Patents as an incentive for professors and students

The article The politics of patents in Commonwealth has some discussion of “who is who” in the patent reform debate.

There is some discussion of Bob Brown, the president of Boston University, including

For the universities, protecting the patent system is not so much about the money. Brown says that BU can make several million dollars in any given year but just as likely could lose money. More important, he says, is the incentive it provides for faculty and students. “It drives their research from the bench to the free market on the other side,” he says. “That’s a very major thing in the culture of the university.”

Ironically, James Bessen also resides at Boston University.

Continue Reading ...
  • Kyle Bass IPR petition against Lialda granted for review of U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720

    From the National Law Review:

    After filing over thirty petitions for Inter Partes Review of Orange Book-listed patents for various drugs, Kyle Bass and his Coalition for Affordable Drugs finally has made it over the first hurdle. The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided to institute IPR proceedings against U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720, which is listed in Orange Book for Lialda®. This is bad news for Shire, since this is the only Orange Book-listed patent for Lialda®, and also bad news for pharmaceutical companies who hoped Kyle Bass would get discouraged and stop his campaign again pharmaceutical patents. –

    One notes that not all of Bass’s petitions have been denied. Some are pending.


    Continue Reading ...
  • Granting Institution in Part Utilizing the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Claim Construction Standard CBM2015-00102

    Takeaway: Under current, but proposed-to-be-revised, 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b), the Board may utilize the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) claim construction standard in instituting a covered business method review of an unexpired patent but then rely on the Phillips standard in … Continue reading

    The post Granting Institution in Part Utilizing the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Claim Construction Standard CBM2015-00102 appeared first on PTAB Trial Blog.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Monsanto patent acquisition slows, focus remains on disease-resistant crops

    Monsanto’s 2005 acquisition of vegetable and fruit seed producer Seminis, Inc., continues to pay dividends for the corporation as readers can see in a couple of patents which have recently issued from the USPTO. U.S. Patent No. 9125354, which is titled Squash Hybrid LEBEHH9044 and Parents Thereof, claims a squash plant and seed having a first set of chromosomes of squash line ZGN-EH-09-7554. The squash plant protected here exhibits desirable traits for commercial squash production and is well…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Kyle Bass IPR challenge moves foward, what does it mean for patent reform?

    The first bit of good news for Bass came with respect to his IPR petition against Celgene Corporation. Celgene Corporation filed a motion for sanctions against the Coalition for Affordable Drugs on July 28, 2015. On September 25, 2015, the PTAB, in a decision authored by Administrative Patent Judge Michael Tierney, explained that the purpose of the America Invents Act (AIA) was to “encourage the filing of meritorious patentability challenges, by any person who is not the patent owner, in an…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Design patent damages stuck in the year 1887?

    An opinion piece in ComputerWorld suggests that Samsung/Apple litigation may alter patent law.

    Samsung questioned why it should have to pay the large judgment immediately. Not only had one of the key patents been invalidated, but Samsung also publicly stated it was appealing to the Supreme Court. It argued that the order of immediate payment could result in irreparable harm, and on Friday a judge issued an emergency temporary stay of the judgment.

    This particular case may seem narrow and petty, but larger issues are at stake. The applicable 1887 law giving rise to the majority of the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, for example, says an infringer is liable “to the extent of his total profits.” But if Apple infringed an unimportant patent of a tiny firm, could that firm be awarded Apple’s “total profits” of tens of billions of dollars? It’s not at all clear in today’s modern economy of highly complex products that “total profit” refers to the entire product, if it ever did. The phrase “to the extent” appears to be an important modifier. So is additional text noting that any award shouldn’t exceed “twice the profit made from the infringement.” Isn’t a plain reading that any award related to the harm of the infringement? Put another way, if the infringement isn’t shown to cause the harm, the remedy doesn’t make sense.


    EtCentric had discussed the 1887 law:

    •“The no apportionment language (i.e. disgorgement of infringer’s ‘total profits’) was placed in the Patent Act in 1887 in response to a 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case regarding infringement of a design patent on a carpet design, whereby the Court said the design patentee was only entitled to 6 cents in damages — the portion of the damages attributable to the design,” Carani explains.
    •“In response to that holding, a holding that members of Congress felt was a miscarriage of justice, the 1887 Patent Act was enacted and provided a remedy for ‘total profit’ without apportionment for design patent infringement,” he adds.


    Continue Reading ...
  • Denying Additional Discovery where Party Had Sought Potentianal Indemnification from Third Parties IPR2015-01322

    Takeaway: A party’s statements in a related litigation that it was seeking potential indemnification from third parties, which includes the petitioner, is not sufficient to establish beyond speculation that something useful will be uncovered to support a motion for additional … Continue reading

    The post Denying Additional Discovery where Party Had Sought Potentianal Indemnification from Third Parties IPR2015-01322 appeared first on PTAB Trial Blog.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Argentina: Bill To Expand Copyright On Photographs To Life-Plus-70 Years Introduced In Argentine Congress

    Bill No. 2517-D-2015, presented by Liliana Mazure, Gloria Bidegain, Susana Canela, Gastón Harispe, Héctor Recalde and Eduardo Seminara, was introduced to the Argentine Congress to reform the Argentine Copyright Act (Law No. 11.723) in order to extend copyright over photographic works to life plus 70 years post mortem auctoris. The current period of protection for photographs in Argentina is 20 years since publication (article 34). In case the bill is passed it will have retroactive effect, i.e. photographs that today are in the public domain will revert to private property.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit Summarily Affirms Apple v. Samsung judgment without Merits Briefing

    Apple v. Samsung (Fed. Cir. 2015) (SamsungSummaryAffirm) Most recently in the patent battle between Apple and Samsung, district court Judge Koh awarded $550 million to Apple for based largely upon design patent infringement findings.  That awarded followed immediately after the Federal Circuit’s 2015 remand to Judge Koh “for immediate entry of final judgment.”  Samsung is again appealing the […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • A New Model For IP: Interview With Ecuador IP Office Director Hernán Núñez Rocha

    Ecuador is preparing a new intellectual property policy that aims to better suit the country’s strategic development. On the occasion of the World Intellectual Property Organization General Assembly, Hernán Núñez Rocha, head of the Ecuadorian IP office sat with Intellectual Property Watch to talk about the country’s work on the IP policy and its use of IP as a tool for local development. He also explained Ecuador’s position on the WIPO committee on traditional knowledge.

    Continue Reading ...
  • USPTO News Briefs

    By Donald Zuhn – USPTO Extends After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 Program Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office indicated on its website and through a Patents Alert e-mail that the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) program has been extended through September 30, 2016. The AFCP, which was implemented in April 2012 (see “USPTO to Assess After Final Consideration Pilot Program”), modified in May 2013 (see “USPTO News Briefs”), and extended last year (see “USPTO News Briefs”) provides examiners with a limited amount of non-production time — three hours for utility and reissue applications — to consider…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Pending Cases at the Supreme Court

    As we sit here today, there are no pending patent cases before the Supreme Court where the court has granted certiorari.  That said, there are a large number of pending petitions.  These include Cuozzo & Pulse that I have previously discussed. WilmerHale has been covering these, but is a few months behind. The following are a few […]

    Continue Reading ...