• Marathon Patent Group (MARA) Announces Trial Schedule in Signal IP v … – StreetInsider.com

    Marathon Patent Group (MARA) Announces Trial Schedule in Signal IP v
    Marathon Patent Group (NASDAQ: MARA) announced that on June 12, 2015, the company’s subsidiary Signal IP, Inc., received an order setting the trial schedule in the matter of Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., case number CV14-02962 JAK …
    Marathon Patent Group Receives Order Setting Case Schedule in Signal IP and MarketWatch

    all 2 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • Should conservatives back patent reform?

    Steven Titch writes in favor of patent reform at TheHill:

    The push for patent reform is truly bipartisan, and, as R Street Institute’s Zach Graves pointed out this week, was initially driven by Republicans with support from conservative Democrats. Recall it was ultra-liberal Harry Reid who killed patent reform last session.

    Lastly, the opposition from the Right wants to characterize this as the weight of crony capitalism coming down on the romantic notion of the solitary inventor in a garage. The true situation isn’t as sexy: patent trolling is primarily a business-to-business problem that nonetheless is adding costs that are consuming start-up capital and/or leading to increased costs for consumers down the line. Prosaic to be sure, but free market advocates are certainly capable of grasping how frivolous litigation can affect macro issues.

    Opponents are getting nervous because it looks like we are on track for patent reform. If principled conservatives are alarmed by parts of the bills that come off as too heavy handed against property rights, then its best to keep supporting the work and ideas of reform-minded lawmakers who also are sympathetic to them. Abandoning the debate, and those best positioned to argue on the behalf of market-based solutions, only raises the likelihood of a bad law resulting.

    link: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/244834-why-conservatives-should-back-patent-reform

    Curiously, there is no mention of “loser pays” in the Titch piece.

    There is also no mention of Senator Cornyn’s efforts at compromise in the last session. From an IPBiz post on 28 March 2015:

    **As to Schumer’s position in 2014, note the fee-shifting provision in the Cornyn-Schumer compromise bill of 2014 was less extreme than that of the Goodlatte Innovation bill:

    Fee shifting: The draft language, rather than making fee-shifting presumptive, would simply lower the current burden from “exceptional case” to “objectively unreasonable.” The prevailing party would have to move the court to award fees at the end of the case and prove that the conduct or positions of the losing party were not objectively reasonable. The court would also have discretion to deny such a motion under “special circumstances” even if the conduct/positions were not objectively reasonable. This is probably the most significant and positive change in the draft compromise, as it avoids the many problems associated with presumptively awarding fees to the winning party. Cornyn and Schumer nicely capture this balanced spirit in their introductory “Sense of Congress” language, where they proclaim their intention to “strike a more appropriate balance between protecting the right of a patent holder to enforce his patent, including through litigation, on the one hand, and deterring abusive patent litigation and abusive threats thereof on the other –

    For the accurate conservative position, one should follow statements of Congressman Rohrabacher.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit hold Sequenom diagnostic method patent invalid under 101 – Lexology (registration)

    The National Law Review
    Federal Circuit hold Sequenom diagnostic method patent invalid under 101
    Lexology (registration)
    The Federal Circuit has issued its decision in Ariosa Diagnostic, Inc. v. Sequenomn, Inc., affirming the district court’s finding that Sequenom’s claims are invalid under 35 USC § 101. The court’s decision shows the sweeping impact of the Supreme Court
    Sequenom Comments On US Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Ruling MarketWatch
    Guest Post by Prof. Lefstin: Ariosa v. Sequenom and the Path Ahead for Subject Patently-O
    Prenatal DNA test patent invalid, US appeals court saysReuters

    all 36 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • IBM, Microsoft, ARM, BAE Systems, Shazam, Patent Properties, Conversant, and … – PR Newswire (press release)

    IBM, Microsoft, ARM, BAE Systems, Shazam, Patent Properties, Conversant, and
    PR Newswire (press release)
    A group of leaders in Intellectual Property and Open Data has today launched ORoPO (http://www.oropo.net), the world’s first Open Register of Patent Ownership. Voluntary, non-profit and freely accessible online, ORoPO offers a simple solution to

    and more »

    Continue Reading ...
  • ORoPO launches at IPBC 2015

    ORoPO, the world’s first open register of patent ownership, is being launched today at the IPBC Global 2015 event in San Francisco. ORoPO is a voluntary, non-profit organisation with the goal of achieving greater transparency around patent ownership on a global scale and its founding members include (in alphabetical order) ARM, BAE Systems Conversant, Finjan, IBM, Microsoft, Patent Properties and Shazam.

    Operated by its founder members, ORoPO is led by CEO Roger Burt and enjoys the support of an Advisory Board which includes David Kappos (Cravath, and former USPTO director), Sir Robin Jacob (Professor of IP Law, UCL, and former IP judge), Sir Nigel Shadbolt (co-founder of the Open Data Institute), Tony Clayton (formerly Chief Economist of the UK IPO) and Heather Meeker (O’Melveny & Myers). The name ORoPO is an acronym of Open Register of Patent Ownership. You can check ORoPO out on its website here.

    The idea behind ORoPO is simple. Right now, information as to who owns the world’s patents is recorded in 180 patent offices worldwide. However, a combination of data entry and translation errors, a lack of corporate naming harmonisation and the absence of regulation mandating that changes in ownership be recorded means that an estimated 25% of this information is inaccurate, incomplete or out of date. This inaccuracy has serious consequences for the exploitation of the intellectual property assets that now account for up to 70% of enterprise value.

    The launch of ORoPO is accompanied by the release of Who Owns the World’s Patents? Why patent ownership data accuracy is a problem worth solving, a report sponsored by Aistemos. Drawing on original research it explores the issues around patent ownership accuracy in detail, and quantifies some of the benefits that data accuracy could enable. Highlights include:

    * 96% of corporate executives surveyed think it is important for there to be an accurate and accessible record of who owns which patents. 98% would be supportive of a free and open global register of patent owners which allows patent owners to verify ownership information.

    * 95% thought greater data openness around patent ownership would increase licensing activity 

    *· On average, they thought it would increase by around 6% – a rise that would increase annual patent licensing income by an estimated $30 billion annually, and unlock economic value of an estimated $300 billion per year.

    Commenting in the report, Nigel Swycher, Aistemos CEO, said:

    “The fact that patent data is messy should be no surprise. It is a characteristic of every dataset that has evolved from systems that have been in place for hundred of years. The current unsatisfactory position is accident not design, and there are no long-term benefits for anyone trying to game the status quo. ORoPO is a major step forward and I hope patent owners capitalise on the opportunity it provides.”    

    Continue Reading ...