PATENT LAW TRENDS (walking around patent knowledge)

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Recommended Pre-Suit Case Analysis Likelihood of infringement Likelihood of validity Size of potential recovery Likelihood of injunction and its importance.

Advertisements

By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.

Patent Law Overview. Outline Effect of patent protection Effect of patent protection Substantive requirements for patent protection Substantive requirements.

Patent System Reform(s) 2007 EDUCAUSE Policy Conference May 16, 2007 E.R. Kazenske Microsoft Corporation.

MATCHING PROCEDURES WITH GOALS C. Graham Gerst

Patent Portfolio Management By: Michael A. Leonard II.

Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings.

BIPC.COM STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF POST ISSUANCE PATENTABILITY REVIEW: THE NEW, OLD, AND NO LONGER Presented By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. B UCHANAN, I NGERSOLL.

Recent Changes in the US Patent System Affecting Engineers Peter D. Mlynek, MBA, PhD, Esq May 1.

Judicial Protection of Patent Rights in China --If Apple Sued Samsung in China, What would be the Remedies ? ZHANG Guangliang Renmin University of China.

1 Click to edit Master Changes to the U.S. Patent System Steven Steger September 4, 2014.

2015 AIPLA IP Practice in Europe Committee June, 2015 Phil Swain Foley Hoag LLP Boston, MA - USA The Effect of Alice v CLS Bank on patent subject matter.

Applications for Intellectual Property International IP Protection IP Enforcement Protecting Software JEFFREY L. SNOW, PARTNER NATIONAL SBIR/STTR CONFERENCE.

0 The ‘‘Japanese Model’’ Japan’s Initiatives for Meeting the Future May 14, 2009 Copenhagen, Denmark Takashi SUZUKI Commissioner Japan Patent Office.

Cochran Law Offices, LLC Patent Procedures Presented by William W. Cochran.

The U.S. Patent System is Changing – A Summary of the New Patent Reform Law.

IP Gespräche 2009 Frankfurt ● Karlsruhe ● Basel ● Zürich Strategic Uses of U.S. Reexamination Proceedings – Strengthen Your Market Position and Avoid U.S.

© 2014 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. International Patent Protection for Emerging Companies WIPO Program on International IP Protection Suffolk.

1 AMERICA INVENTS ACT 報告人：林淑靜學號： M A New Era ！ This Act was signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2011 and represents first.

1 Winds of Change in Patent Law by William W. Cochran Cochran Freund & Young LLC An Intellectual Property Law Firm by William W. Cochran Cochran Freund.

Think IP Strategy Trusted advisors to the world’s most innovative companies Brisbane Beijing Chicago Goteborg Hyderabad Johannesburg Melbourne Mumbai Washington.

EUPACO-2 – Brussels, May 15/16, 2007 Dietmar Harhoff Institute for Innovation Research, Technology Management and Entrepreneurship (INNO-tec) Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.

Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.

©2006 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Looking Both Ways Before You Cross the Street: How to Leverage Outside Patent Counsel 2006 APPA LEGAL SEMINAR October.

Inventing the Future – The Role of Patents and Utility Models in Leveraging Technical Innovation in the Market Place Ron Marchant CB FRSA Implementation.

Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.

© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 22, 2009 Class 6 Patents: Multilateral Agreements (Paris Convention); Economics of International Patent.

Basics of Patent Infringement Litigation UC Berkeley Patent Innovation and Strategy Dr. Tal Lavian November 24, 2008.

1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Updates on the USPTO Chris Fildes AIPLA-JPAA Joint Meeting April 9, 2013.

About the Amendment of the Patent Law of China Yin Xintian WAN HUI DA Law Firm & Intellectual Property Agency 17 April 2013.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.

Challenges Associated With, And Strategies For, U.S. Patent Litigation Russell E. Levine, P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP LES Asia.

PTO’s Proposals Regarding Amendments Permitted During Reexamination (A6/A7) Nancy J. Linck, Esq. Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck June 1,

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update Statistics based first three years of AIA filings 3,655 petitions –3,277 (89.7%) inter partes review (IPR) –368 (10%)

New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.

© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.

The New Tool for Patent Defendants - Inter Partes Review Daniel W. McDonald George C. Lewis, P.E. Merchant & Gould, P.C. April 16, 2014 © 2014 Merchant.

Workshop on research agenda motivation: –complex-product technologies, abstraction, economic disruption –need for interdisciplinary approach (EPIP) –limitations:

The Story of Congressional Patent Reform: When Mancur Olson Happens to Good Ideas.

Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues Hosted by: Update on U.S. Patent Legislation.

Welcome and Thank You © Gordon & Rees LLP Constitutional Foundation Article 1; Section 8 Congress shall have the Power to... Promote the Progress.

Patent Reexamination: Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Reexamination and Litigation.

Compensation of Employees for Service Inventions: View from the Trenches by Adv. Barry Levenfeld Tel Aviv Stock Exchange Conference Center January 10,

Patent Remedies Assistant Professor Colleen Chien

Enforcing Quality New methods of strengthening the IP-Systems in Europe Peter R. Slowinski, Mediator (CVM) Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property,

Recent changes to the PCT - Impact on Third Parties Introduction -Many, if not all, of recent amendments to PCT are user friendly -are they third party.

The Third Revision of the Chinese Patent Law State Intellectual Property Office of P.R.C Dec

Ongoing Royalties in Patent Litigation The Evolving Case Law on Damages for Post-Verdict Infringement: Procedural Issues Nicole D. Galli February 15, 2011.

Copyright © 20076/21/2016UC Berkeley IPIRA Page 1 Berkeley Tech Transfer AIA & on-line Invention Disclosure Form.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 3 – The Patent Owner Preliminary Response 1.

Ongoing Royalties in Patent Litigation: The Evolving Case Law on Damages for Post-Verdict Infringement Katie Karn February 15, 2011.

The Applicability of Patent-Agent Privilege After In re Queen’s University at Kingston Presented by Rachel Perry © 2016 Workman Nydegger.

16/20/11/09 – EU Civil Patent Enforcement HG Patent Rights in the EU – The Civil Enforcement Perspective Heinz Goddar Boehmert & Boehmert.

Omer/LES International/

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 1 – PTAB Basics and Procedure

Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement: Halo v. Pulse

PTABLitigationBlog.com: PTAB Popularity and Reasons

Year 10/11 Subject Selection – VCE Legal Studies.

Patent Damages Update Advanced Patent Litigation 2012

© 2006 Brett J. Trout Patent Reform Act of 2005 © 2006 Brett J. Trout

Start-Up Company IP Overview

11 Courts of Appeals for Patents Before 1982

Year 10/11 Subject Selection – VCE Legal Studies.

Update and Practical Considerations

The Long and Winding Road to U. S Patent Reform Alan J

Chapter 4: Patents and Trade Secrets in the Information Age.

Update on IP and Antitrust

Pitfalls and privilege in a post-halo World

Presentation by Seung Woo Ben Hur September 2019

Presentation transcript:

PATENT LAW TRENDS (walking around patent knowledge) Chris regan 5/24/17

Us – Weak or strong patent system? Actors: PTO, Congress, Courts, large users…, patent bar Goal: Encourage innovation, by giving predictable return on investment What is required of patent system: Ability to obtain patent (time, cost, scope) Certainty of ability to enforce (validity, further PTO challenges) Ability to enforce patent (time, cost, remedies) through litigation No injunction – efficient infringement; Attorney fees; Enhanced damages Weak/Strong U.S. patent system competes with other countries Where are we now? What’s the direction?

Uspto BOLO CES

Uspto REPORTS

Uspto 2016

Uspto 2016

Uspto 2006

Uspto numbers 2016

Uspto numbers from 2006 Note the number of Examiners

Uspto LOCATIONS 2016

Uspto new PRACTIONER numbers

Uspto GRANT numbers

Uspto numbers

Uspto numbers all patents granted 1977 to 2015

Uspto numbers all patents granted 1977 to 2015

Uspto numbers 2012-2016

Uspto numbers 2002-2006

Uspto numbers

Uspto numbers

Uspto PENDENCY numbers

Uspto INTERNAL COST numbers

Uspto appeal numbers

Uspto patent owner numbers (cnet news 1/9/17)

tech companies

tech companies

tech companies

tech companies

tech companies

Uspto biggest patent owner says:

Uspto biggest patent owner says:

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (unified patents 2016)

Numbers (rpx 2016)

Ptab results

Ptab results

Ptab results

Ptab results

Numbers (rpx 2016)

Numbers (rpx 2016)

Numbers (wipo 2015)

Numbers (wipo 2015)

Numbers (wipo 2015)

Numbers (wipo 2015)

Numbers (EPO)

Numbers (EPO)

Numbers (EPO)

Numbers (EPO)

Alice – 101 Fenwick & West tally: Decisions upholding claims: PTAB 33 Fed Cir 5 D Ct 42 Decisions invalidating claims: PTAB 309 Fed Cir 27 D Ct 129

101

101

101 proposals

Cases

Cases

Cases

Cases

Cases

Cases

Cases

Cases

Cases – ongoing royalties Artic Cat v. Bombardier – the Court should "take into account the change in the parties' bargaining positions, and the resulting change in economic circumstances, resulting from the determination of liability." The Court has already established that the jury's reasonable rate for past damages sets the floor for the determination of an ongoing royalty rate. Therefore, the ultimate rate set by the Court will necessarily be equal to, or exceed the rate for past damages. Arctic Cat argues for an enhanced rate twice the amount of $102.54 determined by the jury, or $205.08. BRP maintains that the jury rate should not be increased. The Court's analysis begins with a consideration of the applicable Georgia-Pacific . See also Paice v. Toyota and Adamo v. Microsoft

Questions? Is the US Patent system weak or strong? Encourage investment? Relative to other countries? Which direction is the US Patent system headed? What can be done to make it stronger? Modify or eliminate PTAB? Change procedures? Easier amendments? Phillips claim construction? Presumption of validity? Return injunction as remedy?

end