ContactPresidential Candidates on Patents
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 by Jim Ruttler.
Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Barak Obama have issued statements regarding their views on the U.S. patent system. Romney believes that a strong U.S. patent system is critical for a healthy economy. If elected President, Romney would support abolishment of the new patent office rules that restrict claims and continuation applications; would ensure that the Undersecretary of Commerce and Director of the Patent Office were patent attorneys; and would consider appointing patent attorneys to the U.S. Federal Circuit.
Obama also believes that a strong U.S. patent system is essential for global competitiveness. If elected President, Obama would increase funding for the Patent Office; would open the patent process to peer review; and would provide inexpensive and timely administrative proceedings for reviewing patent validity.
Romney’s Statment
Obama’s Statment
New Patent Rules Delayed
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2007 by Jim Ruttler.
The U.S. Patent Office promulgated new rules for claims and continuations that were to become effective on November 1, 2007. A Virginia Federal Court issued a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Patent Office blocking the rules from being enforced until it could be determined whether they are consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the Patent Act of 1953. The U.S. Patent Office has complied and deferred enforcement of the rules until further notice. Currently, there are no limits to the number of claims that can be presented or to the number of continuation applications that can be filed for a single invention. The Patent Office believes that limits to claims and continuations are necessary to improve the overall efficiency of the patent application process. However, the U.S. Constitution and the Patent Act seem to preclude any limits to the number of claims and continuation applications that can be filed. In short, the new rules are being delayed until further notice from the Virginia Federal Court. Note that these rules are different from the proposed revisions to the Patent Act that are working their way through Congress. The proposed revisions include switching to a first-to-file system, permitting third party prior art submissions, and providing for a post-grant opposition period.
Prior Art Searching
Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2007 by Jim Ruttler.
Prior to filing a patent application for an invention, it is important to conduct a prior art search to determine whether an invention is new. The relevant sources of prior art include issued patents, pending patent applications, foreign issued patents, foreign patent applications, and any other non-publication reference. Non-publication references include articles, existing products, theses, websites, textbooks, press releases, advertisements and other publications.
Although a prior art search is not required, it is good practice because an examiner will be conducting a prior art search during examination. Furthermore, an issued patent is subject to being invalidated with prior art by the patent office or by a court of law. Thus, knowing whether an invention is new before filing a patent application can save time and resources and can help focus the application on its most innovative aspects.
US Patent Office
Canadian Patent Office
Japanese Patent Office
European Patent Office
International Patent Applications
Employee Rights to Inventions
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007 by Jim Ruttler.
Within the context of an employer/employee relationship, the question often arises as to who owns the rights to any inventions created by an employee. The default rule in the United States is that absent an agreement, the employee owns rights to any inventions they conceive of, and any patent applications or patents based thereon, during the course of employment.
Therefore, when entering into an employer/employee relationship, employees concerned about their invention rights should proceed cautiously and diligently review all employment agreements, company policies, or any other express or implied agreements to ensure that their rights to current and future inventions are not compromised. Similarly, when it is intended that an employee assign his or her inventions to a company, it is important for employers to formalize such agreements at the onset of employment to ensure an employee doesn’t retain ownership rights to patent applications and issued patents. Washington law sets forth specific requirements and limitations for such agreements.
To complicate the issue, the default for copyright ownership is with the employer rather than the employee under the Work for Hire doctrine. This raises interesting issues with regards to software patents, which may be protected with both patents and copyrights.
Improved Marketability for Patents
Posted Tuesday, October 02, 2007 by Jim Ruttler.
There are three traditional ways for an inventor to profit from his or her patent. The first is to create and sell the product covered by the patent and preclude others from doing the same. The limited monopoly provided by the patent permits the seller to command higher prices in the market. This route requires significant resources to both bring the product to market and to enforce the patent against infringers. Given that this is an obstacle to many inventors, a second method is to license or sell the patent to a company that has the resources and know-how to exploit it in the marketplace. This arrangement is ideal in that it rewards the inventor for his or her contribution, rewards the consumers with a better product, and rewards the company with increased profits. However, there are sizable barriers for inventors pursuing this option. First and foremost, it is difficult for an inventor to contact the right person within a company. Further, a company is not incentivized negotiate with an inventor unless the company both needs the patent and believes that the inventor is willing and able to enforce it. Given these difficulties, it is not surprising that a third method has become popular: do nothing, wait for infringement, and file a lawsuit. This route is attractive given that no resources are required to make a product or to negotiate with potential manufacturers and because there is a strong incentive for an existing infringer to settle. Unfortunately, this route introduces substantial chaos in the business world through legal uncertainty and precludes consumers from benefiting from new inventions.
Improved marketability for patents has the best potential to eliminate inventor reliance on patent lawsuits, permit consumers to benefit from new inventions, and allow companies to earn higher profits. Two companies in particular are making significant headway to achieve patent liquidity: Ocean Tomo® and Intellectual Ventures®. Ocean Tomo® promotes the first live public auctions for intellectual property where inventors can offer patents for sale and buyers can research and purchase the same. Intellectual Ventures®, on the other hand, is a well-funded organization which purchases intellectual property and markets the same to other entities. Both auctions and intellectual property intermediaries are likely to play an important role in improving the marketability of patents.
Intellectual Ventures Website
Ocean Tomo Website
‹‹ Newer Entries | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | Older Entries ››