Tag Archives: Dennis Crouch

The Effort to Make and Keep Patents Correct and Clear.

08 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Intellectual Property, Legal Writing, Legalese, Patent Law, Plain Language, Readability

≈ Comments Off on The Effort to Make and Keep Patents Correct and Clear.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Director Michelle Lee: Moving toward Patent Clarity, posted by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/q4dvog7

The following is a post from Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee and was published on the PTO Director’s blog.

Patent quality is central to fulfilling a core mission of the USPTO, which as stated in the Constitution, is to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’ It is critically important that the USPTO issue patents that are both correct and clear. Historically, our primary focus has been on correctness, but the evolving patent landscape has challenged us to increase our focus on clarity.

Patents of the highest quality can help to stimulate and promote efficient licensing, research and development, and future innovation without resorting to needless high-cost court proceedings. Through correctness and clarity, such patents better enable potential users of patented technologies to make informed decisions on how to avoid infringement, whether to seek a license, and/or when to settle or litigate a patent dispute. Patent owners also benefit from having clear notice on the boundaries of their patent rights. After and after successfully reducing the backlog of unexamined patent applications, our agency is redoubling its focus on quality.

We asked for your help on how we can best improve quality—and you responded.

Continue reading →

Attorney Fee Awards For Misconduct On A Winning Streak In Federal Court.

27 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Legal Ethics, Patent Law, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Attorney Fee Awards For Misconduct On A Winning Streak In Federal Court.

Tags

, , , ,

Federal Circuit: Bad Lawyering! = Sanctionable Litigation Misconduct, by Dennis Crouch, PATENTLYO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/qylp9zq

“The opinion here was authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Bryson.(Read the decision: Gamma v. CSU).”

Attorney fee awards have been on a hot-streak since the Supreme Court’s 2014 Octane Fitness decision lowering the standard for proving an ‘exceptional case’ under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Under the statute, a district court judge is empowered to award ‘reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party’ to a patent infringement lawsuit, but only in ‘exceptional cases.’ Id. In Octane Fitness, the Supreme Court gave the lower court fairly wide latitude in deciding exceptional case judgment and the award of fees. In particular, courts are given authority to consider the totality-of-the-circumstances when determining whether a fee award is appropriate. In the parallel case of Highmark, the court held that those lower-court determinations should be given deference on appeal. . . .

Continue reading →

Patent Law’s Most Influential Supreme Court Decisions From 2005 through 2015.

12 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by in Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Patent Law’s Most Influential Supreme Court Decisions From 2005 through 2015.

Tags

, , , ,

Most Cited Supreme Court Patent Decisions (2005-2015), by Dennis Crouch, PATENTLYO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mpd5ue

The list below considers all of the U.S. Supreme Court patent cases decided during the past decade (Since January 2005) and ranks them according to the number of citations.  Citation offers some insight into the influence of decisions, but is obviously limited for a number of reasons. Cases may be cited because of their importance in changing the doctrine (KSR, eBay) or simply as the court’s most recent statement of the law on an important issue (Microsoft v. i4i and KSR) or for a narrow procedural issue that applies in many cases (Unitherm). Bay’s high citation rate is also boosted because its principles have been applied broadly to injunctive relief across many areas of law. Some cases with low citation counts may also have major impacts. They may, for instance impact a small number of very important cases (Caraco) or perhaps they cause folks to change behavior so that the issue stops arising.

With this list we also have the timeline problem where older cases are more likely to be highly cited since there has been more opportunity for those cites. I Alice Corp to rise in the ranks Nautilus and Teva, on the other hand, may well flounder (based upon the Federal Circuit’s treatment of those cases thus far). . . .

Continue reading →

Which Party Bears The Responsibility For The High Cost of Litigation? Plaintiff or Defendant?

18 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on Which Party Bears The Responsibility For The High Cost of Litigation? Plaintiff or Defendant?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Who Is To Blame For High Litigation Costs: Plaintiffs For Filing The Lawsuits Or Defendants For Refusing To Deal And Instead Fighting?, by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/l7peu4h

The recent WSJ op-ed by John Chambers (CEO Cisco) and Myron Ullman (CEO JCPenny) is interesting, but largely not compelling. What the article does do is indicate that patent lawsuits is the avenue being by non-practicing patent holders and it is pretty clear that manufacturers and retailers would be better off (at least in the short term) without being charged with patent infringement. The core of their argument is here:

A 2012 study by Boston University researchers estimated that companies spent upward of $29 billion a year defending patent lawsuits, and the problem has not let up. According to RPX Corp., more than 3,600 companies and named defendants were sued by so-called patent-assertion entities in 2014, triple the number in 2006. Patent-assertion entities—aka non-practicing entities, or as some would call them, trolls—that own patents but do not make products or sell services based on them file more than 60% of patent litigation in the U.S.

A civil lawsuit generally comes about based upon a failure of the parties to negotiate a just solution. Of course, for any given lawsuit, we don’t know beforehand whether it is the plaintiff or the defendant who is being more unreasonable.

The op-ed suggests that the plaintiffs are to blame for filing the lawsuits, but there is also a strongly compelling case for arguing that the defendants are to blame for refusing to deal and instead fighting every lawsuit tooth-and-nail. When reach a point where out-of-litigation resolutions are rare, we should recognize that it is a systemic problem. And, at this point – where the primary complaint is high litigation costs – the solution is not to favor one side or the other, but instead to look for systemic changes that substantially decrease the cost of resolution.

Gene Quinn provides his take on the op-ed at IP Watchdog.

Statute of Limitations And Copyright Infringement.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on Statute of Limitations And Copyright Infringement.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Supreme Court: In Copyright, Laches Cannot Preclude Actions Taken Within Three Year Statute of Limitations, by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pqwudqa

Petrella v. MGM (Supreme Court 2014)

Frank Petrella wrote a screenplay back in 1963 based on the life of Jake LaMotta and assigned rights to UA/MGM who made the movie Raging Bull. Under the old renewal system, renewal rights went to Petrella’s heir, Paula Petrella, who renewed the copyright in 1991 in a fashion that (seemingly) eliminates the prior license. In 1998 she informed MGM that its continued exploitation of the Raging Bull movie violated her copyright. Finally, in 2009, she did sue – alleging copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement has a three-year statute of limitations indicating that ‘No civil action shall be maintained under the [Act] unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.’ 17 U.S.C. §507(b). However, as in patent law, copyright follows a ‘separate-accrual rule’ that sees each successive violation of a copyright as a new infringing act with its own statute of limitations. Thus, under the statute of limitations, MGM could be liable for its post-2006 actions such as copying and distributing the work. . . .

Are Patent Rights A Marital Asset?

10 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Divorce, Family Law, Intellectual Property, Marital Asset, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on Are Patent Rights A Marital Asset?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Patent Rights are a Marital Asset and Non-Inventing Spouse is a Co-Owner, by Dennis Crouch, Patently-O Blog

http://bit.ly/1mce19e

James Taylor v Taylor Made Plastics (Fed. Cir. 2014)

I should note here that this case is neither about the musician or the golf club company. Rather, it is about the now fractured Taylor family and their patented pipe plugs. I discussed the district court decision earlier here.

Several years ago James T. invented storm drain equipment and obtained a patent in his name only. U.S. Patent No. 5,806,566. When he and his wife Mary T. later divorced, the divorce court ordered “equitable distribution of marital property” with Mary T. receiving 60% of proceeds from the patent and James T. receiving 40%. The divorce court seemingly only dealt with equitable title in the form of rights-to-proceeds and not with legal title to the patent itself. And, in particular, the divorce court did not identify who held the exclusive rights associated with the patent. . . .

The Meaning of “Intellectual Property”

23 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Patent Law, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The Meaning Of “Intellectual Property,” by Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lcag5xs

Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge (Fed. Cir. 2014) 13-1515.Opinion.3-18-2014.1– Panel: Rader, Reyna, and Wallach (author).

At the heart of this case lies the question of ‘what is intellectual property?’ Here, the answer has more than philosophical implications: a finding of contempt hinges on it.

IP Law Professors Send Letter to Congress Seeking Anti-Troll Patent Legislation.

07 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on IP Law Professors Send Letter to Congress Seeking Anti-Troll Patent Legislation.

Tags

, , , , ,

IP Law Professors Rise-Up Against Patent Assertion Entities, By Dennis Crouch at PatentlyO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/n7qrg7a

A group of sixty US intellectual property law professors have signed a letter to Congress supporting anti-troll patent reform legislation. This effort was driven by Professor Love of Santa Clara and is also signed by Professors Bessen, Goldman, Ghosh, Lemley, Meurer, Samuelson, Sprigman, and others. [Download ProfessorsLetterOnTrolls].

A key introductory line from the letter:

Despite our differences, we all share concern that an increasing number of patent owners are taking advantage of weaknesses in the system to exploit their rights in ways that on net deter, rather than encourage, the development of new technology.

Trial of Historical Patent for Common Web Encryption of SSL in East Texas.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in E-Discovery, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Patent Law, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Trial of Historical Patent for Common Web Encryption of SSL in East Texas.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites the history of encryption, by Joe Mullin, Law & Disorder/Civilization & Discontents (with hat tip to Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O!)

http://tinyurl.com/

The story of Michael Jones, his mysterious invention, and the massive patent enforcer he’s working with is finally coming out at a patent trial underway in this small East Texas town.

Jones’ patent, now owned by famed patent enforcer Erich Spangenberg, has scared corporate America into writing one hefty check after another to avoid a trial just like this one. He and his lawyers say the patent covers the common web encryption scheme of SSL combined with the RC4 algorithm. The sums of those checks were revealed in court here on Tuesday when a TQP attorney displayed to the jury a spreadsheet with many of the payments.