Patent Law Practice Center

Twitter’s Innovator’s Patent Agreement: The Future or Foolish?

Tech companies’ battles over patent portfolios have become the new norm in patent litigation. Yahoo sued Facebook over the alleged infringement of 10 patents, Oracle and Google are battling over operating system patents, Apple and Samsung have patent litigation in 10 countries simultaneously, and Microsoft just purchased 800 patents from AOL for over $1.1 billion dollars. We have previously reported on the growing use of patents as more than just defensive tools. But last week, Twitter announced it would not participate in such litigation.

Twitter’s Innovator’s Patent Agreement proposes that if a patent is assigned to Twitter, Twitter promises it won’t use that patent to sue anyone, except for defensive purposes or unless the engineers grant permission to the company to do so. According to Twitter’s announcement,

The IPA is a new way to do patent assignment that keeps control in the hands of engineers and designers. It is a commitment from Twitter to our employees that patents can only be used for defensive purposes. We will not use the patents from employees’ inventions in offensive litigation without their permission. What’s more, this control flows with the patents, so if we sold them to others, they could only use them as the inventor intended.

This is a significant departure from the current state of affairs in the industry. Typically, engineers and designers sign an agreement with their company that irrevocably gives that company any patents filed related to the employee’s work. The company then has control over the patents and can use them however they want, which may include selling them to others who can also use them however they want. With the IPA, employees can be assured that their patents will be used only as a shield rather than as a weapon.

Twitter’s proposed patent litigation model has received support as well as criticism. Supporters applaud Twitter for actively promoting creativity and innovation via its promise to not actively pursue legal recourse. Such a business model also reduces the amount of money spent by the company for litigation. Critics, including frequent PLI speaker Mark Radcliffe, on the other hand, question whether Twitter made a wise decision considering they could end up needing to pursue patent infringement litigation in the future. By granting technology engineers with the right to veto a legal action, Twitter would essentially be granting the power to make legal decisions to non-lawyers. Meanwhile Twitter’s plan gets implemented, the patent wars will rage on in courts all over the world. Time will tell what impact Twitter’s stance will have on patent litigation.

Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of June 28th

Here is the latest  installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott M. Daniels, of Reeaxamination Alertand Practice Center Contributor…

Noteworthy among the requests filed the week of June 28th are two filed by Samsung against antenna patents owned by Fractus.  Those patents are the subject of a case pending in Texas between the two companies.  Also interesting are requests against two AstraZeneca patents for its ropivacaine local anesthetic composition.

Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system.  Information on concurrent litigation is also provided, where available.

Some reexamination requests are still filed by paper.  Because of the time required for the Patent Office to review such paper requests before posting on PAIR, our report may come three weeks after filing.  The information available from the Patent Office may be incomplete in a few cases because not all the reexamination request papers have yet been posted on PAIR.  There may also be gaps in the Patent Office docket numbers listed because, for any of various reasons, a reexamination request has been assigned a docket number but is not ready for posting. (more…)

Patent Claim Writing: Insight Into The Drafting Process

Last week, I attended PLI’s Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2010 Program: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting and Amendment Writing in New York City.  I was fortunate to hear an elite panel of experienced patent prosecutors  talk about critical patent application topics.

Amongst the group, was Robert Faber, partner at Ostrolenk Faber LLP and one of our Practice Center Contributors.  He spoke about claim drafting and gave some valuable tips as to how to write a well written claim.  Faber said, ” you want to protect the invention in a claim such that you cover the concept the inventor has in mind and no matter how the particular concept  is executed in years to come.”  Faber advises that you should always describe the concept as broad as possible.

Below is an article Faber passed along, “Patent Claim Writing“, that helps us understand the basics of claim drafting, using a simple example:

United States Patents serve the important national goal of encouraging developments in the useful arts and sciences by granting inventors and their assignees patents that afford a limited time monopoly in their inventions in exchange for their disclosing the invention and how to practice it to the public.  In the patent document, patent practitioners and patent owners= attorneys try to adequately disclose the invention and at least the best mode of practicing the invention sufficiently to enable persons skilled in the art to themselves practice the invention without undue experimentation. 35 U.S.C. ‘ 112, para. 1.  That is the minimal disclosure that must be provided. (more…)

Reexamination Requests Filed The Week of June 7th

Here is this weeks  installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott M. Daniels, of Reeaxamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor…

Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system.  Information on concurrent litigation is also provided, where available.

Some reexamination requests are still filed by paper.  Because of the time required for the Patent Office to review such paper requests before posting on PAIR, our report may come three weeks after filing.  The information available from the Patent Office may be incomplete in a few cases because not all the reexamination request papers have yet been posted on PAIR.  There may also be gaps in the Patent Office docket numbers listed because, for any of various reasons, a reexamination request has been assigned a docket number but is not ready for posting.

The following inter partes requests were made the week of June 7th: (more…)

Robert Hulse Discusses USPTO’s Patent Processing Initiative

I’m sure many of you are still trying to weed through the detailed call for comments on the USPTO’s Three-Track Patent Processing Initiative that was published in the Federal Register last week.  It will be interesting to see the comments that come in from the Patent Community and how the PTO’s proposal will evolve based on the comments.  I had an opportunity to ask Robert Hulse, partner at Fenwick & West, LLP and Contributor on the Patent Center, some general questions that I had regarding the PTO’s initiative:

Are you in favor of or opposed to Three-Track proposal?  Do you believe it’s an improvement from the one-size-fits-all patent system?

Generally, I think this proposal will be good for patent applicants, but I would caution that it is just a general proposal with no specific rules.  Once the PTO published the proposed rules for implementing the Three-Track system, we will have a better understanding of how beneficial the system will be for applicants and how likely this system is to achieve the PTO’s stated goals of reducing pendency while maintaining quality examination. 

 For example, the rules may impose a high fee or otherwise place onerous requirements on applicants to take advantage of the prioritized track, Track 1.  In this case, most applicants simply wouldn’t take advantage of Track 1, which would reduce the effectiveness of the program.  This is the case with the current accelerated examination procedure, which requires a supporting document (the Accelerated Examination Support Document, or AESD) that places a tremendous burden on the applicant. (more…)