BLOGS: The High-Tech Patent Agent: A View from the Trenches in Silicon Valley



Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



Powered by Blogger
Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday, August 29, 2013, 10:01 AM

Shortest US Patent Claim?

For trivia fans, how many words does the shortest US patent claim have?  Ten words?  Five words?  How about two words.  US 3,156,523, filed August 23, 1946, inventor Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, claims “1.  Element 95”.  Also, US 3,164,462, filed February 7, 1949, inventor Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, claims “1.  Element 96”.  What is unusual about these is that an element (i.e., an element on the periodic table) would not normally be patentable, as this would be considered a product of nature and therefore excluded as subject matter that is ineligible for patenting.  In US 3,156,523, Dr. Seaborg discloses how to produce his new element.

I have heard a rumor that there is a US patent with a claim of but a single word, but have been unable to verify this.  Dear readers, do you have any patent numbers that support this?

Labels: ,

Thursday, August 22, 2013, 9:22 AM

More about patents allegedly relating to abstract ideas: ULTRAMERCIAL v. HULU

In ULTRAMERCIAL v. HULU , LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal by United States District Court for the Central District of California of Ultramercial’s patent claims for lack of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC §101.  What this means from a practical standpoint for patent practitioners is that there is a new piece of case law that affects patentability of methods, systems and media directed to specially programmed computers or computer programs.  For the reader interested in specific details of the patent in question, there are downloads of US Patent No. 7,346,545 and many analyses of the patent and the court case available on the Internet.  Here, we are interested in the principles of analysis as applied by the court.
 
The court applied the principle of validity, stating “it will be rare that a patent infringement suit can be dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of patentable subject matter.  This is so because every issued patent is presumed to have been issued properly, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.”  The court then discussed the applicability of claim construction, and looked into the definition of “process”, as invoked in 35 USC §101 (which governs the categories of patentable subject matter).  “As §101 itself expresses, subject matter eligibility is merely a threshold check; patentability of a claim ultimately depends on ‘the conditions and requirements of this title,’ such as novelty, non-obviousness, and adequate disclosure.”  The court went on to discuss the three narrow categories of subject matter that are excluded from patentability, namely the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.  Homing in on abstract ideas, the court continued citing a number of relevant cases, and allowed that “a claim can embrace an abstract idea and be patentable.” 

Continuing, the court declared “The inquiry here is to determine on which side of the line the claim falls: does the claim cover only an abstract idea, or instead does the claim cover an application of an abstract idea?”  This appears to be the kind of bright line interpretation practitioners can use to guide claim drafting in patent applications.  The court then admonished, “a court cannot go hunting for abstractions by ignoring the concrete, palpable, tangible limitations of the invention the patentee actually claims.  Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether a claim, as a whole, includes meaningful limitations restricting it to an application, rather than merely an abstract idea.”  (Emphasis in the original)
 
Well, we patent practitioners, if I may be so presumptuous as to speak for the group as a whole, have always tried to claim “an application” rather than just the idea upon which the application is based.  So, the question as always seems to be what are the “meaningful limitations” that restrict the claim to an application?  The court acknowledges, “This analysis is not easy, but potentially wrought with the risk of subjectivity and hindsight evaluations.”  If a claim, the court advises, merely describes an abstract idea or simply adds “apply it” as a limitation, then this does not pass the threshold.  There are the usual contradictory bits of advice, in which a claim that requires a particular machine implementing a process or a particular transformation of matter can be held meaningfully limited, but simply adding conventional steps at a high level of generality to laws of nature, natural phenomena or abstract ideas, even if directed to a particular machine, can be held as not meaningfully limiting a claim.  All of a sudden, the wonderful bright line test of the preceding paragraph doesn’t appear so distinct anymore.
 
We are reminded by the court not to confuse analysis of the conditions of patentability with inquiries into patent eligibility.  I think the court is saying that subject matter eligibility is a very basic threshold, and that allowing an inquiry into patent eligibility to dominate would render 35 USC §102 (on novelty) and 35 USC §103 (on obviousness) irrelevant or at least less relevant, and thereby deny the body of patents the just value of 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 as statutory law.
 
The court looks for limitations in a claim that make it “less likely that the claims will preempt all practical applications of the idea.”  If the claims are directed to “nothing more than the idea of doing that thing on a computer”, the claims are likely to face larger problems.  The court looks for the computer to play a meaningful role in the performance of the claimed invention.  The court wants to see “whether meaningful limitations in the claim make it clear that the claim is not to the abstract idea itself, but to a non-routine and specific application of that idea.”
 
From the proceedings, we can derive some guideline tests for claims, as to subject matter eligibility:

Do the limitations “narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself”?

Does the computer play a meaningful role in the performance of the claimed invention?

Do limitations in the claim represent significantly more than an underlying abstract idea?

Do the claims preempt the use of an idea in all fields?

In subsequent blogs, we may revisit these questions.  Meanwhile, dear readers, do you have any comments for us?  Let’s get some discussions going.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 5, 2013, 2:43 PM

Questions Arising from “The Case against Patents”

Authors Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, in “The Case against Patents” (Journal of Economic Perspectives – Volume 27, Number 1 – Winter 2013) raise many issues in their analysis of patents and patent systems.  Below, in point counterpoint format, are points (P:) raised by these authors in making their case, and questions (Q:) which come to mind.

P: “there is no empirical evidence that they [patents] serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number of patents awarded”
Q: Are there any studies comparing a model where there is a patent system in place and a model where there is no patent system in place?  It would be interesting to explore the differences.

P: “weak patent systems may mildly increase innovation with limited side effects, strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side effects.”
Q: Do weak patent systems or nonexistent patent systems correlate with stealing of ideas?  While such might increase innovation by some measures, would this decrease incentive to invest in research and thus decrease innovation by other measures?

P: The explosion in number of patents issued since 1983 is associated with oscillation of US research and development expenditure in a narrow band at around 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP).  The explosion of patents “has not brought about any additional surge in useful innovations and aggregate productivity.”
Q: Do we not see a large number of new, innovative products constantly being introduced?  Have there not been entire new industries and areas of technologies introduced since 1983?  Could it be we have gotten really efficient at innovating?  Could other factors affect the number of patents applied for, while still allowing for patenting having a positive influence on innovation?

P: “patents are mostly used for arms races… if all firms get counterbalancing patent portfolios and all innovate, then they would all have innovated in the absence of patents”
Q: Doesn’t this argument have the not-so-hidden assumption that all firms are about the same size and have equal levels of innovation?  What about startups?  Shouldn’t they have patent protection while they are vulnerable to intellectual property copying or theft?  Wouldn’t depriving them of same discourage innovation?  What about companies that innovate as compared to companies that buy innovation?  Don’t patents, as intellectual property, serve as assets to counterbalance physical assets (i.e., buildings, equipment) of a company?  Would a company be less likely to buy another company if the intellectual property didn’t come with it?

P: The purported communication about ideas from patent disclosure is negligible, and companies may have policies to never search, view or speculate about patents.  The “notion that patents are a substitute for trade secrecy fails in the simplest model.”
Q: Are there any studies that show whether or not reverse engineering would increase if trade secrets were preferred over patents?  Would that increase or decrease innovation?  Does the body of issued patents, as published, serve as a record of technology advances and state of the art?

P: First-mover advantages in marketplaces may outweigh patent protection advantages.  Patent litigation “takes place when innovation is low.”
Q: Would deleting the patent system result in companies that are low innovators over a time period having a lower survival rate?  If so, would dismantling companies more frequently result in greater innovation?

P: Reforming the US patent system to become an optimal patent system is essentially impossible given political and economic pressures, therefore dismantlement of the patent system is the proper solution.
Q: Isn’t this called throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

P: Reforms that could be easily implemented include: phasing in shorter patent durations, stopping extension of the set of what can be patented, limiting patents that hinder innovation, applying caution in international trade negotiations that affect patents, tailoring patent length and breadth to different sectoral needs in the US economy, awarding patents on economic grounds, opening results of federally subsidized research to all, and revisiting government policies regarding pharmaceuticals.
Q: In today’s political climate, the word “easily” might be misleading.  Could we add to this list, reforms that include: bright line clarification as to whether or not, or when, software is patentable subject matter (software in both standalone and embedded forms is and will continue to be a major growth market), and lowering of barriers for individual inventors and small entities?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

back to top