Cotman facebook pageCotman IP twitter pageCotman linkedin

Archive for the ‘Patent Pitfalls’ Category

Early IP Management

To protect your intellectual property, best practices are necessary through all stages of research and development.  Within any organization, it is important to make sure basic guidelines are followed.  Scientists and inventors within an organization should be aware of these best practices to ensure that intellectual property rights are preserved.  Below, a few key issues are explored.  These issues may affect your organization’s intellectual property rights even before an invention is identified for patenting.
Employment Contracts - Your agreements with employees and independent contractors should clearly identify ownership of any intellectual property generated as a result of the agreement.  By clearly spelling out the rights and obligations of each party, you can avoid inventorship and ownership disputes down the road.  If information contributed by a third party is used to produce an invention, it may be possible that the third party has rights in the invention, depending on the terms of use for that information.
Invention Disclosure - Members within the organization should understand what constitutes a patentable invention.  There should be a process in place for the submission of potential inventions early on.  This way, steps can be made to ensure that your intellectual property rights are not compromised by events such as sales, marketing efforts or disclosures to third parties.
Confidentiality - Members of the organization should be aware of how to handle confidential information.  Furthermore, members should understand what constitutes a public disclosure of an invention, as well as the implications that public disclosure may have on intellectual property rights.  When appropriate, non-disclosure agreements should be used to maintain confidentiality.  When public disclosures are made, it is important to keep track of the dates of such disclosures so that any patent filings can be made in a timely manner.

Outside IP counsel can evaluate your organization’s practices to determine if your practices can be improved to preserve your intellectual property rights.  If you are looking for outside patent counsel in the Los Angeles area, please feel free to contact us.
Posted in Patent Pitfalls, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Prioritized Examination Program

The newly passed Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) adds Prioritized Examination (PE) of patent applications. The USPTO has a goal of giving a final rejection or allowance within one year on average to PE applications.

The PE program should not be confused with the Accelerated Examination (AE) program that co-exists with PE. They each offer significantly different advantages and requirements.

Unlike AE applications, PE applications do not require a pre-examination search document and an accelerated examination support document. In addition, PE allows 4 independent claims and 30 total claims while AE allows only 3 independent claims and 20 total claims.

However, the total filings fees of a PE application are $6480 (or $3630 for a small entity), whereas total filing fees of an AE application are only $1380 (or $660 for a small entity). Be sure to carefully weigh your options before choosing between filing a standard application, an AE application, or a PE application.

Posted in IP Pitfalls, Patent Pitfalls | No Comments »

Micro-entity status

The America Invents Act of 2011 created a new micro-entity status. Previously, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recognized small entities, which were eligible for a 50% fee reduction. Micro-entities are eligible for a 75% reduction in fees paid to the USPTO.

A small entity is either:
An individual
A small business concern (does not exceed 500 persons)
A non-profit organization
Furthermore, if the owner has transferred some rights in the invention to one or more parties, or is under an obligation to do so, the transferee must also qualify as a small entity.

To qualify as a micro-entity, one must first qualify as a small entity. Additionally, the income of the micro-entity must be less than 3 times the median household income. Also, the micro-entity may not assign or be under an obligation to assign the application to an entity with an income that exceeds this limit.

The micro-entity is eligible for the reduced fees on the first four patent applications filed (excluding provisional patent applications).

These new provisions are designed to make the patent system more accessible to individual inventors and small businesses. Your patent attorney can help you navigate these and other changes to the patent law introduced in the America Invents Act. Cotman IP is located in Pasadena, California just outside of Downtown Los Angeles.

Posted in Patent Pitfalls | No Comments »

Patent Litigation in Good Faith

On July 29, 2001, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an important decision regarding patent litigation: Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp (Fed. Cir. 2011).  Eon-Net is a patent holding company that primarily earnings as revenue through litigation and licensing fees, rather than developing manufacturing or marketing (also known as a patent troll).   The court awarded Flagstar $489,150.48 in attorney fees and costs and $141,984.70 in sanctions against Eon-Net.  Slip  Op. at 3.  In view of this opinion, patent owners may be wondering how to enforce and license their valid patent rights without incurring liability like Eon-Net.

The court imposed sanctions under 35 U.S.C. 285, which allows sanctions to punish exceptional cases of misconduct.  Specifically, the court found that Eon-Net violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “(1) the patentee brought the litigation in bad faith; and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless.”  Slip Op. at 17.

The district court noted that Eon-Net’s behavior had an “indicia of extortion”.  Slip Op. at 22.  After evaluating Eon-Net’s behavior, the court noted that Eon-Net filed over 100 lawsuits, immediately followed by offers to settle at a price far lower than the cost to defend the litigation. Slip Op. at 22.  Settlements were offered at between $25,000-$75,000 based on the annual sales of the defendant.  Slip  Op. at 22-23.  Because these settlement offers were far lower than the cost of defending a patent litigation, the great majority of defendants chose to settle.

Furthermore, the court noted that EonNet failed to engage the claim construction process in good faith because Eon-Net destroyed relevant and important documents, attempted to evade a careful analysis of the claim terms in litigation, failed to offer a construction for any disputed claim terms, lodged incomplete and  misleading extrinsic evidence with the court, and submitted declarations that contradicted earlier deposition testimony by the declarants. Slip Op. at 18-19.

The court acknowledged that patentees should be able to fit be able to defend and profit from their intellectual property.  However, the court noted that this was not a case where the claims present a close call; rather, the specification unequivocally compels the claim constructions adopted by the district court.  Slip Op. at 15-16.

Before engaging in litigation, a patentee should have a valid argument that the opposing party is infringing its patent.  The infringement argument should be based on a good-faith interpretation of the claims.  If you believe your intellectual property rights are being violated, contact us if you need a patent attorney in Los Angeles to evaluate your case. Your patent attorney has the expertise to help you determine the scope of your intellectual property rights.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in IP Pitfalls, Patent Enforcement Errors, Patent Pitfalls | No Comments »

Use of the PPH Increases the Likelihood of Allowance

The USPTO’s Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program is an effective way to expedite your patent application and increases your chances of allowance.  The PPH is a framework in which an application whose claims have been determined to be patentable in one country’s patent office is eligible to go through an accelerated examination in another country’s patent office. Under the PCT-PPH, patent applicants can request a fast-track examination procedure in participating offices where patent examiners can make use of the work products from other offices. Over the course of the past five months, the number of requests for PPH has increased by approximately 33%, and the number of requests for PCT-PPH has increased by almost 200%. The reason for this is the chances of allowance for cases prosecuted under the PPH significantly increases. If you have an opportunity to take advantage of PPH it is generally beneficial to do so.
More information about the PPH is available here: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp
Posted in Patent Pitfalls, Patent Preparation Errors | No Comments »

Patent Reform is Not Just a Bill Sitting on Capitol Hill

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“American Invents Act”), H.R. 1249, will dramatically reform patent law.  Judicial Committee Chairman Lamar Smith brought to the floor a manager’s amendment to the bill which revised text approved by the Judicial Counsel.  The manager’s amendment was approved, resisting several floor amendments, which sought to strike amended language, including the first inventor to file provision.  On June 23, 2011 the bill passed in the House of Representatives by 304 to 117 (10 not present).

The America Invents Act replaces the current “first inventor to use” system with “first inventor to file,” a common system among most foreign countries.  It also modifies the earlier inventor to file defense to infringement by specifying that the subject matter must be reduced to a practice and commercially used at least one year before the effective filing date.  These are just to name a couple of the changes enactment of this bill will bring.  Congress expresses that the American Invents Act promotes international uniformity by harmonizing U.S. patent registration with that of other countries with whom the U.S. conducts trade.

Part I of the America Invents Act was amended to include technical edits and substantive changes including prior user rights; language to direct USPTO to develop methods for studying diversity of patent applicants; to add a sense of Congress that it is important to protect the rights of small businesses and inventors; to add requirements to the satellite office location selection process; to mandate a USPTO-led study on what USPTO, Small Business Administration, and other agencies can do to assist small businesses obtain, maintain, and enforce foreign patents; to restore language for calculation of 60-day period for application of patent term extension; and to prescribe a requirement that parties provide sufficient evidence to prove and rebut a claim of derivation.

For full text of Part I of the America Invents Act or a Summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, please go to:

http://http/thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h1249:

Posted in International Patent Pitfalls, IP Pitfalls, Patent Preparation Errors, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Intellectual Property Insurance: Coverage that Fits the Risk

Many companies are unaware that the insurance they purchase may not protect their most valuable assets, intellectual property (IP). That’s because most insurance policies exclude intellectual property, especially patents. This is a disturbing reality since often 80% of a company’s value resides in its IP.

Virtually every business has IP risk. IP insurance is for any business that makes, uses, sells, offers for sale or imports a product or service and wants to protect the features that give them a competitive edge. Many companies have issued patents, or have established rights in trademarks or copyrights for the products they sell, making IP Insurance a critical part of their risk management plan.

Companies that are more successful or have more innovative intellectual property are more likely to be involved, either offensively or defensively, in an IP lawsuit. According to the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s 2009 survey, the average litigation expense incurred by each side (plaintiff & defendant) through trial, when the amount in controversy is between $1 million and $25 million, is $3.1 million. This number does not even include damages, which could easily reach millions of dollars.

Taking into account the insufficient coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy for IP exposures, virtually all companies are either purposely or inadvertently self-insuring their IP risks.

Companies without IP insurance may be forced into litigation with larger competitors who have plentiful resources to litigate, either as a defendant or a plaintiff, leaving companies with the following alternatives to insurance:

  • Abandon the products or IP rights.
  • Attempt to enter into a license agreement from a weaker financial position.
  • Sue the alleged infringer, or be sued by the IP owner, possibly depleting any available cash reserves in legal costs.
  • Incur a burdensome royalty payment.
  • Be forced to settle due to lack of funds to litigate instead of fighting the case on the merits.

IP insurance is designed to help fund the high cost of IP litigation and level the playing field.

Rudy Telscher, an IP litigator with the firm Harness Dickey in St. Louis, MO, recognizes the benefits of holding an IP insurance policy.

“Smaller companies in many instances are nimble and develop cutting edge technologies. Just about the time the smaller technology companies are making some headway in the market, larger companies take notice and either copy their technology or assert marginally relevant patents against the smaller company,” says Telscher. “Either way, the goal is simple, impede or stop the smaller company. The larger companies know very well that the smaller companies cannot afford the multi-million dollar price tag of a patent or other IP litigation. Instead of settling, larger companies know that they can pursue the litigation for several months and eventually the smaller company will either collapse altogether or will take a very unfavorable settlement to get out of the litigation. Often times, their competitive position is hurt significantly.”

Telscher further noted the difference that insurance makes: “Without a doubt, the smaller companies when backed by insurance proceeds drastically shift the power structure. The larger company knows that the smaller company is not paying for the litigation and can therefore withstand the battle to the end if necessary. This puts the smaller company in a very favorable position to negotiate a good settlement.”

Telscher acknowledges that any client who simply holds an [enforcement] insurance policy can significantly level the playing field. Telscher says that he has “handled several cases now where the insured would have been bowled over by the bigger opponent without insurance to back them.”

D&O Exposure

Companies that do not insure their IP may also be creating an unnecessary D&O exposure by not properly protecting their IP assets. For example, the Federal Circuit considered a case where a patent plaintiff won on infringement and sought personal liability of the defendant’s president, who was also the only stockholder and employee. In Wechsler v. Macke International Trade, Inc., 486 F.3 1286 (C.A. Fed. 2007), the plaintiff argued that the defendant was undercapitalized in part because it “does not carry patent infringement liability insurance.” Although the court did not penalize the president for the company’s lack of coverage, the growing acceptance of IP insurance will increasingly raise questions about whether corporate executives have specific fiduciary obligations to insure their IP risks.

The increasing awareness of the value of IP may compel the courts to become more rigorous when it comes to an officer’s duty to the company and its shareholders. Part of the due diligence is to consider transferring the company’s IP risk to insurance, since reallocation of risk to insurance is certainly not a new concept for companies.

Intellectual property insurance provides the client with the funds necessary to get through the case on the merits. An IP enforcement policy is a plaintiff’s policy, which reimburses the litigation expenses to enforce IP against alleged infringers. An IP defense policy reimburses the litigation expenses to defend against charges of infringing another’s IP rights by the products or services that they are selling, and may cover potential damages or settlements. These insurance policies ensure a company’s ability to fully protect their IP by filling the gap left by their CGL policy.

Surprisingly, despite the established availability of these policies, most business owners have not been made aware of the existence of IP insurance. Equally surprising is the number of business owners who think they are covered for IP risk under their GL policy. It is important to discuss IP insurance with an insurance agent or broker that is knowledgeable about intellectual property insurance.


By Bob Fletcher. Repost with permission from Bob Fletcher. Bob Fletcher is the founder and president of Intellectual Property Insurance Services Corporation (IPISC) (www.patentinsurance.com). IPISC has provided IP insurance in the United States and worldwide for over 20 years. He can be reached at: bfletcher@patentinsurance.com or 502-491-1144.

Posted in IP Pitfalls, Patent Pitfalls | No Comments »

Do I qualify for Small Entity Status?

A patent may be filed at the United States Patent and Trademark Office under small entity status.  Small entities only pay 50% percent of most Patent Office fees, including application filing fees, application size fee, excess claims fees, extension of time fees, revival fees, appeal fees, patent issue fees, statutory disclaimer fees and maintenance fees.

The following entities qualify for small entity status:

  • a small business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act (i.e. the number of employees, including affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons)
  • an independent inventor
  • a university or other institution of higher education located in any country
  • a non-profit organization as described in § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and exempt from taxation under § 501(a)
  • any nonprofit scientific or educational organization qualified under a nonprofit organization statute of a state of this country
  • any nonprofit organization located in a foreign country which would qualify as a nonprofit organization if it were located in this country

Additionally, to qualify for small entity status, no large entity can have rights in the invention.  Specifically, a small entity may not have “assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed, and is under no obligation under contract or law to assign, grant, convey, or license, any rights in the invention to any person, concern, or organization which would not qualify for small entity status as a person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization.”

Because of the provisions regarding licensing to large entities, it is possible to qualify as a small entity for one invention but not another.  Failing to properly determine and/or notify the Patent Office of a change in status can result in the invalidity of your patent, leading to the loss of any patent rights.   Make sure you notify your patent lawyer of any relevant changes in your business and/or licensing agreements that may affect your entity status.   If you have any questions, feel free to contact a qualified patent attorney at Cotman IP in the Los Angeles area.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in IP Pitfalls, Patent Pitfalls, Patent Preparation Errors | No Comments »

How can I patent my idea in the U.S. in a hurry?

By filing a Request for Prioritized Examination, pursuant to new 37 CFR 1.102(e), which will be available May 4, 2011. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is revising the rules of practice in patent cases to implement a procedure under which applicants may request prioritized examination at the time of filing of an application, upon payment of appropriate fees and compliance with certain requirements.  The aggregate goal for processing applications under prioritized examination is to provide a final disposition within twelve months of prioritized status being granted.  The fee for filing a request for prioritized examination is $4,000, in addition to filing fees for the application.

A request for prioritized examination may be submitted with any original utility or plant application filed on or after May 4, 2011.  Under a new 37 C.F.R. 1.102(e), the request for prioritized examination will not be granted unless:

  • the application is an original utility or plant nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b), with any fees due under § 1.16 (the filing fee, search fee, examination fee, any applicable excess claims fee, and any applicable application size fee) paid on filing;
  • the application is filed via the Office’s electronic filing system (EFS–Web) if it is a utility application;
  • the request for prioritized examination, including the prioritized examination fee set forth in § 1.17(c), the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), and the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d) are present upon filing; and
  • the application contains or is amended to contain no more than four independent claims, no more than thirty total claims, and no multiple dependent claims.

Because plant applications may not be filed via EFS-Web, the USPTO will accept a request for prioritized examination in paper when it accompanies the filing of a plant application.

The USPTO is limiting requests for prioritized examination under § 1.102(e) to a maximum of 10,000 applications during the remainder of fiscal year 2011. The USPTO will revisit this limit at the end of fiscal year 2011.

Time is of the essence.  So, make prioritized examination a priority and contact your patent attorney at your earliest opportunity.  We are located just outside of Downtown Los Angeles in the City of Pasadena.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Announcements, IP Pitfalls, Patent Preparation Errors | No Comments »

Patent Law Reform Update

Previously, we presented the Patent Reform Act of 2011. On March 8, 2011, the Senate passed S.23, or the “America Invents Act.”  The bill garnered bipartisan support, passing with a vote of 95-5.  The House of Representatives will be acting on patent law reform in the coming weeks.  If the America Invents Act becomes law, it will be the first major change to patent law in 3 decades.  Check back to stay informed of further developments.  As your patent attorney in the Los Angeles area, we will keep you updated on how to best protect your intellectual property in light of the America Invents Act.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in IP Pitfalls, Patent Pitfalls, Uncategorized | No Comments »