Patent Law

Subscribe to Patent Law via RSS

On September 8, 2011, the Senate voted 89-9 to pass the America Invents Act (the “Act”). Thereafter the bill was sent to President Obama, who is expected to sign it into law. While the provisions of the Act include more funding for the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the eventual elimination of interference proceedings, and the creation of a potentially more streamlined post-grant challenge process, the most noteworthy portion of the Act grants priority to a patent application based on the application’s filing date. This represents a significant departure from the longstanding United States patent law giving the first person to invent a device priority over all others.

The “first to file” provision of the Act will be met with mixed reactions. Individual inventors and small businesses claim that the “first to file” provision will create a race to the Patent Office, requiring them to expend significant amounts of money and other resources in order to quickly file patent applications ahead of other parties who may be working in a similar technological field. Larger businesses believe that the Act will be beneficial to the patent system by reducing the number of disputes relating to the priority of patent applications by creating an objective priority date. Of a more general concern is the possibility that the rush to file patent applications might result in a lower overall quality of the claims described in patents, potentially resulting in ambiguity and causing difficulty in interpreting those claims in the context of patent infringement litigation.Continue Reading On the President’s Desk: the America Invents Act

By Audrey A. Millemann

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the issue of the patentability of process (method) claims in one of the first cases decided since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010). The case is CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16871 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011).

The plaintiff, CyberSource, owned a patent for a method and system of detecting fraud in a credit card transaction between a purchaser and a merchant over the Internet. According to the patent’s specification, the prior art systems for detecting credit card fraud worked well in face-to-face transactions, but did not work in transactions for the sale of downloadable content over the Internet. The invention, as described in the patent, overcame the problems of the prior art by using Internet address information (e.g., IP addresses, email addresses, etc.) to analyze whether the purchaser’s Internet address was the same as the Internet address previously used with the same credit card number. Continue Reading Federal Circuit Limits Patentable Processes

By Audrey A. Millemann

A patent may be infringed directly or indirectly. Direct infringement exists when the alleged infringer makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports a patented product or performs a patented method. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Indirect infringement exists when the alleged infringer causes another to directly infringe a patent. 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and (c). 

There are two types of indirect infringement: inducing infringement and contributory infringement. Inducing infringement is essentially aiding and abetting another to infringe a patent. Section 271(b). Contributory infringement exists when the alleged infringer sells a component of a patented invention knowing that the component is especially made for use in an infringing product and not a staple article of commerce having substantial noninfringing uses. Section 271(c). Continue Reading Supreme Court Adopts Willful Blindness Standard for Inducing Patent Infringement

by David Muradyan

 

When a creditor provides a loan to a debtor, the debtor will often grant to the creditor a security interest in the debtor’s collateral, including the debtor’s intellectual property. A creditor who receives a security interest in the debtor’s intellectual property, usually by a security agreement, must perfect the security interest so that subsequent purchasers and creditors are on notice of the creditor’s security interest in the collateral. Rules relating to the creation, attachment, perfection and priority of security interests in personal property, including “general intangibles” which include intellectual property, are governed by Division 9 (Secured Transactions) of the California Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 9”), unless federal law preempts Article 9. In order to determine where to perfect a security interest for each type of intellectual property, and since copyrights, trademarks, and patents are all governed by different statutes and case law, it is important to review and analyze not only Article 9 but also the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. (the “Copyright Act”), the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, 15 § 1051 et. seq. (the “Lanham Act”), and the Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. (the “Patent Act”).

 Continue Reading How to Perfect a Security Interest in Intellectual Property (Copyrights, Trademarks and Patents)

by Audrey Millemann

In ABB Inc. v. Cooper Industries, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit resolved an open question concerning subject matter jurisdiction of declaratory judgment actions based on patent infringement. 

Cooper Industries owned several patents covering electrical equipment containing dielectric fluid.  ABB manufactured a type of dielectric fluid called “Biotemp.”  Cooper sued ABB for patent infringement.  Cooper and ABB later settled the case, and Cooper granted ABB a non-exclusive license to make, have made, sell, or import the Biotemp product.  The license stated that it did not include any rights of third parties to make the Biotemp product.  In the license, ABB admitted that Cooper’s patents were valid and that the claims of the patents covered the Biotemp product.  Continue Reading Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Actions – Federal Circuit Resolves Open Question