Patent Law Practice Center

Top 5 Patent Law Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) Patents Post-Grant: Supplemental Examination Rules Issued by USPTO – This post breaks down the USPTO’s Notice of Proposed Rule Making and how it outlines the procedures for conducting supplemental examination.

2) IP Watchdog: Business Methods by the Numbers: A Look Inside PTO Class 705 -As Gene Quinn explains, “The United States Patent Classification System is a system for organizing all U.S. patents into a smaller sub-collection of patents based on common subject matter. Each subject matter division includes a major component, which is called a class, and a minor component, which is called a subclass.”  This post discusses Class 705, which is the generic class for innovations relating to business methods.

3) Patent Docs: The Medicines Company to Get Patent Term Extension – This post provides a breakdown of the settlement of litigation reached between the Medicines Company and APP Pharmaceuticals, and gives a detailed case background and procedural history explaining how the parties reached their final settlement.

4) The Tech Transfer Blog: New Pact Brings “Express” Licensing Concept to Sponsored Research Agreements - Binghamton University (my alma mater) developed what it is calling the Binghamton Express Square Terms or BEST Deal License, a nonexclusive, royalty-free license on patentable innovations that arise from sponsored research. This post explains how this express licensing is intended to benefit the sponsored research negotiating process while also establishing standards and predictability for its industry partners.

5) FOSS Patents: Samsung allowed to show Apple-Qualcomm contracts, letters and limited source code to foreign courts – This post details the impact of Samsung’s discovery  request being granted in its case with Qualcomm and how the U.S. District Court came to its decision. The post also compares the Samsung-Qualcomm matter with the Apple-Qualcomm matter.

Patent Attorneys Leave Firms for NPEs

OK it’s Super Bowl season so forgive the football picture but are some top patent litigators switching sides?

An article by the Wall Street Journal describes the transition of two patent attorneys who left incredibly lucrative careers representing some of the biggest companies in the world to work for nonpracticing entities:

As recently as three years ago, the two lawyers were among a small group of elite attorneys used by U.S. companies to defend their patents in courtrooms.

Mr. Desmarais was a lawyer for such companies as International Business Machines Corp., GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Boston Scientific Corp., Alcatel-Lucent SA and Verizon Wireless. The clients of Mr. Powers included Cisco Systems Inc., Merck & Co., MicrosoftCorp., Oracle Corp., Samsung Electronics Co., and Apple Inc.

But in the last couple of years, both men have turned about-face. They have created practices to represent not the largest, most tech-savvy companies, but to work for patent-holding plaintiffs known as “nonpracticing entities,” or what some critics call “patent trolls.”

Don’t Miss the Post-Grant USPTO Proceedings Seminar Next Week!

On Monday, February 3rd, PLI is hosting a seminar in New York City focused on the role of post-grant USPTO proceedings as components of a litigation strategy, including pre-trial and post-trial options. The seminar is entitled Post-Grant USPTO Proceedings 2012 – The New Patent Litigation, and it will focus on strategic considerations and common procedural traps for the unwary. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the various proceedings are explained from both the perspective of the Patentee and Third Party. Perspectives of the judiciary will also be presented, including case studies of well-known disputes, as judges from the U.S. District Court, the ITC, and the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) are all members of the faculty.

Registration is still open for the seminar. Registration includes a course handbook and associated course materials. A downloadable course handbook will also be available several days prior to the program start for your review. Won’t be in the New York City area next Monday? This upcoming seminar is also available via live webcast! The seminar, co-chaired by Oblon Spivak’s Scott McKeown and Birch Stewart’s Gerald Murphy, is one that should not be missed. The Patent Law Practice Center will keep you posted on the seminar throughout the day as we will be live blogging as well as tweeting  from the seminar (hashtag: #PLIpostgrant).

Challenge to Round Rock RFID Patent, Among the Reexamination Requests Filed Week of Jan. 16th

Here is our latest weekly installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor…

In September, an unidentified party requested reexamination of four RFID patents owned by Round Rock Research.  Last Tuesday, reexamination was requested of another Round Rock RFID patent, Reissue 41,562, again by an anonymous party (see ex parte Request No. (1)).

Traditionally, reexamination has been requested of a substantial number electronics and Internet patents, but it is much less common for pharmaceutical and medical delivery patents.  In recent weeks, though, that pattern seems to be changing, with more reexamination requests directed to pharmaceutical and medical delivery patents.  That trend continued last week when reexamination was requested for two patents owned by Monosolclaiming film to be used in drug delivery systems (see ex parteRequest Nos. (3) & (4)).  Monosol has sued BioDelivery in New Jersey for infringement of the patents. Read the rest of this entry »

Take a Picture, It’ll Last Longer: The Role of Kodak’s Patent Portfolio in its Bankruptcy

As the progression of technology has proven before, film has gone the way of the VHS, tape cassette, and arguably the paper back novel. On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York. Kodak made the transition from basing its company on film to digital, but it wasn’t enough. Citigroup will be lending the company $950 million in financing to maintain daily operations. After reviewing Kodak’s bankruptcy court documents, it has become clear that it is Kodak’s juicy patent portfolio that has not only burdened the company but will also hopefully sustain the company as it goes through bankruptcy.

What is interesting about Kodak’s patent portfolio is that one would assume having an estimated $3 billion dollars worth of intellectual property, including digital image capturing patents, would have saved the company from ever having to declare bankruptcy in the first place, especially considering Kodak was the first to invent the digital camera in 1975. As it turns out, the inability to enforce patent licensing rights and infringement damages cost the company more than their impressive patent portfolio could salvage. Read the rest of this entry »