DOCSLIB.ORG

Software Patents Worldwide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Software Patents Worldwide General Editor Gregory A. Stobbs Published by: Kluwer Law International PO Box 316 2400 AH Alphen aan den Rijn The Netherlands Website: www.kluwerlaw.com Sold and distributed in North, Central and South America by: Aspen Publishers, Inc. 7201 Mckinney Circle Frederick, MD 21704 United States of America E-mail: [email protected] Sold and distributed in all other countries by: Turpin Distribution Services Stratton Business Park Pegasus Drive Biggleswade Bedfordshire SG18 8TQ United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Printed on acid-free paper. DISCLAIMER: The material in this volume is in the nature of general comment only. It is not offered as advice on any particular matter and should not be taken as such. The editor and the contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with regard to anything done or omitted to be done, and with respect to the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this volume. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any matter contained in this volume without first obtaining professional advice regarding the particular facts and circumstances at issue.Any and all opinions expressed herein are those of the particular author and are not necessarily those of the editor or publisher of this volume. ISBN 978-90-411-2502-6 © 2013, Kluwer Law International BV,The Netherlands First Published in 2008. This publication is protected by international copyright law. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Permission to use this content must be obtained from the copyright owner. Please apply to Permissions Department, Wolters Kluwer Legal, 76 Ninth Avenue, 7th Floor, NewYork,NY 10011-5201, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Software Patents Worldwide CONTENTS – vii COUNTRY REPORTS AUSTRIA Rainer Schultes, Arnulf Weinzinger and Georg Heger iii I. Software Patents: An Introduction 1 A. Frequently Asked Questions About Software Patents 1 1. Is Software a Patentable Subject-matter in Austria? 1 2. What Is a Technical Character and a Technical Contribution? 1 3. Are Claims to a Computer Program Acceptable? 2 4. Are Claims for a Data Carrier Necessary? 2 5. Is a Software Patent Enforceable in Austria? 2 6. How is a Software Patent Examined by the APO? 2 7. What Is the Difference between a European Patent Covering Austria and a National Austrian Patent? 3 8. Should I File a Software Patent Application with the EPO or Rather Nationally with the APO? 3 9. Is the Program Logic Patentable? 4 10. What Is the Difference between a Patent and a Utility Model? 4 B. Introduction to the Legal System 5 1. Court System 5 2. Patent System 7 a. Legal Department and Technical Department 7 b. The Appeal Department 8 c. The Nullity Department 9 d. The Supreme Patent and Trademark Senate 9 e. Inspection of Files 9 C. Overview of the Software Industry in Austria 10 II. Legal Basis According to the Current Patent Act 10 A. Patentable (Statutory) Subject-matter 10 B. Novelty and Inventive Step 13 III. How the Patent Office Interprets the Patent Act 16 A. Patent Examination Guidelines 17 B. Specific Guidelines for Software Patents 19 C. Utility Model 22 IV. Historical Development 23 A. Brief History of National Patent Law 23 B. Prior Acts and Treaties that Influence Current Patent Law 23 C. Noteworthy Case Law 24 V. Noteworthy Fields of Technology and the Scope of Protection Afforded 25 VI. Practical Recommendations 27 A. Direct Control of ‘Natural Forces’ 27 B. The Processing of Technical Data 28 C. The Internal Functioning of the Computer 28 VII. Infringement and Enforcement 29 A. Statutory Basis for Software Patent and Enforcement 29 B. Jurisdictional Issues Local Jurisdiction 33 C. How Patent Litigation Is Conducted 35 1. Court Proceedings 35 a. Right to Sue 35 b. Capacity to Be Made a Defendant 35 c. Provisional Proceedings 36 i. Application for Provisional Injunction 36 ii. Further Briefs 36 SPW – Suppl. 15 (December 2013) viii – CONTENTS Software Patents Worldwide iii. Decision 38 iv. Recourses 38 d. Proceedings in the Main Cause 39 i. Complaint 39 ii. Preparatory Brief 39 iii. Hearings 40 iv. Judgment 40 v. Appeals 40 e. Discovery of Evidence 41 f. Enforcement 41 g. Criminal Proceedings 42 h. Anti-Counterfeiting 42 i. Excursus 43 (a) Invalidation Procedure: 43 (b) Declaratory Proceedings: 44 D. How Damages Are Assessed and Enforced 45 E. How Injunctions Are Awarded and Enforced 45 F. Noteworthy Case Law: Applicable to Enforcement 46 VIII. Future Directions 46 A. Where Are we Today? 46 B. A Forecast for the Future 46 CANADA Steven Garland & Colin Ingram iii I. Introduction 1 A. Frequently Asked Questions about Software Patents in Canada 1 1. Is Software Patentable in Canada? 1 2. Are Business Methods Patentable in Canada 1 3. How Are Software Patents Enforced in Canada? 1 4. What Are the Main Differences between Canadian and US Patent Litigation? 2 5. How Much Time Is Required to Enforce Software Patents in Canada? 2 B. Introduction to the Canadian Legal System 3 1. Introduction to the Canadian Court System 3 a. Canadian Courts Having Jurisdiction to Hear Patent Infringement Actions 3 b. Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal 3 c. Provincial Superior Courts 5 2. Introduction to the Canadian Patent System 5 a. Patent Priority and Filing 5 b. Examination 6 c. Examination Service Standards 7 d. Expedited Examination 7 e. Allowance 8 C. Overview of the Software Industry in Canada 9 II. Legal Basis According to Current Patent Act 10 A. Patentable (Statutory) Subject Matter 10 1. The Definition of ‘Invention’ 10 2. Matter Excluded from Patent Protection 12 B. Utility 13 C. Novelty and Non-obviousness (Inventive Character) 16 1. Novelty 16 a. Patent Applications Filed Before 1 October 1989 16 b. Patent Applications Filed on or After 1 October 1989 17 c. Legal Test for Anticipation 17 2. Non-obviousness (Inventive Step) 19 D. Sufficiency of the Specification 21 III. How the Patent Office Interprets the Patent Act 23 SPW – Suppl. 15 (December 2013) Software Patents Worldwide CONTENTS – ix A. Background 23 B. Patentable Subject Matter 24 1. Art/Process 24 2. Machine 25 3. Manufacture 26 C. Utility 26 D. Sufficiency 27 E. Novelty and Non-obviousness (Inventive Step) 28 F. Claims 29 G. Special Topics 29 1. Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) 29 2. Data Structures 30 3. Databases 30 4. Computer-Aided Design Programs 30 5. Signals 31 6. Business Methods 31 H. The 8 March 2013 Practice Guidelines 33 IV. Historical Development 36 A. A Brief History of Canadian Patent Law 36 B. Noteworthy Case Law: Having Specific Applicability to Computer Programs, Software, Business Methods 37 1. Lawson v. Commissioner of Patents 37 2. Schlumberger v. Commissioner of Patents 39 3. Shell Oil Co. of Canada v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) 41 4. Progressive Games, Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) 43 5. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) 44 a. Canadian Patent Application No. 2,246,933 45 b. Decision of the Patent Appeal Board (Commissioner of Patents) 46 i. Obviousness 47 ii. Subject Matter 47 c. Decision of the Federal Court (Justice Phelan) 49 i. Adoption of International Principles 49 ii. Form and Substance Approach 50 iii. Definition of ‘Art’ 51 iv. Business Method Exclusion 52 v. ‘Technological’ Requirement 53 vi. Application to the ’933 Application 53 d. Decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (Justice Sharlow) 55 i. Analytical Framework (Construction) 55 ii. The Proper Test for Patentable ‘Art’ 56 iii. The Technological Exclusion 56 iv. Business Method Exclusion 57 v. Requirement for ‘Change in Character or Condition of a Physical Object’ 57 vi. Disposition 57 vii. Caveats and Handling of the Schlumberger Decision 58 viii. Post-Script: Issuance of the Amazon.com’s Patent 62 V. Fields of Technology (Fot) 62 VI. Infringement and Enforcement 62 A. Statutory Basis for Software Patent Enforcement 62 1. Infringement 62 2. Director and Officer Liability 65 3. Scope of Protection: Construing the Patent Claims 66 B. How Software Patent Litigation is Conducted 67 1. Parties 68 a. Plaintiffs 68 b. Defendants 68 2. Pleadings 69 a. The Statement of Claim 69 SPW – Suppl. 15 (December 2013) x – CONTENTS Software Patents Worldwide b. The Defence (and Counterclaim) and Subsequent Pleadings 69 c. Particulars/Motions to Strike 70 3. Interlocutory Steps 70 a. Interim/Interlocutory Injunctions 70 i. Serious Issue 71 ii. Irreparable Harm 71 iii. Balance of Convenience 72 b. Mareva Injunctions 72 4. Scheduling and Case Management 72 5. Settlement 73 6. Severance/Bifurcation 74 7. Summary Judgment/Trial 74 8. Protective Orders 76 9. No Markman Hearings 76 10. Discovery 76 a. Documentary Discovery 77 b. Oral Discovery 77 11. Pre-Trial 79 12. Expert Reports 80 13. Trial 82 a. Time to Trial 82 b. Conduct of Trial 82 14. Appeals 83 C. How Damages Are Assessed and Enforced: How Injunctions Are Awarded and Enforced 83 1. Remedies for Patent Infringement 83 VII. Future Directions 85 CHINA Jinchen Song, Shaohui Du and Nancy L. Fix iii I. Software Patents: an Introduction 1 A. Frequently Asked Questions About Software Patents 1 1. What Inventions Are Patentable in China? 1 2. Are Software Patents Eligible for Protection in China? 1 3. Are Business Methods Patentable in China? 1 4. Are there Any Guidelines for Patenting Software in China? 1 5.
Recommended publications
  • Industrial Property

    Industrial Property

    ANNUAL SURVEY OF CANADIAN LAW INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY William L. Hayhurst, Q.C. * I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 394 II. RECENT LEGISLATION ................................. 395 III. PROPOSED LEGISLATION ................................ 398 IV . PATENTS ............................................ 399 A. Matters in Which the Patent Office has OriginalJurisdiction ............................... 399 1. Conflicts ...................................... 399 2. Compulsory Licences ............................ 400 3. Subject Matter Capable of Being Patented .......... 401 (a) Printed M atter .............................. 402 (b) Gam es ..................................... 402 (c) Mental Processes and Computer Programs ...... 402 (d) Living M atter ............................... 405 (e) Medical Treatment of Animals and Humans ...... 407 (f) Medical Inventions .......................... 408 (g) The Progeny of Sandoz v. Gilcross ............. 410 (h) Aggregations and Exhausted Combinations ...... 412 (i) Synergism .............................. 412 (ii) M ixtures ............................... 412 (iii) The Aggregative or Unnecessary Addition ... 413 4. D ivision ....................................... 4 15 5. R eissue ....................................... 4 16 6. D isclaimer .................................... 417 B. Substantive Matters in the Courts .................... 418 1. Intervening Rights .............................. 418 2. Personal Liability of Persons in Control of CorporateInfringers .........................
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress

    Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress

    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
  • Industrial Property Law

    Industrial Property Law

    INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY LAW G. E. Fisk* I. INTRODUCTION The industrial property survey this year will be restricted to patents, but it is hoped that, next year, sections will be included on trade marks, copyright and industrial design, and unfair competition. The patent cases discussed in this issue are not limited only to last year's, but instead cover the period from 1965 to the end of 1968. A few earlier cases are also discussed, where their inclusion is necessary to show develop- ment of a doctrine.' Some attempt has been made to summarize develop- ments since the writing of any Canadian patent text in rules having general application to patent cases. The survey has been divided into three main headings, namely infringe- ment, validity and reissue. It was originally intended to include a discussion of conflicts and of licence, assignment and devolution, but this has not been done because of space limitation. A case presently pending before the Supreme Court is likely to change conflict practice considerably and it was felt advisable to delay a detailed consideration of this area. Assignment has been covered comprehensively in a recent article by G. F. Henderson, 2 while the problems of licencing encountered in recent cases have dealt mainly with the compulsory licencing provisions relating to pharmaceuticals, which are likely to be modified by a bill now before Parliament. 8 During the period covered by the survey, no new texts on patent law have appeared in Canada, although existing texts are seriously outdated. 4 The only new writing in the field has been in periodicals, notably those pub- lished by The Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada.
  • Promise Utility Doctrine and Compatibility Doctrine Under NAFTA: Expropriation and Chapter 11 Considerations

    Promise Utility Doctrine and Compatibility Doctrine Under NAFTA: Expropriation and Chapter 11 Considerations

    Canada-United States Law Journal Volume 40 Issue 1 Article 8 2016 Promise Utility Doctrine and Compatibility Doctrine Under NAFTA: Expropriation and Chapter 11 Considerations Freedom-Kai Phillips Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj Part of the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Freedom-Kai Phillips, Promise Utility Doctrine and Compatibility Doctrine Under NAFTA: Expropriation and Chapter 11 Considerations, 40 Can.-U.S. L.J. 84 (2016) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol40/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canada-United States Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 84 CANADA-UNITED STATES LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 40, 2016] PROMISE UTILITY DOCTRINE AND COMPATIBILITY UNDER NAFTA: EXPROPRIATION AND CHAPTER 11 CONSIDERATIONS Freedom-Kai Phillips* ABSTRACT: The 2013 filing by Eli Lilly of a notice of arbitration under Chapter 11 of NAFTA relating to the application of the promise utility doctrine in Canadian jurisprudence brought to light latent tensions relating to domestic patent standards, perceived barriers to innovation, and international investment standards. This paper explores applicable NAFTA obligations and patent regimes in an effort to identify points of convergence and divergence, and argues that the promise utility doctrine while
  • Myth Making, Juridification, and Parasitical Discourse: a Barthesian Semiotic Demystification of Canadian Political Discourse on Marijuana

    Myth Making, Juridification, and Parasitical Discourse: a Barthesian Semiotic Demystification of Canadian Political Discourse on Marijuana

    MYTH MAKING, JURIDIFICATION, AND PARASITICAL DISCOURSE: A BARTHESIAN SEMIOTIC DEMYSTIFICATION OF CANADIAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE ON MARIJUANA DANIEL PIERRE-CHARLES CRÉPAULT Thesis submitted to the University of Ottawa in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Philosophy degree in Criminology Department of Criminology Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa © Daniel Pierre-Charles Crépault, Ottawa, Canada, 2019 ABSTRACT The legalization of marijuana in Canada represents a significant change in the course of Canadian drug policy. Using a semiotic approach based on the work of Roland Barthes, this dissertation explores marijuana’s signification within the House of Commons and Senate debates between 1891 and 2018. When examined through this conceptual lens, the ongoing parliamentary debates about marijuana over the last 127 years are revealed to be rife with what Barthes referred to as myths, ideas that have become so familiar that they cease to be recognized as constructions and appear innocent and natural. Exploring one such myth—the necessity of asserting “paternal power” over individuals deemed incapable of rational calculation—this dissertation demonstrates that the processes of political debate and law-making are also a complex “politics of signification” in which myths are continually being invoked, (re)produced, and (re)transmitted. The evolution of this myth is traced to the contemporary era and it is shown that recent attempts to criminalize, decriminalize, and legalize marijuana are indices of a process of juridification that is entrenching legal regulation into increasingly new areas of Canadian life in order to assert greater control over the consumption of marijuana and, importantly, over the risks that this activity has been semiologically associated with.
  • Life Sciences & Biotechnology Legal Bulletin

    Life Sciences & Biotechnology Legal Bulletin

    ISSUE 29 | FEBRUARY 16, 2012 LIFE SCIENCES & BIOTECHNOLOGY LEGAL BULLETIN SCIENCE • TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING • ENERGY PHARMACEUTICAL CONTENTS IP NEWS IP News USPTO Proposes New Rules of Trial and Appellate Practice Under AIA ...........1 USPTO Proposes New Rules of Trial and Appellate Practice Under AIA Investor News The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued proposed rules of Massachusetts Biotech Adds $6.3 Million practice to implement sections of the America Invents Act (AIA) that provide Targeted to Stem Cell Reagents .........2 for trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and address judicial review of Biopharmaceutical Secures $2.2 Million to Develop Pancreatic Cancer Vaccine ...2 board decisions. Comments are requested by April 9, 2012. Business Climate According to USPTO’s notice, “the proposed rules would provide a consolidated Life Sciences Startups Generate More Capital in 2011, Biotech Job Ads Down set of rules relating to Board trial practice for inter partes review, post-grant Slightly in Q4 ...........................2 review, derivation proceedings, and the transitional program for covered Companion Diagnostics in Personalized business method patents by adding a new part 42 including a new subpart A Medicine Facing Explosive Growth ......3 to title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed rules would also Indian Official Calls for Passage of Biotech Regulatory Legislation and provide a consolidated set of rules to implement the provisions of the Leahy- Increased VC Funding. 3 Smith America Invents Act related to seeking judicial review of Board decisions Legislative and Regulatory Developments by adding a new part 90 to title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Separate FDA Issues Draft Biosimilars Guidance, rulemakings address proposed rules specific to inter partes review, post-grant Gaps Leave Practitioners Wondering ....4 review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and Pay-for-Delay Deals and Biologics’ Exclusivity Period Part of President’s derivation proceedings.
  • Can I Challenge My Competitor's Patent?

    Can I Challenge My Competitor's Patent?

    Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor’s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication, an analysis should be conducted by a registered patent attorney to determine if challenging a patent or patent publication is necessary, and to evaluate the legal grounds for challenging the patent or patent publication. As a registered patent attorney, I evaluate patents and patent applications to determine the risk of developing competing goods. Below are three important questions that must be answered by a registered patent attorney to evaluate the risk of competing against a patented good. 1. Does a particular good infringe on a patent? Typically, a registered patent attorney will conduct a “freedom to operate” opinion to determine if a business owner can commercialize a particular good without infringing on another’s patent. First, a patent attorney will determine if the patent is enforceable. Next, a patent attorney will perform an infringement analysis to determine if a particular good infringes on any of a patent’s claims. To perform an infringement analysis of a patent and a possibly infringing product, first, the patent’s scope must be analyzed. Second, the patent’s claim terms must be interrupted using the specification, prosecution history and extrinsic evidence to understand and construe the meaning of the claim terms. After the claim terms have been construed, then the elements of a particular good must be analyzed to determine if the particular good practices each and every claim element taught by a patent’s claim.
  • Business Method Patents and Patent Floods

    Business Method Patents and Patent Floods

    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 8 Symposium on Intellectual Property, Digital Technology & Electronic Commerce January 2002 Business Method Patents and Patent Floods Michael J. Meurer Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael J. Meurer, Business Method Patents and Patent Floods, 8 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 309 (2002), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol8/iss1/12 This Patents and Bioinformatics - Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Business Method Patents and Patent Floods Michael J. Meurer* “[O]ne of the great inventions of our times, the diaper service [is not patentable].”1 Giles S. Rich “We take this opportunity to lay this ill-conceived exception to rest.”2 Giles S. Rich I. INTRODUCTION The decline of the business method exception to patentability will increase the frequency of patent floods. By patent flood, I mean a dramatic jump in the number of patents filed covering a specific class of inventions, as we now observe in e-commerce.3 Floods are likely to become more frequent as future entrepreneurs respond to the appearance of a new market with a spate of business method patent applications claiming new methods tailored to the new market. A flood of related patents in a new market creates special problems for competition in addition to the usual problems that arise * Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law.
  • Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business? Rochelle Dreyfuss

    Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business? Rochelle Dreyfuss

    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 3 January 2000 Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business? Rochelle Dreyfuss Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rochelle Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?, 16 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 263 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol16/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY ARE BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS BAD FOR BUSINESS? Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss' TABLE OF CONTENTS I. State Street .................................................................................. 265 II. Implications of Business Method Patenting .................................. 267 A . Q uality ........................................................................................ 267 B . W isdom ...................................................................................... 274 m. Where to Go from Here ............................................................... 277 IV . Conclusion .................................................................................. 280 This is an exciting time at which to be involved in intellectual property. When I began teaching, this field was something of a backwater. Around thirty people took my introductory course; only seven went on to study patent law. Indeed, patent law was so esoteric, practitioners were historically among the very few lawyers ethically permitted to advertise their specialty.! In the last decade, however, all of that has changed. Not only are there many more students, what is really interesting as is the level of attention that this field is now receiving from Congress and the courts.
  • Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents - Definitions Of

    Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents - Definitions Of

    [3510-16-P] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 42 [Docket No. PTO-P-2011-0087] RIN 0651-AC75 Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents - Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is revising the rules of practice to implement the provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) that requires the Office to issue regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention in a transitional post-grant review proceeding for covered business method patents. The provision of the AIA will take effect on September 16, 2012, one year after the date of enactment. The AIA provides that this 1 provision and any regulations issued under the provision will be repealed on September 16, 2020, with respect to any new petitions under the transitional program. DATES: Effective Date: The changes in this final rule take effect on September 16, 2012. Applicability Date: The changes in this final rule apply to any covered business method patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Medley, Administrative Patent Judge; Michael P. Tierney, Lead Administrative Patent Judge; Robert A. Clarke, Administrative Patent Judge; and Joni Y. Chang, Administrative Patent Judge; Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, by telephone at (571) 272-9797. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary: Purpose: On September 16, 2011, the AIA was enacted into law (Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)).
  • Assessment of the Covered Business Method Patent Review Program

    Assessment of the Covered Business Method Patent Review Program

    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives March 2018 U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Assessment of the Covered Business Method Patent Review Program GAO-18-320 March 2018 U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Assessment of the Covered Business Method Patent Review Program Highlights of GAO-18-320, a report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Patents can promote innovation by From September 2012 through September 2017, entities facing patent giving inventors exclusive rights to their infringement lawsuits filed 524 petitions challenging the validity of 359 patents inventions, and patent owners can under the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) covered business bring infringement lawsuits against method (CBM) program, resulting in decisions against about one-third of these anyone who uses, makes, sells, offers patents. The CBM program provides entities facing infringement lawsuits an to sell, or imports a patented invention opportunity to challenge the validity of a business method patent by without authorization. As GAO demonstrating that it did not meet requirements for patentability. Business previously reported, such lawsuits can method patents focus on ways of doing business in areas such as banking or e- take years and cost several million commerce. The rate of filing petitions over this period has fluctuated but has dollars. USPTO’s CBM program generally declined since 2015, and none were filed in August or September provides a trial proceeding to challenge a patent’s validity at USPTO’s board 2017.
  • Patent Administration: Current Issues and Possibilities for Reform

    Patent Administration: Current Issues and Possibilities for Reform

    Order Code RL31438 Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Patent Administration: Current Issues and Possibilities for Reform June 6, 2002 name redacted Visiting Scholar in Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Patent Administration: Current Issues and Possibilities for Reform Summary The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) examines patent applications to determine whether the subject matter claimed within those applications is sufficiently inventive to merit the award of a patent. The environment in which patent examination occurs has become increasingly challenging. The USPTO is facing an escalating rate of patent application filings as well as applications of increasing technical complexity. Other potential concerns include budgetary constraints and the retention of personnel with appropriate technical and legal qualifications to perform patent examination tasks. Out of recognition of these challenges, the administrative procedures through which the USPTO conducts patent examination have been subject to renewed public dialogue and congressional interest. Legislation pending before the 107th Congress would introduce reforms to patent administration. Should Congress further consider this issue, USPTO practices may be reviewed with an eye towards their capability for maintaining acceptable levels of patent quality within current resource constraints. Congress may conclude that current USPTO practices provide an appropriate level of scrutiny of patent applications. In the event that reform is contemplated, however, widely circulated proposals and the practices of other leading patent- granting agencies, notably the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and the Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”), suggest the latest thinking on patent administration reform. One set of reform proposals involves augmenting the responsibilities of patent applicants.