will assess the legal basis for the specific damages theories and jury instructions sought by the parties. The gate keeping provisions will ensure consistency, uniformity, and fairness in the way that courts administer patent damages law."

The proposed new law states:

“The court shall identify the methodologies and factors that are relevant to the determination of damages, and the court or jury shall consider only those methodologies and factors relevant to making such determination.'

The damages section of the bill also includes a sequencing provision. It states that “ Any party may request that a patent-infringement trial be sequenced so that the trier of fact (jury or judge) decides questions of the patent’s infringement and validity before the issues of damages and willful infringement are [decided]”

  • Patent review: a person who is not the patent owner may file a petition to institute a review for a patent within 9 months of a patent’s issuance, and an inter partes proceeding before the USPTO after this time-frame.
  • Preissuance submissions by third parties: Anyone can confidentially submit to the patent examiner during pendency of a patent application the following: prior art patents or publications, statements made by the patent applicant to the court or the USPTO. If you wanted to do this today you would have to do it within 2 months of publication (Good luck with that!)
  • Willful infringement: The bill includes the changes to make pleading and proving intentional infringement with more specificity, including requirements of pre-suit notification and specificity in pleadings. I think a common sense proposed change is that the court can’t allow Punitive damages if it is “a close case” on the basis of infringement, validity or enforceability.
  • Filing fee: additional fee of $400 for applications that are not filed electronically.

The proposed bill is 99 pages long. Could you get anyone to agree to everything contained in any 100 page document? At a first glance it appears to be very close to the previous bills. But even so, I plan on comparing the two and filing future posts on the subject. So sign up for an RSS feed on this blog or come back and check out the blog in the next week or so for updates.

If you have any questions on The Patent Reform Act of 2011 please comment below and I will do my best to respond with an answer.

Continue Reading...

IBM Awarded the Most U.S. Patents in 2010

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted an all-time high 219,614 United States utility patents in 2010 – up 31 percent over 2009. All but one of the companies in the Top 50 are up from 2009, most shattering records and many posting double-digit percentage gains.

IBM continues to hold down the #1 patent rankings position, which it has done for 18 consecutive years, with a record 5,896 patents, up 20 percent from 4,914 in 2009. IBM is the first company to Break 5,000-Patent Mark in a Single Year.

IBM’s 2010 patent total nearly quadrupled Hewlett-Packard’s and exceeded the combined issuances of Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, EMC, and Google. More than 7,000 IBM inventors residing in 46 different U.S. states and 29 countries generated the company's record-breaking 2010 patent tally.ifi claims

IFI CLAIMS® Patent Services, a division of Fairview Research, compiled a ranking of global companies awarded the most U.S. patents in 2010.

I spoke with Darlene Slaughter, general manager of IFI CLAIMS Patent Services and she said that they provide statistical data to perform preliminary patent searching, infringement searches or freedom to operate searches." With that information companies can:

  • Determine which companies are key players in a particular technology
  • Identify strategic partners
  • Gain an insider's view of a competitor's patenting activity
  • Review the number of new patents in each category for the past year
  • Track patenting trends across industries

Darlene Slaughter, reiterated that protecting innovation through the patent office is not slowing down

"Companies with the most patents focus on their IP and believe that protecting the innovation through patent is important in maintaining an edge on its competition."

Is this increase in patent grants a sign that innovation is not slowed by recession? Or is it a sign that United States Patent and Trademark Office is becoming more efficient at prosecuting patent applications and the increased number of patent examiners are reducing the back log of patent applications?

I think the increased number of patent grants can be directly tied to the number of applications filed.

In his Director's Forum: David Kappos' Public Blog the USPTO director posted that "Improving Key Patent Processes and Sub-processes" is the big reason for the increased patent grants and he quotes a couple remarkable numbers:

For the year 2010 the USPTO Technology Center Technical Support Staff of 274 legal instrument examiners and legal document review clerks:

  • Entered more than 2.9 million documents;
  • Verified more than 264,000 allowed patent applications;
  • Reviewed and counted over 2,300,000 office actions; and
  • Processed more than 257,000 new patent applications.

These stats represented all-time records for the USPTO, reflecting all-time record workflow through the Agency including interviews conducted, office actions processed, notices of allowance, and final rejections. David Kappos

The bottom line is that the United States patent office has been swamped with a rising flood of applications over the past 20 years:

  • 174,711 applications were filed in 1990 and 100,975 patents were issued.
  • 478,649 applications were filed In 2010 and 219,614 applications were issued.
  • The 1990 gap between patent applications filed versus issued patents was 73,736 
  • The 2010 gap has grown to 259,035.

Okay we know it is not humanly possible for 6,000 examiners to keep up with the 721,831 backlog of patent applications... but have the examiners increased their ability to process applications?

patent application backlog

Dennis D. Crouch of Patently-O Blog posted a chart comparing the yearly number of patents issued per examiner over the course of the past decade. Dennis points out that apart from the “2007-2009 period where the grant rate dropped so precipitously” this chart does not suggest that the examiners are any more efficient today of disposing patents than they were in previous years.

So I would guess that the only solution to decreasing the backlog of patent applications is to hire more examiners.

John Schmid of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that despite efforts to improve, U.S. patent approvals are moving slower. And because of the huge backlog and the fact that the US publishes entire patent applications online 18 months after they are filed, “That puts American ingenuity up for grabs, free to anyone with an Internet connection.” In the article he quotes Paul Michel, recently retired chief justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as saying

"In China, there are thousands of engineers who don't work in laboratories inventing new technologies. "They sit in computer rooms reading U.S. patent applications on the Internet. And they can use the technology anywhere in the world, including in America, for free.

But even with all the suppoed deficiencies of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, foreign and US corporations want to protect their innovations and have filed a record number of applications this year.

And as a result US companies own about half and the rest of the world owns the other half of the granted patents this past year. (see chart below World Wide Ownership of US Patents 2010)

Top-50 US Patent Assignees in 2010 (As reported by IFI)

  1. International Business Machines Corp 5896
  2. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (Korea) 4551
  3. Microsoft Corp 3094
  4. Canon K K (Japan) 2552
  5. Panasonic Corp (Japan) 2482
  6. Toshiba Corp (Japan) 2246
  7. Sony Corp (Japan) 2150
  8. Intel Corp 1653
  9. LG Electronics Inc (Korea) 1490
  10. Hewlett-Packard Development Co L P 1480
  11. Hitachi Ltd (Japan) 1460
  12. Seiko Epson Corp (Japan) 1443
  13. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd (Taiwan) 1438
  14. Fujitsu Ltd (Japan) 1296
  15. General Electric Co 1225
  16. Ricoh Co Ltd (Japan) 1200
  17. Cisco Technology Inc 1115
  18. Honda Motor Co Ltd (Japan) 1050
  19. Fujifilm Corp (Japan) 1041
  20. Hynix Semiconductor Inc (Japan) 973
  21. Broadcom Corp 958
  22. GM Global Technology Operations Inc 942
  23. Micron Technology Inc 917
  24. Siemens AG (Germany) 873
  25. Xerox Corp 858
  26. Denso Corp (Japan) 853
  27. Texas Instruments Inc 829
  28. Honeywell International Inc 824
  29. Sharp K K (Japan) 818
  30. Toyota Jidosha K K (Japan) 802
  31. Infineon Technologies AG (Germany) 774
  32. Brother Kogyo K K (Germany) 771
  33. Nokia AB Oy (Finland) 760
  34. Silverbrook Research Pty Ltd (Australia) 752
  35. LG Display Co Ltd (Korea) 738
  36. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co Ltd (Japan) 734
  37. Mitsubishi Denki K K (Japan) 700
  38. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N V (Netherlands) 685
  39. NEC Corp (Japan) 680
  40. Boeing Co 662
  41. Qualcomm Inc 657
  42. SAP AG (Germany) 649
  43. Oracle America Inc/Sun Microsystems Inc* 646
  44. Bosch, Robert GmbH (Germany) 593
  45. Fuji Xerox Co Ltd (Japan) 574
  46. Apple Inc 563
  47. Du Pont de Nemours, E I & Co 509
  48. Sanyo Electric Co Ltd (Japan) 504
  49. 3M Innovative Properties Co 496
  50. Freescale Semiconductor Inc 494

*Sun Microsystems changed name to Oracle.

Do you think an increase in the amount of patents equates to an increase of productivity? Will that translate into bigger profits at the stock market? Here are the biggest percentage gainers on the 2010's Top 50 Companies Awarded a Patent List:

  1. Apple, +94%
  2. Qualcomm, +84%
  3. NEC, +74%
  4. SAP, +70 %
  5. GM Global Technology, +68%
  6. Hynix Semiconductor, +65%
  7. Silverbrook Research, +58%
  8. 3M Innovative Properties, +53%
  9. Toyota, +50%
  10. Brother, +45%
  11. Hon Hai Precision Industry, +44%
  12. LG Electronics, +40%

In 2010, American-headquartered companies collectively recaptured a lead on the total number of U.S. patent grants (just over 50%) after losing out slightly to foreign companies for the previous two years. In 2009, American firms received less than a majority at 49 percent. Here is a chart showing the ownership percentage number of patents awarded by country.

Market Sectors with the Heaviest New Patent Activity

  • Multiplex Communications (US class 370) 3.3 %
  • Solid-State Devices and Transistors (US class 257) 3.1 %
  • Semiconductors (US class 438) 2.72 %
  • Data Processing and File Management (US class 707) 2 %
  • Computers and Processing Systems (US class 709) 2 %
  • Drug Compositions (US class 514) 2.1 2 %
  • Biotechnology (US classes 435 and 530) 2%

 IFI's full report, which offers comprehensive 2010 patent information on more than 2,000 companies, can be accessed online through IFI's Patent Intelligence & Technology Report, available on its website in a free-trial version.

Inventors Hall of Fame: Nikola Tesla

Nicola TeslaNikola Tesla
Born Jul 10 1856 - Died Jan 7 1943

Electro-Magnetic Motor
Alternating Current
Patent Number 381,968 (.PDF)

Inducted to National Inventors Hall of Fame™ in 1975


Nikola Tesla invented the induction motor with rotating magnetic field that made unit drives for machines feasible and made AC power transmission an economic necessity.

In 1887 and 1888 Tesla had an experimental shop at 89 Liberty Street, New York, and there he invented the induction motor. He sold the invention to Westinghouse in July 1888 and spent a year in Pittsburgh instructing Westinghouse engineers.

Invention Impact

Alternating current (AC) became the premier form of electrical energy after it overcame objections by Thomas Edison who designed direct current (DC). Tesla also showcased his invention at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair where he and Westinghouse won the bid to illuminate the International Exhibition. Alternating current captivated the public with its efficient lighting and lessened heat.

Nikola Tesla developed polyphase alternating current system of generators, motors and transformers and held 40 basic U.S. patents on the system, which George Westinghouse bought, determined to supply America with the Tesla system.

Tesla Memorial Society of New York Website

AC has an electric current whose direction reverses cyclically rather than staying in a constant direction like DC. The waveform of AC is also more efficient than the DC. AC is the form in which electricity is carried to homes and businesses.

Radiant Energy Patent

When thinking about the 1900 turn-of-the-century you don't think of high-tech but Nikola Tesla certainly was one of the geniuses of the century. One of the most interesting patents I found was US patent number 685,958 (.PDF) for a Method of Using Radiant Energy.

If you look closely at the original patent drawing below you can see someone hand wrote: "electric stepping motor energized by corpuscular energy from the sun." Was this the precursor of the Solar Panel?

This reminds me of how in 1880 Alexander Graham Bell invented the photophone-transmission of sound on a beam of light- a precursor of today's optical fiber systems.

Method of Using Radiant Energy

energy from sunInventor Bio

Born in Smiljan Lika, Croatia, the son of a Serbian Orthodox clergyman, Tesla attended Joanneum, a polytechnic school in Graz and the University of Prague for two years. He started work in the engineering department of the Austrian telegraph system then became an electrical engineer at an electric power company in Budapest and later at another in Strasbourg.

While in technical school, Tesla became convinced that commutators were unnecessary on motors; and while with the power company he built a crude motor which demonstrated the truth of his theory. In 1884, Tesla came to the United States and joined the Edison Machine Works as a dynamo designer.

Telsa obtained more than 100 patents in his lifetime. Despite his 700 inventions Tesla was not wealthy. For many years he worked in his room at the Hotel New Yorker, where he died.

 Posted with the permission of the  National Inventors Hall of Fame

Interview with Model Maker Fred Landers

Recently I met with Fred Landers with Paragon Model Makers Inc. and we had a nice conversaparagon model makerstion about how he can help inventors build working prototypes and models. Having a prototype is important in the patent process as well as manufacturing process.

Like any endeavor cost and efficiency are concerns in trying to reach your goals. The goal for the inventor is to take an idea and turn it into a real product and then to market in the most profitable way.Fred Landers

The first step in the process is coming up with the idea and the second step in the process is to take it from the virtual world to the real world.

I asked Fred Landers a couple of questions as to how he can help in this process.

Question: What are some of the advantages of building a model?

Answer: if you can provide a manufacturer a prototype that the manufacturer can take and reproduce it will decrease the cost for engineering and design. When a manufacturer has a prototype they can simply copy it and avoid the time of actually coming up with a way of how to make it. 

Question: What are the different types of prototypes that you can create?

Answer: We can build two different types of prototypes.

  1. A working prototype (Engineering Prototype) A working model is a great sales tool for marketing a product. It is positive evidence to show that the product can do what you claim it can do. A working prototype gives you a model that actually proves that the product works.
  2. Nonworking prototype (Industrial Design)
    The nonworking model is usually made of a low-volume mold that is machined out of plastic. This industrial design prototype is an example of what the exterior of the product will look like. Examples of nonworking models that we have made in the past are: electric current tester or a computer cover. We create the nonworking exterior of the product and the company that we are working with brings it to life by filling the interior with the “guts” of the product.

Question: What do you need to begin the process of making a model?

Answer: We use a drawing as a starting point. We work in conjunction with various companies that are able to provide engineering grade drawings as a specification for the product. For example we work in conjunction with Devin Cooper from DCA Ltd. who has the ability to create excellent drawings from which we can create a model.

Question: What are the different types of materials that you usually work with?

Answer: We can use anything from metal, injection molded plastic or wood. We can even bore out a solid piece of acrylic and design it into almost any shape.

We have provided prototypes to many different types of companies’ s over the years such as Kodak, Xerox, Fisher-Price and Smith Corona.

Question: What are the benefits of creating a prototype?

Answer: We believe if you create prototypes it lowers the production cost. If the manufacturer has a model versus just a drawing they can:

  • Avoid the trial and error normally associated with manufacturing
  • Just copy what we give them because if you have a working model you know it works, they just have to copy it.
  • Set a definitive cost of manufacturing a product.

 

Continue Reading...