Author Archives: PSMN®

Fed Circuit Reverses Willful Infringement Finding

Posted on December 22, 2014 | Comments Off on Fed Circuit Reverses Willful Infringement Finding

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

(Cross-posted at DRI Community Page)

The Federal Circuit on Friday issued an opinion that struck a judge’s finding of willful infringement and the corresponding award of triple damages in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (No. 13-1668). The Court concluded that the defendants’ defenses were not objectively unreasonable, even though they were unsuccessful at trial. Chief Judge Prost wrote the opinion, which was joined by Judges Newman and Hughes.

Background

US06179807-20010130-D00000Stryker and Zimmer are competitors in the medical device industry, and, in particular, the orthopedic pulsed lavage device market. Three patents were in suit (Nos. 6,022,329, 6,179,807, and 7,144,383); all of which involved pulsed lavage devices that deliver pressurized irrigation for certain medical therapies, including orthopedic procedures and cleaning wounds. The patents claimed portable, handheld, battery-powered devices that represented an improvement over the older systems that were larger and more cumbersome to use.The district court granted summary judgment of partial infringement of the ‘807 and ‘383 patents, and the jury found infringement of the ‘329 patent. The jury rejected Zimmer’s invalidity defenses and then awarded $70 million in lost profits, which the district court trebled after finding that Zimmer willfully infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed both the infringement findings, although it noted that the questions were close, and the non-invalidity findings. It did, however, reverse the district court’s finding that Zimmer willfully infringed.

Willful Infringement Discussion and Analysis

For purposes of this post, I am going to focus on the willful infringement discussion by the Federal Circuit. The Court started off with the standard recitation of the In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc) test. First, the patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an “objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” The state of mind of the infringer is not relevant to this inquiry, so the fact that an infringer may not have be aware of or was not considering these defenses while it was infringing is not relevant. If the infringer’s position is “susceptible to a reasonable conclusion of non infringement,” the patentee has failed to prove the objective prong. If the patentee can show that the infringer was objectively reckless, then it must also show by clear and convincing evidence that the “objectively-defined risk (determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding) was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”

The district court did not analyze the objective nature of the infringement, but, instead, focused on the subjective portion. It concluded that Zimmer acted willfully because: (1) Zimmer “all but instructed its design team to copy Stryker’s products”; (2) Stryker’s patents were pioneering; and (3) the secondary considerations of non-obviousness “made it dramatically less likely that Zimmer’s invalidity arguments were reasonable.” The Federal Circuit found this approach to be in error, because the district court failed to analyze the objective prong of the Seagate test first.

Under Seagate, the Federal Circuit started with the objective prong. It considered Zimmer’s defenses to each patent and ultimately concluded that none of them were unreasonable. As such, Stryker failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Zimmer was objectively reckless, which meant that the district court’s willful infringement finding had to be reversed.

For example, the Federal Circuit noted that in order to prove infringement of the ‘329 patent, Stryker had to obtain a broad construction of one of the terms in the patent (“handle”), which was not explicitly supported by the specification. It then had to convince the jury that a component of the infringing device (a motor) was located in the handle, even though it was not precisely located in the handle. And, Stryker had to overcome some statements during prosecution that were relevant to the location of the motor. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit found Zimmer’s position was not unreasonable.

With respect to the ‘807 patent, Stryker also had overcome prior art that was very close to the claims of the patent and had to overcome a non-infringment position that was not unreasonable. Finally, with respect to the ‘383 patent, Zimmer relied on an obviousness defense based on references identified by the PTO examiner during prosecution of a related patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that it was not unreasonable to believe that the claims were invalid based on these references.

Conclusions

This case highlights some important factors for accused infringers. Courts must be made aware of the fact that the objective prong should be considered in isolation from the accused infringer’s conduct and knowledge. It is to be assessed based on the objective record developed during the entire course of the litigation, which may include defenses that were not known to the accused infringer until after the litigation began. This segregation can be especially important where, as it appears was the situation in this case, there is strong evidence of copying.

The Federal Circuit also looked to what PTO examiners were doing during the prosecution of related patents. The Court did not go so far as to say that a PTO examiner’s rejection forms a reasonable basis that would prevent a finding of objective recklessness (which it likely could not given that the prosecution was of a related patent, and not the patent in suit), but it did look at what was being done in its objectiveness analysis. Finally, the Court seemed to put an emphasis on the fact that the infringer’s defenses were based on the plain meaning of the claim terms, as opposed to more convoluted meanings. Developing strong infringement defenses is always important, but it becomes doubly so when willful infringement is at issue.

Comments Off on Fed Circuit Reverses Willful Infringement Finding

Posted in Patents

Tagged , , ,

What Is a Copyright?

Posted on December 8, 2014 | 1 comment

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

PSMN What Is...? SeriesIn the next installment of our continuing “What Is?” series, we are going to discuss copyrights. One of the core intellectual property rights that exists under U.S. law is a copyright. In a nutshell, it is a legal right that provides authors of certain types of original and expressive works that have been fixed in a tangible medium the right to prevent others from using the work without the author’s permission. Obviously, there is a lot more detail behind this, so we will only cover some of the basics in this post.

First, only certain types of works are eligible for copyright protection. They include (1) literary works, (2) musical works, (3) dramatic works, (4) choreographic works, (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works, (7) sound recordings, and (8) architectural works. In addition, the work must have been fixed in a tangible medium to be eligible for a copyright—e.g., written down, put on film, or written in a computer. Certain things cannot be copyrighted, such as (1) things that have not been fixed in a tangible form (e.g., thoughts in your head or speeches that are not recorded or written down), (2) titles, names, and short phrases, (3) ideas, methods, inventions, or systems, and (4) standardized and commonly known information, such as standard calendars, tape measures, and lists or tables of publicly known information.

Second, in order to be eligible for a copyright, the work must be original. But, it does not have to be novel. In other words, the author must show that he or she created the work (and did not copy it from someone else), but the author does not have to show that he or she was the first to ever think of the work.

If an author can satisfy these requirements, he or she has a copyright. Under the change in federal law in 1976, a copyright exists under federal law the moment an author fixes an original expressive work in a tangible medium. There is no longer the need to affix a copyright symbol to the work or register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. But, and this is a big but, there are a number of important advantages to registering a work with the Copyright Office that can be lost if not done timely. So, it is best for an author to consult an intellectual property attorney if there is the possibility that the work may be valuable or need to be protected.

A copyright gives an author a number of substantive legal rights, such as the ability to control who (1) reproduces or distributes copies of the work, (2) creates derivative works based on the original, and (3) performs or displays the work publicly. An author can sue an individual or company that violates these rights and collect damages, statutory penalties, or obtain a court order preventing the infringer from violating these rights in the future. In some cases, copyright infringement can even be a crime.

Because a copyright is a property right, it can be sold, transferred, or licensed like other types of real and intellectual property.

As of January 1, 1978, a copyright lasts for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. If the work was made for hire or was published anonymously/psuedonymously, the copyright lasts for the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation.

For more information about copyright, you can read this nice summary by the United States Copyright Office.

In upcoming posts, we’ll talk about some other issues involving copyrights, such as the fair use defense, what kind of remedies are available to authors whose works have been improperly copied, and the work-for-hire doctrine, among other things.

1 Comment

Posted in Copyrights, What Is...?

Tagged , , ,

Federal Circuit Confirms Invalidity of Reissue Patent Claims That Violated Original Patent Requirement

Posted on December 2, 2014 | Comments Off on Federal Circuit Confirms Invalidity of Reissue Patent Claims That Violated Original Patent Requirement

by: Robert Wagner, patent attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

If an inventor discovers that he or she has failed to claim all that he or she could have in an issued patent, the patent statute provides a mechanism for going back and adding additional claims during a reissue proceeding. Certain requirements must be met before the patent office will allow such a correction. As the patent holder found out in a recent decision by the Federal Circuit in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. (No. 2014-1648), failure to comply with these provisions can render the new claims invalid and unenforceable.

Background

USRE44846The inventor in Antares developed an automatic injection device to self-administer pharmaceuticals that involved using a needle to puncture the skin of a patient before administering a dose of medication. All of the claims in the original patent involved a “jet injection” limitation. Almost two years after the patent issued, Antares realized that it had failed to include claims directed to safety features on the injector. Because two years had not passed yet, Antares initiated a reissue proceeding with the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. § 251, which allows a patent holder to broaden or narrow claims if initiated within two years of the patent being issued. Antares then added a number of claims to cover safety features on general injection devices, and not just jet injection devices (see No. RE 44,846).

Antares filed suit against Medac, alleging that, among other things, it infringed some of the new claims that emerged from the reissue proceeding. Antares sought a preliminary injunction, but the district court denied the request after concluding that the new claims did not satisfy the original patent requirement of the reissue statute. Antares appealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Reissue Statute Requirements

Under § 251, a patentee that wants to add new claims that broaden the scope of the claims of an already issued patent must satisfy a number of requirements: (1) the reissue application must be filed within two years of the issuance of the patent; (2) the new claims must not violate the recapture rule (i.e., claiming scope that was surrendered during prosecution); (3) the new claims must not violate the original patent requirement; and (4) no new matter may be added to the specification. At issue in this case was the third requirement—the original patent requirement.

The original patent requirement requires that the specification adequately support and fully describe the new claims. It is not sufficient if the new, broader claims are “merely suggested or indicated in the original specification.” So, hints, suggestions, or mere indications are not enough. As with many things relating to the understanding of the scope of a patent, “the essential inquiry under the ‘original patent’ clause of § 251 . . . is whether one skilled in the art, reading the specification, would identify the subject matter of the new claims as invented and disclosed by the patentees.”

The Patent at Issue

Antares’ patent specification only described the safety features being on jet injection devices and repeatedly stated that the invention related to jet injectors. It did not generically describe how to use the safety devices with other types of injectors. Based on the limited nature of the specification, the Federal Circuit agreed that the new claims were invalid because they were directed to safety features on generic injectors that were not explicitly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification.

The Federal Circuit contrasted this result with that of another case, In re Amos, 953 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In the Amos case, the patentee broadened his claims that were directed towards an invention for holding down work pieces on a moving table using rollers. In the specification, the patentee described how the rollers could be raised via mechanical or electronic means, but only claimed the mechanical version. During reissue, the patentee added claims directed towards the electronic version, which the Court found acceptable because the specification explicitly discussed that embodiment.

Conclusion

The reissue statute is a powerful tool to add new claim scope to issued patents. Care must be taken, however, to file the reissue application within the two-year period and to make sure that the new claims do not add scope that is not well-supported by the specification. This decision is another reason that patent drafters need to be careful when drafting the specification. The patent statute provides some opportunities for fixing claims, but it is difficult to fix a specification if it is lacking and the consequence can be losing claim scope that could have been otherwise available with better drafting.

Comments Off on Federal Circuit Confirms Invalidity of Reissue Patent Claims That Violated Original Patent Requirement

Posted in Patents

Tagged , , , ,

Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits of US Patent Law

Posted on November 5, 2014 | Comments Off on Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits of US Patent Law

by: Robert Wagner, patent attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Hong Kong at nightThe United States patent laws have a territorial scope and prohibit individuals from making, using, offering for sale, and selling any patented invention within the United States without authority from the patent owner. 28 U.S.C. § 271(a). The United States is just one part of a much bigger world, and the question sometimes arises as to whether an accused infringer’s foreign activities are within the scope of the U.S. patent laws. In Halo Electronics, Inc. v Pulse Electronics, Inc., (No. 2013-1472 and -1656), the Federal Circuit had to address this issue and concluded that they were not.

Background

Halo is a supplier of electronic components and owned three patents related to surface mount electronic packages containing transformers for mounting on a printed circuit board inside an electronic device. Halo filed suit against Pulse for selling products containing electronic packages that used this technology.

Pulse designed and manufactured the accused products overseas and only sold minority of them in the United States. For its foreign orders, Pulse received purchase orders in its foreign offices and then shipped and delivered them to foreign locations.

One of Pulse’s major customers was Cisco, who incorporated some of Pulse’s products into its internet routers, which were sold all over the world. Pulse employees would sometimes meet with Cisco in the United States to negotiate prices, attend sales meetings with customers, meeting with design engineers, and provide post-sale support.

Pulse obtained summary judgment that it did not directly infringe with respect to products that were made, shipped, and delivered outside of the United States. At trial, the jury determined, among other things, that Pulse directly infringed with respect to products sold in the United States and induced infringement with respect to products that were incorporated into other products that were sold in the United States.

Halo appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit Affirms

In deciding the appeal, the Federal Circuit had to consider the geographic scope of infringement under § 271(a). The Court first looked at the statutory language and history behind § 271(a). It noted that the concept of a sale has physical and conceptual dimensions—where the buyer and seller are located and where a legally-operative act occurred regarding the sale.

It concluded that when no substantial activities occur within the United States there could be no potential liability under § 271(a):

Consistent with all of our precedent, we conclude that, when substantial activities of a sales transaction, including the final formation of a contract for sale encompassing all essential terms as well as the delivery and performance under that sales contract, occur entirely outside the United States, pricing and contracting negotiations in the United States alone do not constitute or transform those extraterritorial activities into a sale within the United States for purposes of § 271(a).

Thus, it affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of no direct infringement for sales that did not occur within the United States.

It then turned to whether there could be infringement via an offer for sale. It reached the same result, finding that “[a]n offer to sell, in order to be an infringement, must be an offer contemplating sale in the United States.” Because all of these offers involved sales that occurred overseas, there could not be direct infringement.

The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s summary judgment of no infringement with respect to the foreign sales.

Judge O’Malley’s Concurrence

Judge O’Malley concurred fully with the majority’s decision but wrote about another issue in the case. The district court found that Pulse’s infringement was not willful because it had an objectively reasonable invalidity defense. Therefore, it found that Halo could not satisfy the first prong of the Seagate test—that “a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.”

It did not matter that the invalidity defense was first developed during litigation. The objection prong of the test requires consideration of the totality of the evidence, including all defenses developed during the litigation and presented at trial, not just those considered by the accused infringer before being sued. The Federal Circuit affirmed this determination.

Judge O’Malley agreed with the decision but felt that it was time for the Federal Circuit to revisit its willful infringement standards in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014), and Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014). She also questioned whether willful infringement should be an issue for the court or the jury. She recommended that the entire Court take up this issue en banc in order to clarify the law.

Conclusion

United States patents have geographic limitations. Companies, especially those with presences in multiple countries, need to be aware of this scope in order to make sure that they are complying with U.S. patent laws. It will also be interesting to see if the full Court takes up Judge O’Malley’s urging to reconsider the Court’s willfulness jurisprudence.

 

Comments Off on Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits of US Patent Law

Posted in Patents

Tagged , , ,

DRI IP Litigation Community Opens

Posted on October 7, 2014 | Comments Off on DRI IP Litigation Community Opens

by: Robert Wagner, patent attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Tdri-logo-newhe contributors here on the Pit IP Tech Blog are proud to announce the formation of a new DRI Community (IP Litigation) that opened last month. I am co-chair of the community, and I will be splitting my time between this site and the community going forward. The IP Litigation Community is a forum for DRI members to share information and insights into issues involving their practice areas, along with useful resources.

One of my posts is featured on the community pages that deals with the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International  (No. 13-298) and how Courts and the US Patent and Trademark Office are dealing with that decision. The short answer is that things are looking rough for software inventors who are trying to obtain patents.

Comments Off on DRI IP Litigation Community Opens

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged ,

Supreme Court Relaxes Standards for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Patent Cases

Posted on May 23, 2014 | Comments Off on Supreme Court Relaxes Standards for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Patent Cases

by: Robert Wagner, patent attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Law and MoneyAs we noted earlier, the United States Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in intellectual property and patent cases as of late. In Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s long-standing standard for determining whether to award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a patent infringement action. Now, prevailing parties need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the case was “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” And, this decision lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.

In Octane Fitness, ICON sued Octane Fitness for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,019,710. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Octane Fitness, but declined to award attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, finding that the infringement claims were not frivolous, objectively baseless, or brought in bad faith. Octane Fitness appealed, arguing that the Federal Circuit’s standard for awarding fees under § 285 was too restrictive, but the Federal Circuit disagreed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the standard.

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court looked to the statute, which reads in its entirety:

The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.

Finding that the Patent Act provides no definition or guidance beyond this statement, the Court looked to the common understanding of the term “exceptional” and to when the provision was enacted and the standards that it was meant to codify.

“Exceptional,” the Court found, was meant to encompass things that are out of the ordinary, unusual, or special. The Court further concluded that Congress intended that courts be given discretion to determine when something was exceptional.

Putting these together, the Court held that courts have the discretion to award attorneys’ fees when a case “stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”

The Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s more rigid approach of limiting fee awards only when there has been litigation misconduct or if the party’s position was brought in bad faith and was objectively baseless.  Moreover, the Court found no basis to require the prevailing party to prove its entitlement to fees by clear and convincing evidence.

This decision may have substantial consequences going forward in patent cases, for both plaintiffs and defendants. Because the Court has emphasized that this decision is left to the discretion of the trial court, and the standard is much more flexible, one would expect to see more courts awarding fees. In theory, this will act as a deterrent for bringing frivolous patent claims and may reduce some of the more objectionable patent troll cases. But, it may also put more pressure on defendants with weaker defenses to settle, rather than to litigate at all costs. Only time will tell to see what effects come from this decision.

Comments Off on Supreme Court Relaxes Standards for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Patent Cases

Posted in Patents, United States Supreme Court

Tagged , , ,

Court Awards Limited Enhanced Damages in CMU v. Marvell Case

Posted on April 1, 2014 | Comments Off on Court Awards Limited Enhanced Damages in CMU v. Marvell Case

by: Robert Wagner, patent attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

marvell_chipYesterday, Judge Nora Barry Fischer issued her opinion in the Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:09-cv-00290-NBF) and awarded an additional 23% in enhanced damages above and beyond the jury’s $1.17 billion award. In total, with all enhancements and interest awards, Marvell is facing at least a $1,535,889,387.60 damage award with an ongoing $0.50/chip royalty for the lifetime of the patent.

The jury returned a $1.17 billion award in December 2012, finding that Marvell willfully infringed two of CMU’s patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,201,839 and 6,438,180). It awarded a royalty of $0.50 per chip Marvell sold using the patented technology. In September 2013, the Court denied Marvell’s post-trial motions and determined that Marvell’s infringement was willful. The Court yesterday determined that some enhancement of the damage award was appropriate, although not to the extent requested by CMU (who wanted an additional 200% in damages).

In weighing the parties’ arguments as to whether the damage award should be enhanced, Judge Fischer appeared to focus primarily on three factors. First, she was concerned that a double or triple award of damages could cripple Marvell. Second, she was concerned about CMU’s “inexcusable” delay for almost 6 years after learning of Marvell’s infringement before taking action. Finally, she balanced these factors against Marvell’s willful infringement and its actions before CMU filed suit.

Weighing all of these factors (and the others under the Read test), Judge Fischer concluded that a 23% enhancement properly balanced all of the relevant interests.

In this decision, Judge Fischer also awarded damages on the sales of additional infringing products that were not part of the jury’s verdict but occurred before entry of judgment (this was uncontested), established a post-judgment royalty rate of $0.50 per infringing chip sold, and set a 0.14% post-judgment interest rate. She denied CMU’s motion for a permanent injunction and for prejudgment interest, finding that neither were warranted under the circumstances.

Given the amounts at issue, one expects that these decisions will not be the final word in this case, and that at least the Federal Circuit will be looking at this case on appeal.

Comments Off on Court Awards Limited Enhanced Damages in CMU v. Marvell Case

Posted in Patents

Tagged , , , , , ,

What Is the Difference Between a Provisional and Non-Provisional Patent Application?

Posted on March 19, 2014 | 1 comment

by: Robert Wagner, patent attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

What is the Difference Between a Provisional and Non-Provisional Patent Application?

PSMN What Is...? SeriesOne of the key decisions that an inventor needs to make in the patenting process is whether to file a provisional or non-provisional patent application, so understanding the difference between these two kinds of applications is important for inventors. Both of these types of applications serve useful roles in the patent process, but they are two very different kinds of patent applications that create very different rights.

Non-Provisional Applications

A non-provisional patent application is an application filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office that is examined by a patent examiner and can potentially lead to the issuance of a patent. It has a number of formal requirements that must be satisfied in order to be accepted by the Patent Office. For instance, it must contain a written description of the invention with sufficient detail to both demonstrate that the inventor has invented something and to explain it in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. It generally must contain formal drawings that show various embodiments of the invention. It must be accompanied by an oath or declaration by the inventor or inventors that confirms that they invented the invention described in the application. The inventors must also identify all relevant prior art that they are aware of. Finally, it must contain a series of claims, which are what defines the scope of the patent and the protections it provides.

In general, non-provisional applications are complicated documents that must be prepared with extreme care if an inventor wants a patent that will be enforceable and that will product his or her invention to the broadest extent possible. The precise language of the claims is incredibly important, as is making sure that the written description and drawings adequately explain the invention and enable one to make and use it. As such, it takes time (and money) to draft one correctly.

Provisional Applications

A provisional application, on the other hand, is never examined by a patent examiner and can never lead to the issuance of a patent by itself. Unlike a non-provisional application, there are only two requirements for filing a provisional application—it must contain a written description of the invention and sufficient drawings (which can be informal) to understand the invention. The other formal requirements of a non-provisional application (such as formal drawings, claims, oaths, declarations, and prior art disclosures) are not necessary. A provisional patent application lasts for one year before it expires, and this one-year period cannot be extended.

Because provisional applications are significantly less formal than a non-provisional application, they can be drafted more quickly (and cheaply) and can include more information than is necessary or prudent to include in a non-provisional application. Inventors can literally attach journal articles, PowerPoint slides, photographs, hand-written drawings, etc. to the application, in addition to the narrative that describes the invention.

In order for a provisional application to lead to the issuance of a patent, it must either be converted or it must be appropriately referenced in a non-provisional application that is filed within one year of the filing date of the provisional application (this one-year date cannot be extended).

So, why would one choose to file a provisional application?

So, if a provisional application only lasts for one year and cannot, by itself, ever become a patent, why would anyone want to file one? Under the current patent laws, the public sale or disclosure of an invention before a patent application (either a non-provisional or provisional application) has been filed can act as a bar that prohibits an inventor from being able to obtain a patent on the invention in the future. A provisional application provides a way for an inventor to get an application on file before a key event so as not to prevent him or her from getting a patent later on.

For example, if a company is about to present a new product at a trade show or if an inventor is about to present a paper or give a talk at a conference, the inventor can file a provisional application that contains the materials that will be publicly disclosed, along with a sufficiently detailed write-up of the invention, before that information is disclosed without having to go through the considerable time and effort required to file a non-provisional application.

In addition, in the new first-inventor-to-file regime that exists under the America Invents Act (AIA), it may be prudent for an inventor to file a series of provisional applications as it is refining and developing a new product or invention in order to protect those ideas from another inventor filing in the Patent Office first. A provisional patent application provides a quicker and cheaper means for doing so.

Conclusion

These descriptions give you some idea of the differences between provisional and non-provisional patent applications. Both types of applications serve important roles in the patenting process, and are often utilized in concert—i.e., an inventor files a provisional patent application followed by a non-provisional patent application within a year. As with all the information in our What Is…? series, there is significantly more detail and nuance behind what is described in this article. If you are interested in obtaining a patent, you should consult a patent attorney to help you determine which application is appropriate for the circumstances you find yourself in.

1 Comment

Posted in Patents, What Is...?

Tagged , , ,

What Is a Patent?

Posted on March 4, 2014 | 1 comment

by: Robert Wagner, patent attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

PSMN What Is...? Series

What is a Patent?

At its most basic, a patent is a right granted by the United States government to prevent someone else from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing a product in the United States that uses the patented invention or process. It is a right to exclude, and not a right for the inventor to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import the product himself or herself. This is an important distinction that is often overlooked by inventors who may think that getting a patent entitles them to use their own invention.

The right to a patent is actually enshrined in the Constitution, and is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which states:

The Congress shall have Power To…promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries….

In order to obtain a patent, an inventor must apply to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in Alexandria, Virginia. The USPTO is responsible for examining all patent applications and determining whether an invention qualifies for a patent. In general, an invention must be new, novel, and useful to potentially qualify. If the USPTO determines that the invention qualifies for a patent, it issues the patent and publishes it in a public registry of all patents. The USPTO has issued more than 9.3 million utility, design, and plant patents since the first utility patent was issued back in 1790.

If you look at a patent (it is a document), you will see that it has a number of major parts. The front page contains information about the patent, including its number, when it was filed and issued, who the inventor is, related patents, what other patents and prior art were looked at before issuing the patent, and what attorney or law firm helped draft the patent, among many other things. There is also a brief summary (the abstract) that describes the invention. The next pages contain drawings that help describe the invention. Later pages include background information about the invention, as well as a detailed description of it. Finally, the patent ends with a series of numbered claims. Each claim is a single sentence that describes the legal boundaries of the invention. The claims are the most important part of the patent.

Patents generally last for 20 years from the date of the earliest non-provisional application filed by the inventor. This duration can be longer or shorter depending on various circumstances, including how long the patent office takes to examine the patent application and whether the inventor has other, related applications.

Once a patent expires, the invention is in the public domain, and anyone can use it without permission from the inventor. This is the tradeoff that comes from being given a period of time in which the inventor can exclude others from using the invention.

Again, this description provides a broad overview of what a patent is, and there is a lot more detail behind each of these concepts. In our upcoming articles in our What Is…? series, we will explore some of the concepts discussed in this post in greater depth, explaining about the different kinds of patents (utility, design, and plant), the different types of applications (non-provisional, provisional, PCT, continuations, continuations in part, and divisionals), the different types of claims (independent and dependent) and what kinds of inventions can be patented, among many other things. We hope you’ll join us.

1 Comment

Posted in Patents, What Is...?

Tagged , , , , ,

Our New What Is…? Series

Posted on March 4, 2014 | 2 comments

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

3d illustration of person with word Q&A cubesPatent and intellectual property law can be intimidating and confusing, especially to inventors, individuals, and companies that have never been through the patent, trademark, or copyright process. In the coming weeks and months, we are going to be posting a number of articles designed to answer some basic questions about patents, trademarks, and copyrights. We’re calling this our “What Is…?” series.

These explanations and discussions are designed to provide a basic overview of these concepts, and are not meant to be the definitive statement on any of them. Patent and intellectual property law, as well as other areas of the law, are full of subtleties, nuances, and exceptions that can change the results or answers depending on the factual and legal circumstances that you find yourself in. So, what might be generally true is not always true. As with any legal issue, you should consult with a qualified attorney to determine how these concepts apply to you in your specific situation.

Our hope is to help you in understanding these basic concepts in what can be a complex and confusing area.

Articles

2 Comments

Posted in What Is...?

Tagged , , ,