• U.S. judge cancels Apple-Google phone patent trial


    U.S. judge cancels Apple-Google phone patent trial

    Posner at his best: Federal Judge Posner canceled a scheduled June 11 trial between Apple Inc and Google Inc's Motorola Mobility unit over patents related to mobile phones and tablet computers, and expects to dismiss the case because neither can prove damages.

  • Google did not infringe Oracle patents, jury says


    Google did not infringe Oracle patents, jury says

    From the SJ Merc: In a decision with potentially wide-ranging implications for Silicon Valley's battling tech giants, a federal jury on Wednesday ruled unanimously that Google (GOOG) did not infringe Oracle's (ORCL) patents when it developed its Android software.

  • GAO a Helpful [compliant] Partner on AIA Implementation


    GAO a Helpful [compliant] Partner on AIA Implementation

    The USPTO is working with other agencies to help implement the America Invents Act (AIA), and has help with their User Fees from the GAO. Too bad they they are not talking to their biggest customers, America's patent applicants, and individual inventors in particular, who were left out of the creation of the AIA and its stripping of their valuable rights. All who value patents, large companies and small, lost valuable rights in this ill informed legislation.

  • Comments on AIA


    Comments on AIA

    The USPTO has made several announcements regarding the America Invents Act (AIA), upcoming hearings on the AIA, and micro-sites for receiving public comments.

  • USPTO Proposes Secrecy Order for Arbitrarily Denying Valuable Patents under the guise of "Economic Security"


    USPTO Proposes Secrecy Order for Arbitrarily Denying Valuable Patents under the guise of "Economic Security"

    The U.S. Department of Commerce, which includes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under it's watch, has proposed a mechanism for identifying and extinguishing individual patent rights to what they deem valuable patent applications. This overreaching proposal would give the Commerce Department and a variety of unnamed agencies power over intellectual property under the guise of "economic security". QUOTE from Text: "This new procedure would institute a secrecy order that forbids applicants from disclosing subject matter deemed to be detrimental to national economic security for such period as the national interest requires."

  • Gil Hyatt bests David Kappos, USPTO


    Gil Hyatt bests David Kappos, USPTO

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out some perceived limits to the evidence that unsuccessful patent applicants can bring in federal civil actions. This was accomplished by none other than individual inventor Gilbert Hyatt, an individual inventor and prolific patent owner who has had to fight these forces numerous times. This may seem like a small and insignificant ruling, but it is a victory for individual inventors and all patent holders in the U.S., giving wide breadth in the federal court system for introducing evidence.

  • Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus


    Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus

    PRINCIPAL FINDINGS of REPORT The entire U.S. economy relies on some form of IP, because virtually every industry either produces or uses it. By focusing on relevant data and various statistical measures, this report identified 75 industries (from among 313 total) as IP-intensive. These IP-intensive industries directly accounted for 27.1 million American jobs, or 18.8 percent of all employment in the economy, in 2010.[4] A substantial share of IP-intensive employment in the United States was in the 60 trademark-intensive industries, with 22.6 million jobs in 2010. The 26 patent-intensive industries accounted for 3.9 million jobs in 2010, while the 13 copyright-intensive industries provided 5.1 million jobs.[5] IP-intensive industries accounted for about $5.06 trillion in value added, or 34.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), in 2010. While IP-intensive industries directly supported 27.1 million jobs either on their payrolls or under employment contracts, these sectors also indirectly supported 12.9 million more supply chain jobs throughout the economy. In other words, every two jobs in IP-intensive industries support an additional one job elsewhere in the economy. In total, 40.0 million jobs, or 27.7 percent of all jobs, were directly or indirectly attributable to the most IP-intensive industries. Due primarily to historic losses in manufacturing jobs, overall employment in IP-intensive industries has lagged other industries during the last two decades. While employment in non-IP-intensive industries was 21.7 percent higher in 2011 than in 1990, overall IP-intensive industry employment grew 2.3 percent over this same period. Because patent-intensive industries are all in the manufacturing sector, they experienced relatively more employment losses over this period, especially during the past decade. While trademark-intensive industry employment had edged down 2.3 percent by the end of this period, copyright-intensive industries provided a sizeable employment boost, growing by 46.3 percent between 1990 and 2011. Between 2010 and 2011, the economic recovery led to a 1.6 percent increase in direct employment in IP-intensive industries, faster than the 1.0 percent growth in non-IP-intensive industries. Growth in copyright-intensive industries (2.4 percent), patent-intensive industries (2.3 percent), and trademark-intensive industries (1.1 percent) all outpaced gains in non-IP-intensive industries. Jobs in IP-intensive industries pay well compared to other jobs. Average weekly wages for IP-intensive industries were $1,156 in 2010 or 42 percent higher than the $815 average weekly wages in other (non-IP-intensive) private industries. This wage premium nearly doubled from 22 percent in 1990 to 42 percent by 2010. Patent- and copyright-intensive industries have seen particularly fast wage growth in recent years, with the wage premium in patent-intensive industries increasing from 66 percent in 2005 to 73 percent in 2010, and the premium in copyright-intensive industries rising from 65 percent to 77 percent. The comparatively high wages in IP-intensive industries correspond to, on average, the completion of more years of schooling by these workers. More than 42 percent of workers aged 25 and over in these industries in 2010 were college educated, compared with 34 percent on average in non-IP-intensive industries. Merchandise exports of IP-intensive industries totaled $775 billion in 2010, accounting for 60.7 percent of total U.S. merchandise exports. Data on foreign trade of IP-intensive service-providing industries is limited; however, this report does find that exports of IP-intensive service-providing industries accounted for approximately 19 percent of total U.S. private services exports in 2007.

  • Bilski Follow-up, the Supreme Court addresses Patentable Subject Matter Again


    Bilski Follow-up, the Supreme Court addresses Patentable Subject Matter Again

    Following the Bilski decision last summer, the Supremes still seem to have patentable subject matter on their radar. This time the focus is on the question of patentable subject matter in medical procedures where the human element of a doctor's procedures are involved, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc, which will have implications beyond medical devices given the broad reach of the decision.

  • Test of IP Rights Protection in China


    Test of IP Rights Protection in China

    In the next few months, a series of lawsuits will play out in the Chinese courts that could define the risks foreign companies take when they try to make money in China’s booming markets. The U.S. green energy company AMSC is suing its former customer Sinovel Wind Group Co., China’s biggest wind turbine manufacturer, for breach of contract, copyright infringement, and theft of trade secrets. Reprinted from IEEE Spectrum:

  • USPTO Opposition Trial Rules Adopt Interference Procedures


    USPTO Opposition Trial Rules Adopt Interference Procedures

    As expected, the USPTO has adopted Interference Procedures in the Rules for Practice for Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.


Your source for news and views on patent reform.