• Guest Post: Intellectual Property, Finance and Corporate Governance
    in: Corporate Governance, denoncourt, Disclosure, Elizabeth holmes, Finance, fraud, Intellectual Property, misrepresentation, Patently-O, sec, Theranos, transparency, valuation  | 

    Guest Post: Intellectual Property, Finance and Corporate Governance

    We are pleased to publish this guest post by former IP Finance contributor and Senior Lecturer in Law, Dr. Janice Denoncourt, at the Nottingham Law School at the Nottingham Trent University. 

    The emergence of IP rich companies is the new corporate governance challenge. This is because IP is largely invisible, not only in the financial accounts, but also more generally in corporate law theory and the legal framework.  The research in my new bookIntellectual Property, Finance and Corporate Governancedemonstrates why companies need to communicate more about how they manage corporate intellectual property (IP) rights portfolios and their strategy for delivering shareholder value. Depending on their business model and corporate objectives, companies add value via their corporate IP assets in different ways to achieve their goals.   In the modern era, all companies, large and small, have intellectual property (IP) rights, sometimes across multiple jurisdictions.  They are corporate IP owners.  At the same time, the shift to intangibles and IP assets as the major driver of value in business is clear and unstoppable.  Since the Global Financial Crisis ten years ago there has been a renewed interest in our current understanding of capitalism.  As a result, shareholders, business people, stakeholders and the public, seek more relevant, accurate information about IP-dependent business models and their impact on commercial value.    

    Dr. Janice Denoncourt
    In the aftermath of the Theranos ‘misleading investors’ scandal, this is an increasingly important modern corporate governance issue.  Theranos, Inc. is an American consumer healthcare technology company based in Palo Alto, California founded in 2003 by inventor and Managing Director Elizabeth Holmes. In 2018 Holmes was subject to civil charges by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for massive fraud in excess of $700 million USD for having repeatedly yet inaccurately assured shareholders and regulators that the company’s patented blood testing technology was revolutionary (see https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-41-theranos-holmes.pdf).  Theranos’ 200 plus US patent portfolio is public information via the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) portal and a significant corporate investment in IP. Holmes co-invented more than 270 of the company’s patented innovations. While patents do not equate to innovation or commercial success, they do act as business indicators of inventive activity as well as a commitment to protect the results of innovation.  Holmes, of all people, was well placed (if not best placed) to understand the capability of the blood testing technology. The alleged misconduct, namely misleading investors and government officials, has generated a new global regulatory discourse about what companies need to tell us about their IP.  Arguing that it needed ‘to protect its IP’ to excuse material omissions and misleading disclosures is not acceptable according to the SEC.  In the SEC’s press release on 14 March this year, Steven Peikin, Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division stated:
                Investors are entitled to nothing less than complete truth and candor from companies and their executives… The charges against Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani make clear that there is no exemption from the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws simply because a company is non-public, development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media attention.

    Stephanie Avakian, Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division further confirmed:
                As a result of Holmes’ alleged fraudulent conduct, she is being stripped of control of the company she founded, is returning millions of shares to Theranos, and is barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years…This package of remedies exemplifies our efforts to impose tailored and meaningful sanctions that directly address the unlawful behaviour charged and best remedies the harm done to shareholders.

    Key corporate governance principles of transparency and disclosure are being more rigorously applied to corporate ownership of monopolistic IP rights that protect innovation and creativity.  In the US, SEC disclosure law Regulation S-K requires disclosure of the importance, duration and effect of all patents, trademarks, licences, franchises and concessions that a company holds.  The standard for ‘material’ corporate IP asset disclosures will continue to evolve in the US and other IP-rich jurisdictions.  The civil legal action brought by the SEC against Holmes is the catalyst highlighting a void in corporate practice.   IP-rich companies like Theranos will continue seeking corporate finance which falls under the corporate governance regulatory umbrella.   IP rich companies need to ensure they reflect on disclosure and transparency rules and take into account the growing magnitude of their corporate intangibles, IP assets and IP business models that potentially generate future wealth for their shareholders and potential investors.  

    Closer to home, in 2017 the UK implemented the EU Non-Financial Disclosure Directive which requires large and listed companies to include additional disclosures of non-financial information in their annual reports, similar to the disclosure requirements in the Strategic Report.  The Non-Financial Reporting Regulations insert sections 414CA and 414CB into the Companies Act 2006, supplementing the existing strategic report requirements as set out in section 414C.  These new company law equirements potentially increase the reporting of non-financial information, better business and IP strategy reporting through the mandatory requirement to report the company’s business model.  This EU-wide reform highlights the growing importance of disclosure of non-financial information.

    IP rights have evolved from being “a little pool to a big ocean” of corporate value and that corporate governance needs to respond to society’s rising expectations of directors and boards.  The astonishing lack of quantitative and qualitative public information about the growing magnitude of corporate IP assets makes it difficult to assess strategic value (“the IP value story”) and directors’ stewardship of those assets.  More relevant, accurate and ‘joined up’ corporate IP information (mostly known to internal management) is needed to triangulate intangibles financial data through cross verification with narrative disclosures and actual events.  The SEC stated that Theranos engaged in “elaborate, years-long fraud in which they exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business and financial performance.”  This is a new frontier in corporate governance thinking and practice. 

    My research evaluates how corporate boards can ensure an appropriate level of transparency and make voluntary and mandatory ‘true and fair’ disclosures about a company’s corporate IP assets such as patents and trade secrets in traditional formats such as the accounts and the annual report.   The philosophies and principles that underpin debates on disclosure and transparency suggest that more ‘open’ disclosures about innovation, whilst preserving competitive advantage, are necessary so we have something to read, evaluate, react to and question. Countries including the US and the United Kingdom have mandatory obligations to report on gender balance, climate change and more, but not expressly corporate IP.  Patents, mini-case studies and an original business triage-style model for assessing corporate IP information, strategy and disclosures illustrate the gaps corporate governance theory needs to address.  Companies need to tell us how their corporate investment in R&D and IP rights contributes to the bottom line and regulators need to ensure boards of directors are accountable for IP management and strategy decisions, an important underside of the intangible economy.  

    Intellectual Property, Finance and Corporate Governance contributes to the legal and economic literature for readers interested in what lies behind the headlines.  The foreword is written by Professor Nicolas Binctin, Universite of Poitiers. As for the future of the Silicon Valley biotech company Theranos, Inc., the company has since made hundreds of staff redundant to avert becoming insolvent.

    Dr J Denoncourt, Nottingham Law School

  • USPTO Issues Guidance on Effects of Supreme Court’s Decision in SAS Institute on PTAB Trials
    in: Administrative Patent Judge, America Invents Act, David Ruschke, inter partes review, IP News, IPR Petitions, IPWatchdog Articles, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Leahy-Smith AIA, patent claims, patent trial and appeal board, patents, PTAB Trials, SAS Institute, US Supreme Court, USPTO, webinar  | 

    USPTO Issues Guidance on Effects of Supreme Court’s Decision in SAS Institute on PTAB Trials

    On Thursday, April 26th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued new guidance regarding the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment in SAS Institute Inc. on America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings held before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Along with the new guidance, the USPTO also announced a webinar with PTAB […]

    The post USPTO Issues Guidance on Effects of Supreme Court’s Decision in SAS Institute on PTAB Trials appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents…

  • USPTO Guidance for Dealing with SAS Decision
    in: Patently-O  | 

    USPTO Guidance for Dealing with SAS Decision

    by Dennis Crouch

    The US Supreme Court recently decided SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018), holding that USPTO has been improperly issuing “partial-institution” and holding AIA trials on only a subset of challenged claims. The USPTO has now issued a one-page introductory guidance memorandum for procedure moving forward.  According to the Memo:

    1. The PTAB will institute as to all claims or none. Thus going forward, “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.”
    2. For pending trials associated with a partial-institution decision, “the panel may issue an order supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition. . . . [and] may take further action to manage the trial proceeding” to take into account the shift. “For example, if the panel has instituted a trial and the case is near the end of the time allotted for filing the Patent Owner Response, the panel may extend the due date for the Patent Owner Response to enable the Patent Owner to address any additional challenges added to the proceeding.”
    3. “It is expected that the parties will work cooperatively … to resolve disputes and propose reasonable modifications to the schedule.”
    4. Questions: Trials@uspto.gov or “Chat with the Chief” webinar on Monday, April 30, 2018, from noon to 1 pm ET to discuss the SAS decision.

    Continue reading USPTO Guidance for Dealing with SAS Decision at Patently-O.

University of South Florida sues Jackson Laboratory of Bar Harbor, Maine over US patent 5,898,094

In suing Jackson Laboratory over claims of US Patent 5,898,094, the University of South Florida gives us an example of a university suing an entity that actually makes product.

Bizjournals notes of the dispute:

USF states that it owns the entire right, title and interest to the 094 Invention and was issued a patent on April 27, 1999 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In the patent, USF notes that so-called “transgenic animals” such as the mice at the center of this legal dispute are being used to “study neurodegenerative disorders, both to understand the underlying disease pathology as well as to test treatment protocols.”

PsychoGenics, founded in 1999, has an exclusive license.to to USF’s APP/PS1 double transgenic mice (US Patent No. 5,898,094), co-expressing the M146L presenilin 1(PS1) mutation and the double mutations at K670N/M671L (Swedish mutation) in the amyloid precursor protein (APP).

The first claim:

A transgenic mouse with enhanced Alzheimer’s Disease related amyloid accumulation in its brain produced by:
producing an F1 generation mouse by crossing a first transgenic mouse whose genome comprises at least one transgene comprising a DNA sequence encoding mutant presenilin M146L operably linked to a promoter with a second transgenic mouse whose genome comprises at least one transgene comprising a DNA sequence encoding APP K670N,M671L operably linked to a promoter, wherein the first transgenic mouse expresses the DNA sequence encoding the mutant presenilin and wherein the second transgenic mouse expresses the DNA sequence encoding the APP; and
selecting from the offspring of the cross, those transgenic mice whose genome comprises at least one DNA sequence encoding mutant presenilin M146L operably linked to a promoter and at least one transgene comprising a DNA sequence encoding APP K670N,M671L operably linked to a promoter, and identifying an F1 mouse which express both transgenes such that the F1 mouse develops accelerated deposition of Aβ in its brain as compared to non-transgenic mice or either parental mouse.

Relevant links:



Continue Reading ...
  • The CAFC determines part of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional in IN RE SIMON SHIAO TAM

    In 1997, in a talk at SSI-11, LBE mentioned the Lanham Act case involving the American Physical Society (APS), which turned on a distinction of protected free speech and commercial speech:

    A recent case of interest to scientists involved the allegation that use of citation impact
    data (by the physics societies AIP and APS) could, in part, sustain a charge of false advertising.
    In a preliminary decision (Gordon and Breach v American Institute of Physics, 37 USPQ2d 1289
    (SD NY 1995)), a federal district court distinguished citation data published in a journal
    (protected free speech) from the same data specifically addressed to librarians (commercial
    speech). A decision on the merits of the latter supported the position of the societies (see
    Science, 277, 1611, Sept. 12, 1997; Physics Today, pp. 93-94 (Oct. 1997); Intellectual Property
    Today, p. 5 (Oct. 97) and pp. 28-29 (Nov. 97) [The text of the November article is available at
    http://www.lawworks-iptoday.com/11-97/ebert.htm.]. On a lighter note, the publisher of a book
    on the Kennedy assassination (“Case Closed”) was found not to violate the false advertising
    provision of the Lanham Act for an advertisement featuring pictures of conspiracy theorists with
    the caption “GUILTY OF MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC” (Groden v Random
    House, 35 UPSQ2d 1547 (2d Cir 1995)).

    There was also a reference to the Wilcher case: However,
    scandalous or obscene material cannot be registered. (In re Wilcher, 40 USPQ2d 1930 (TTAB

    Link: http://www4.eng.hawaii.edu/~ssi11/SSI-11Papers/P3.pdf

    ** On December 22, 2015, the CAFC decided IN RE SIMON SHIAO TAM, and determined that part of
    the Lanham Act was unconstitutional:

    The government cannot refuse to register disparaging
    marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages
    conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks
    because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging
    to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to
    viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny
    review appropriate for government regulation of message
    or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement proscription
    of § 2(a) is unconstitutional.

    link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1203.Opinion.12-18-2015.1.PDF

    Fragments from the various parts of the decision/dissents are included:

    The fact that the Lanham Act derives from the Commerce Clause, not the Spending Clause, is further evidence that trademark registration is not a subsidy. The purpose of the Lanham Act is to regulate marks used in interstate commerce, prevent customer confusion, and protect the goodwill of markholders, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, not to subsidize markholders. Moreover, the government funding cases have thus far been limited to situations where the government has chosen to limit funding to individuals that are advancing the goals underlying the program the government seeks to fund. See generally Agency for Int’l Dev., 133 S. Ct. at 2324–25; Rust, 500 U.S. at 191; cf. American Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. at 211 (it is not unconstitutional for the government to insist that “public funds be spent for the purposes for which they were authorized”). The restriction on the registration of disparaging marks bears no relation to the objectives, goals, or purpose of the federal trademark registration program.

    The government also argues that it has a legitimate interest in “declining to expend its resources to facilitate the use of racial slurs as source identifiers in interstate commerce.” Appellee’s En Banc Br. 43. The government’s interest in directing its resources does not warrant regulation of these marks. As discussed, trademark registration is user-funded, not taxpayer-funded. The government expends few resources registering these marks. See supra at 53–55. Its costs are the same costs that would be incidental to any governmental registration: articles of incorporation, copyrights, patents, property deeds, etc.

    –Reyna dissent

    The Majority holds today that Mr. Tam’s speech, which disparages those of Asian descent, is valuable political speech that the government may not regulate except to ban its use in commerce by everyone but Mr. Tam. I believe the refusal to register disparaging marks under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act is an appropriate regulation that directly advances the government’s substantial interest in the orderly flow of commerce. Because I would uphold the constitutionality of § 2(a), I respectfully dissent

    Because “the Constitution accords less protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally safeguarded forms of expression,” Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 64-65 (1983), the government may regulate the use of trademarks to ensure the orderly flow of commerce. For example, the government may disallow trade names that create “[t]he possibilities for deception,” even if the names are not untruthful. Friedman, 440 U.S. at 13. The government may similarly implement a trademark registration program, as it did through the Lanham Act, which provides certain speakers exclusive rights to their chosen marks in commerce. Such regulation is permissible under the First Amendment only because the speech being regulated is commercial and because the government has a substantial interest in facilitating commerce by “insuring that the stream of commercial information flows cleanly as well as freely.” Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771-72 (1976).

    The Lanham Act declares unequivocally that “[t]he intent of this chapter is to regulate commerce.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1127.

    The marketplace of ideas differs dramatically from the marketplace of goods and services. While the marketplace of ideas may tolerate or even benefit from the volatility that accompanies disparaging and insulting speech, the marketplace of goods and services is a wholly different animal. Commerce does not benefit from political volatility, nor from insults, discrimination, or bigotry. Commerce is a communal institution regulated for the mutual economic benefit of all. Commercial speech that discredits or brings reproach upon groups of Americans, particularly based on their race, has a discriminatory impact that undermines commercial activity and the stability of the marketplace in much the same manner as discriminatory conduct.

    Nearly every disparaging mark identified in the voluminous briefing and opinions in this case has involved disparagement of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and similar demographic classification. The impact of advancing these bigoted messages through the ubiquitous channels of commerce may be discriminatory, and even if not discriminatory, at least disruptive to commerce. The only question is whether the government’s interest in avoiding this commercial disruption outweighs the modest “burden” that its refusal to register the offending marks places on the freedom of speech. I believe it does.

    but only denies him a government-created benefit—the exclusive right to use that speech in commerce in connection with the sale of particular goods or services. At bottom, the only burden the application of § 2(a) imposes in this case is that Mr. Tam is free to communicate his chosen message within or without commerce, so long as he is willing to permit others to do the same.

    Additionally, any minimal value disparaging speech might offer in the marketplace of ideas is far diminished in the marketplace of goods and services, which is the only context at issue in this appeal. One can hardly imagine what legitimate interest a vendor of goods or services may have in insulting potential customers. Whatever value disparaging speech might possess when used in private life, it loses when used in commerce.

    When we balance the government’s substantial interest in the orderly flow of commerce against the modest imposition of § 2(a) on a narrowly tailored portion of particularly low-value speech, the standards of intermediate scrutiny are satisfied. Whatever modest imposition the statute makes on the free flow of public discourse, it is nothing more than an “incidental restriction on First Amendment freedom [that] is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of the governmental interest” in the orderly flow of commerce. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 561. For the foregoing reasons, I believe that § 2(a) is constitutional. I respectfully dissent.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Programmed computers are switching machines, and not directed to an abstract idea

    A computer is a machine, yet there is an ongoing trend to “anthropomorphize” computers. That is: functions that are performed by humans are said to be able to be performed by computers. Anyone who has done any serious programming knows that is not how it works. Let me explain. Steps that humans can do almost mindlessly, for instance changing paragraph numbers in a text, may be excruciatingly difficult as programming steps. That is because computers are machines that process signals that follow…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Free Speech: Prohibition on Registering Disparaging Marks is Unconstitutional, Federal Circuit Rules

    By Dennis Crouch In re Tam (Federal Circuit 2015) (en banc) Big trademark case from the Federal Circuit. Judge Kimberly Moore filed the majority opinion holding that the statutory prohibition against registration of “disparaging marks” is an unconstitutional governmental regulation of speech. This issue has been coming to a head for many years, and this […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Motion to Stay Reissue Proceedings Denied as Premature IPR2015-01690; IPR2015-01691

    Takeaway: If a petitioner requests authorization for leave to file a motion to stay a pending ex parte reissue proceeding before the inter partes review is instituted, the Board will likely deny the request as premature. In its Order, the … Continue reading

    The post Motion to Stay Reissue Proceedings Denied as Premature IPR2015-01690; IPR2015-01691 appeared first on PTAB Trial Blog.

    Continue Reading ...
  • The Inadequacy of Trade Secret Law and Why Congress Should Pass the DTSA

    The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) will improve trade secret protection, which will incentivize innovation and benefit companies–large and small–in all industry sectors. I have seen the letter in support of this legislation signed by the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, tech associations, and an array of well-known companies in a variety of industries. But I can also tell you from my experience representing small businesses that they rely on trade secret law…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Applicant fights hard to get Examiner to provide translation of foreign reference

    Takeaway: The Examiner rejected using a Japanese language reference. The rejection specifically referred to a drawing in the reference, but the Examiner did not provide a translation of the text that appeared in the drawing. The Applicant raised this issue several times in prosecution. The Applicant also filed a Petition under § 1.181, requesting the TC Director to compel the Examiner to act. After the fourth request, the Examiner finally provided a translation of the text in the relied-upon drawing. The Applicant later appealed. (Appl. No. 11/474,530 to Arjomand, “Window Refrigerator,” available on Public Pair.)

    Appl. No. 11/474,530 to Arjomand “Window Refrigerator”
    (file wrapper available on Public Pair)

    The application was directed to a “refrigerator for home use having its front indoors and its condenser coil outdoors to save electricity whenever the outdoors is colder than indoors.”

    In the first Office Action (mail date July 16, 2009), the Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated by patent publication JP 063000416A. A machine translation of the reference specification was included with the Office Action. A few weeks after the Office Action was mailed, the Applicant filed a paper requesting the Examiner to provide a translation of the entire reference. (This scenario is covered by MPEP 710.06 “Situations When Reply Period is Reset or Restarted.”) The request explained:

    The Examiner provided a machine translation accompanied by a single Figure which does not appear to be the one relied on by the Examiner. Applicant could only find the published abstract online. Applicant requests that all figures be supplied and that new a response period be set.

    Five weeks after the Office Action mail date, the Examiner had not complied with the Applicant’s request, so the Applicant filed a Petition under 1.181. The Petition asserted that it was PTO policy to supply “clear” translations of foreign language references (citing Ex parte Rudd, Appeal 2007-3775). The Applicant requested the Technology Center director to compel the Examiner to take the following actions:

    • supply the drawings from the cited reference
    • if the drawings include text in Japanese, supply an English translation of such material
    • set a new 3-month response period, as of mailing date of the drawings

    Five days after the Petition was filed, the Examiner sent a copy of the entire reference – including figures – in Japanese. The Examiner also reset the period for Response, to start from August 31 rather than July 25.  The Applicant then filed a paper specifically requesting the Examiner to provide an English translation of foreign-language subject matter found in FIG. 5 (the sole figure relied upon by the Examiner). The Applicant also requested a new 3-month response period.

    On Sept. 25, the Examiner sent a “Miscellaneous Action” with this explanation:

       The rejection based on the JP patent is solely for teaching “ref/freezer (fig. 5) that has a separate freezer compt (8) and a fridge comp (9) where a damper (18) is disposed adjacent the fridge compartment (fig. 5) and dependent on a reference frame of view, the damper is disposed … (fig. 5.)”
        Therefore no additional English translation of fig. 5 is deemed necessary in view of the computer translation sent earlier. The response period for the outstanding Office Action mailed 8/25/2009 remains UNCHANGED.

    The Applicant filed a Response to Office Action a few weeks short of the six month date of the new reply period. The Applicant amended claims but also brought up the issue of the missing translation for the drawings. According to the Applicant, the Examiner’s refusal to provide a full translation left the Applicant unable to determine whether the Examiner was impermissibly picking and choosing from the teachings of the reference. (In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (C.C.P.A. 1965)). This refusal denied the Applicant the “possibility of presenting an educated response to the Office Action.” The Applicant also noted the pending Petition to the TC Director.

    The Examiner issued an Office Action, which was Final because of the claim amendments. The Office Action used the same Japanese reference in the rejection, and said nothing about Applicant’s renewed request for a translation.

    The Applicant filed a After Final Response within the two month date, and once again brought up the Examiner’s failure to provide a full translation. This time the Applicant made arguments about the level of skill in the art. The Applicant took the position that the poor translation of the Japanese language reference made it impossible to determine the level of skill in the art. As a result, the third Graham factor had not been resolved and the rejection was deficient.

    The Examiner issued an Advisory Action and indicated that he would request a full translation. He nonetheless maintained that it was proper to rely on a translated abstract of a foreign reference. The Examiner also asserted that a POSITA would know that the abstract is accurate. Furthermore, since the abstract was sufficient, the level of skill has been established.

    Three weeks after the Advisory Action, the Examiner sent the translated figures. The Applicant filed an RCE with all new claims and thanked the Examiner for supplying the translation. The Applicant appealed after the next Office Action, which used a new primary reference (also Japanese). The original reference remained.

    My two cents: I think reasonable minds can differ about whether fighting about a missing translation is a good idea. I do think it’s important to try to make some forward progress on the merits of the case, rather than getting stuck solely on the translation issue.

    I like the idea of filing a petition while at the same time continuing raise it with the Examiner. Here, looks like the Applicant worn the Examiner down before the petition was decided.

    I’m generally in favor of appealing early. But failure to provide a translation is a petitionable, not appealable, matter. So appealing early would be a bad idea if you wanted to limit your arguments to failure to provide a full translation. In other words, I think you need to address the Examiner’s assertions about the reference, even if you don’t have all the information you need to make a great argument.

    You could say, as the Applicant did, that the insufficient translation means the Examiner failed to make a Prima Facie case. And, sure, Prima Facie case is certainly something you can raise on appeal. Still, the interaction of these issues – Examiner requirements during prosecution, level of skill, foreign language reference – is complex. So I wouldn’t bet my appeal on the Board holding that incomplete English translation means no level of skill means no Prima Facie case.

    Finally, the Applicant could have bypassed the Examiner and gotten its own translation. Could be that costs actual money. But maybe not a lot. After all, it was only the Japanese text on the figures themselves that the Applicant was fighting about at the end. The Examiner had already provided the English language text of the entire specification. (After a specific request by the Applicant, that is.) 

    Continue Reading ...
  • Unconstitutional – CAFC Rules PTO Cannot Deny Registration for Disparaging Trademarks

    Yesterday the Federal Circuit in an en banc decision held that the portion of Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, which bars federal registration for trademarks that are disparaging, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The government advanced three principal arguments for why §2(a) did not violate the First Amendment: (1) because §2(a) does not “prohibit” or suppress speech at all; (2) because trademark registration is government speech; and (3) because §2(a) merely withholds a…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Final Written Decision Finding Claims Unpatentable Where A Nexus For Secondary Considerations Is Not Established IPR2014-00680

    Takeaway: Objective indicia “must be tied to the novel elements of the claim at issue” and must “be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.” In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that claims 7-11 of the ‘586 … Continue reading

    The post Final Written Decision Finding Claims Unpatentable Where A Nexus For Secondary Considerations Is Not Established IPR2014-00680 appeared first on PTAB Trial Blog.

    Continue Reading ...