POST 28: Patent My Genes?

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/guest-post-nine-reasons-why-the-supreme-court-should-side-with-myriad-and-affirm-the-patenting-of-isolated-human-genes.html


Recently, the Supreme Court heard an case over patenting genes. The case, AMP V. Myriad Genetics was hotly contested over whether someone can patent a gene.

Do you own your own genes? That was the question of many of the judges. While, they seemed to all argue that you own your own genes, can you own a gene that no one has but could have in the future? The American Civil Liberties Union thinks no, and so they challenged the Salt-Lake City based Myriad Genetics who claims to own two such genes. The plantiffs content the gene patents are unconstitutional, because the product of nature cannot be patented. 

"The care available to patients should not be restricted because the naturally occurring building blocks of human biology have been inappropriately patented. Opportunities for scientific research and medical care based on human genes must remain available to all and exclusive to none," said Jeremy Lazarus, president of the American Medical Association, in a statement prior to oral argument. The patented genes under consideration in the Supreme Court case are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. Using a patient's blood sample, scientists can extract these two genes, known as BRCA1 (frequently pronounced "braca one") and BRCA2 ("braca two"), isolating them from their cellular structure.

What should be done? 

Patented genes could help end many diseases. In reality, genes will almost certainly be patented in the future. Genes hold many of the answers to many of our problems. Ultimately if there is demand for a cure, in this case genes that cure disease, then people will pay for it and therefore it becomes legal. 

The court is expected to rule in June, and the reverberations of its finding might be felt broadly. Twenty percent of all human genes, a startling 24,000 molecular sequences, are protected under U.S. patents, according to a 2005 study published in Science magazine. Many of these patents were issued during the biotech boom of the 1980s and 1990s.


What do you think? Should the courts rule in favor or against patents like this? What are the long-term positives and negatives of this? Are Humans ready for large-scale genetic manipulation? Can the Human body really be patented? Comment below!

Post 27: Motorola In Trouble With EU

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/06/ec_motorola_antitrust_finding/


It seems that Google's Motorola missed patents against Apple in Europe. Motorola was informed by the European Comission that the company's use of Standard-Essential Patents (SEP's) was a violation of the European Union's anti-trust laws.

The decision was annouced after investigators started a two year examination of the Apple's suits with Microsoft. These suits were used by Motorola to claim its SEP's under the fair rules of FRAND terms.

"Specifically, the EC says it believes that Motorola having sought and enforced an injunction against Apple based on its mobile phone–related SEPs "amounts to an abuse of a dominant position.The protection of intellectual property is a cornerstone of innovation and growth," EC competition policy veep Joaquín Almunia said in a canned statement on Monday. "But so is competition. I think that companies should spend their time innovating and competing on the merits of the products they offer – not misusing their intellectual property rights to hold up competitors to the detriment of innovation and consumer choice."

In Motorola's case it seems that part of the strategy may have violated the EU trade rules. But before the verdict, Motorola have the chance to defend its self against accusations and request a hearing to make its own argument.  If Motorola does not make an effective argument, Motorola will be fined a massive amount. That massive amount is 10 percent of its worldwide annual revenue. 

What should the courts do? Isn't 10 percent of world revenue a bit steep? Let me know below!

POST 26: Apple's New iPhone Patent

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-files-patents-for-curved-and-non-rectangular-batteries-for-mobile-devices_id42623?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+phonearena%2FySoL+(Phone+Arena+-+Latest+News)


Recently, Apple, Inc. filled for a new patent that involves the iPhone 6. This new iPhone will looking very different to the current model according to this patent.

" One is for a "curved battery cell" and the other for a "non-rectangular battery". Both patent applications were filed on Oct. 28, 2011. According to the filing, "the curve is formed to facilitate efficient use of space inside a portable electronic device." Although, it should be noted that Apple's filing for curved battery cells use the same pouch mechanism as other curved batteries already on the market. "

What i take from this new patent is not that they filed a patent for a curved battery, but instead they filed two. Why file two. It's likely that they think that filing one patent for a curved battery and one for a "non-rectangular battery battery" they are protecting themselves from both a possible future suit and or infrindgement. Apple has quickly been losing the smartphone battle. This new patent will hopefully give Apple some Intellectual property advantage over its competitors. While a curved battery could be implemented in a device with a more dramatically new design, the non-rectangular battery is something that fits more into what we've already seen from Apple. Apple loves to use tapered edges on devices to make them lighter and  seem thinner, so being able to taper the battery could help fit a bigger battery into a tapered design. 

Will this patent help apple? Is this the right technique for Apple to use in order to compete? Should Apple be filing for more of these Curved battery patents?

POST 25: USPTO's Maintenance Fee Outcry

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/responding-to-usptos-new-maintenance-fee-regime.html

The USPTO recently introduced a new fee system, and people don't seem to like it. The new system changes the fees by increasing them about 50%. Understandably, people were shocked by the sudden
increase. The major increase has allowed smary patent holders to pay the renewal fees early. This early payment allows the patent holders to pay upto a half year early in some cases or six months late too.

"According to the Federal Register Notice:

[The new fee structure will] will provide the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its aggregate cost of patent operations, while helping the Office implement a sustainable funding model, reduce the current patent application backlog, decrease patent application pendency, improve patent quality, and upgrade the Office’s patent business information technology (IT) capability and infrastructure. The fees also will further key policy considerations [and implement the new reduces fees for micro entities.]

The Federal Register Notice outlines the following “policy” objectives, and they ways in which the fee structure is designd to serve them:

1. Fostering innovation
   • setting the basic filing, search and examination fees below cost-recovery levels to encourage innovators
   • offering fee reductions for micro and small entities
   • setting the issue and maintenance fees above cost-recovery levels to encourage release of less valuable patents to the public domain
2. Facilitating effective administration of the patent system
   • encourage actions that enable examiners to provide prompt, quality interim and final decisions
   • encourage the prompt conclusion of prosecution
   • help recover the additional costs imposed by some applicants’ more intensive use of certain services
3. Offering patent prosecution options to applicants
   • offering staged fees for RCEs, appeals, and contested cases"

However, why do this? Is the USPTO making it easier or harder to file a patent. And if harder, shouldn't the increase in difficulty go to security for the patent holders?

.

POST 24: NOKIA V. HTC

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/nokia-streamlines-itc-case-against-htc.html


It seems that a motion for partial termination by Nokia against HTC has been filed. Nokia has dropped three patents from the list of patent violations in hopes of making a stronger case. While dropping the three however, they added four patents at the evidentiary trial.

"The three patents Nokia has dropped are US. patent No. 7,106293 , which is a light guide patent (the Mannheim Regional Court had  held the German equivalent of this one not to be infringed by HTC), and two closely-related database synchronization patents. On March 22 I pointed out that one of the patents-in-suit indeed appears to read on tethering and could have enormous commercial value to Nokia going forward. I also expressed my belief that Nokia would "consider withdrawing three" of the five patents with respect to which Judge Pender had construed disputed terms. The three that Nokia has now withdrawn are precisely the ones with respect to which it lost the claim construction battle. So I'm not surprised in the slightest. Pursuing any claims over these patents seemed pretty pointless after the claim construction order, but claim construction is the kind of guidance that parties really need so they can choose which claims to drop and which ones to focus on."

Currently, Nokia has only won against HTC in a German court suit. HTC is therefore counter suing this suit in Germany. HTC is more or less asserting a power-saving patent in its S3 graphics company as well as Qualcomm's Snapdragon chip. 

What do you guys think about all this? Let me know!

POST 23: Double Patenting Issues

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/double-patenting-problems-when-inventors-move-to-a-new-employer.html

In that past, the United States Patent law recognized inventors as the original patent owners. Conception of the invention imbues the inventor with an inchoate patent right that can then fully realized realized by successfully completeing patenting process. However this may be changing.

 "Inventorship is perhaps the most fundamental question in patent law. The instant an inventor conceives her invention is the moment in which vests her right to a patent, thus perfecting her constitutional right to exclude." (Judge Reyna inDawson writing in dissent). Ownership of that inchoate right is usually transferred to the inventor's employer as required by the individual employment contract. Without such a contract, the inventor retains ownership rights. Although the America Invents Act shifts some weight away from the primacy-of-invention, it does nothing to change this fundamental precept that rights are created at conception and held by the inventor until transferred."

Of the two applications, the Caltech application was both the first invented and first filed. That means that the later ETH Zürich cannot serve as prior art. However, the PTO rejected the Caltech application under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is not statutory but instead a judicially created equitable doctrine Normally, this type of rejection is not fatal because the patentee can file a paper known as a terminal disclaimer that both (1) disclaims any term of enforcement that extends beyond the other patent and (2) agrees to that both patents will be co-owned throughout their lifespan. The problem here is that the patents are not co-owned and Caltech cannot make that promise.

It seems to me what happened in this instance is that the USPTO screwed up and should not have issued the second-filed patent (the ETH-Zurich application with different inventive entities named). The proper "solution" to address the "multiple harassment" policy issue is an interference/derivation proceeding, or for the USPTO to recognize its error or initiate re-exam of the second patent sua sponte in view of the earlier filed application.

POST 22: TROLLS

http://gigaom.com/2013/04/12/rackspace-fights-patent-troll-in-the-name-of-every-mobile-developer/

Rackspace is mad. While they have always been quite adamant above not supporting patent trolls they have recently fought a troll in court. They even won. And, now furious, they have sued the troll from damages.


"It is sad, but true, that Rackspace is just one of many companies dealing with endless suits over dubious patents. It’s a never-ending game of whack-a-troll. What is different, though, is that we have decided to break the silence and shine a bright light on these patent-powered parasites."

I have one thing to say. LETS GO RACKSPACE! Good for them, I too despise Patent Trolls. Its one thing to have a legitimate idea patent. Its a whole other thing to have a stockpile of patents used against helpless company. Patent trolls do one thing, and one thing only - thats hinder progress. 

"IPRs can be risky and costly. We know this IPR will cost us more than the $75,000 that Rotatable wanted to extort from us. But we are not just fighting for us; we are fighting for all the app developers who are also in the line of fire. As the noted software engineer and blogger Joel Spolsky wrote, “Life is a bit hard sometimes, and sometimes you have to step up and fight fights that you never signed up for.”

Im so proud of Rackspace, these trolls are just that. TROLLS. Go back under the bridge to where you came from...