• By Donald Zuhn

    USPTO Announces Expansion of eMod Text Pilot

    USPTO SealIn August 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would begin implementing a new system that would eventually replace the EFS-Web, Public PAIR, and Private PAIR (see "USPTO News Briefs," August 9, 2015).  According to the Office, the new initiative, eCommerce Modernization (eMod), is intended to improve the electronic patent application process by modernizing the filing and viewing systems, and will be implemented in phases over the next few years.

    Last month, the Office announced via a Patent Alert e-mail that it was expanding the eMod Text Pilot Program.  As part of that expansion, participants in the pilot program will be able to access new system functionality such as the ability to submit text and receive Office actions in text.  The Office continues to seek new participants for the pilot program, but encourages those interested in participating in the pilot program to carefully review the eMod Text Pilot Participant Guidelines, which describes the use of the Text features offered in the pilot.  Those wishing to participate in the pilot program must fill out a participation form.

    The Office's latest announcement indicates that the goal of the eMod Text Pilot Program is to have applicants utilize new features to file patent applications in text, and provide feedback to the eMod Team for further improvements.  Additional information regarding the eMod Text Pilot Program can be found at the eMod Participant Programs webpage.

    Changes to Conditions under which ILPO May Act as ISA/IPEA for PCT Applications Filed with RO/US

    ILPOLate last year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced in the Official Gazette (1432 OG 264) that the conditions under which the Israel Patent Office (ILPO) would act as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) for International applications filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as a Receiving Office (RO/US) had changed.  In particular, the restriction against the ILPO acting as an ISA for applications containing one or more claims directed to a business method (as defined by specified areas of the International Patent Classification System) has been removed.  In addition, instead of limiting the number of applications the ILPO can receive from the USPTO to 75 per fiscal quarter, the ILPO will now take up to 100 applications per fiscal quarter.

    The changes are part of a new agreement that was signed in April 2016 by the Director of the USPTO and Director of the ILPO and Commissioner of Patents, Designs and Trademarks.  According to the agreement, the ILPO may act as an ISA under the PCT for International applications filed with the RO/US provided that: (1) the applications are submitted in the English language; (2) the ILPO has not received more than 100 international applications from the USPTO during a fiscal quarter; and (3) the ILPO is chosen as a competent authority by the applicants of said applications.  The ILPO will also act as an IPEA if these three requirements are met, and the ILPO acted as the ISA.

    The USPTO's announcement indicates that the search fee for the ILPO acting as an ISA for international applications received by the USPTO is $912 (USD), which the USPTO will collect and transmit to the ILPO.

    USPTO Announces Continuation of IP5 PPH Pilot Program

    PPH LogoIn November, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that the IP5 offices — the USPTO, European Patent Office (EPO), Japan Patent Office (JPO), Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), and State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO) — have agreed to extend the IP5 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program to January 5, 2020.

    The IP5 PPH pilot program enables applicants who receive a positive ruling on patent claims from one of the IP5 offices to request accelerated prosecution of corresponding claims in another IP5 office.  A discussion of the requirements for participation in the IP5 PPH can be found here.

  • CalendarFebruary 14, 2017 – "Post-Grant Proceedings: Practical Tips and Strategies in 2017" (Knowledge Group) – 3:00 to 4:00 pm (EST)

    February 14, 2017 – "Understanding the ADS: Little Things Make a Big Difference" (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) – 12:00 to 1:00 pm (ET)

    February 15, 2017 – "Exploring Cross-border Differences in Canadian and US Patent Law: Strategic Benefits and Traps for the Unwary" (Bereskin & Parr) – 12:00 to 1:00 pm (EST)

    February 15, 2017 – "Identifying the Effects of Brexit on the Protection and Enforcement of IP Rights" (Knowledge Group) – 10:00 to 11:00 am (EST)

    February 16, 2017 – "Trade Secrets and Patents: A Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Intellectual Property — Evaluating the Protection Options, Weighing the Benefits and Risks" (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST)

    February 17, 2017 – "Patent Litigation 2017: The Courts and Patent Trial and Appeal Board" (Federal Circuit Bar Association) – 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm (MST), Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Denver, CO

    February 21, 2017 – "Structuring Collaborative Agreements in Life Sciences — Drafting Terms to Expand Product Lines, Reduce Costs and Risks, and Leverage and Protect Assets" (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST)

    February 22, 2017 – "Patent-Eligibility Update: Abstract Ideas in the Federal Circuit and USPTO" (McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP) – 10:00 am to 11:15 am (CT)

    February 23, 2017 – "Functional Claiming for Software Patents: Leveraging Recent Court Treatment — Surviving 112(f) and Disclosing Functional Basis for Software to Meet Heightened Standard of Review" (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST)

    March 2, 2017 – "Responding to Patent Demand Letters: Leveraging State Laws on Bad Faith Assertion of Patents — Determining What to Include or Exclude in Response, Minimizing Risk of Litigation" (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST)

    March 9-10, 2017 - Advanced Patent Law Seminar (Chisum Patent Academy) – Cincinnati, OH.

    ***Patent Docs is a media partner of this conference or CLE

  • Bereskin & ParrBereskin & Parr will be offering a presentation entitled "Exploring Cross-border Differences in Canadian and US Patent Law: Strategic Benefits and Traps for the Unwary" on February 15, 2017 from 12:00 to 1:00 pm (EST).  Victor Krichker (moderator), James Raakman, and Carmela De Luca will discuss important differences in Canadian and U.S. patent law and highlight strategic opportunities and traps to avoid.  Topics to be discussed will include:

    • Is it too late to file in Canada? Making use of grace periods as well as the use of deferred or expedited examination options including the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH).
    • Benefits of filing in Canada including lower costs, lack of extra claim fees and absence of multiple claim dependency restrictions.
    • Common questions and situations that arise in cross-border filings including divisional practice, double patenting, lack of continuations, subject matter eligibility and restriction practice.
    • More complex issues such as interpretation standard applied during examination and restrictions on revival of abandoned applications.

    Those wishing to register for the presentation can do so here.

  • Federal Circuit Bar AssociationThe Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) will be offering a program entitled "Patent Litigation 2017: The Courts and Patent Trial and Appeal Board" on February 17, 2017 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm (MST) at the Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Denver, CO.  The program will include presentations on the following topics:

    • Agency Review and Practical Considerations for Appeals
    • Leading Edge Challenges: Amendments at PTAB
    • Adjudicatory Systems Panel –- panel includes Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix, U.S, District Court for the District of Colorado (moderator); Circuit Judge Kara F. Stoll, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

    Those interested in registering for the program, can do so here.  Additional information regarding the program can be found here.

  • Strafford #1Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled "Structuring Collaborative Agreements in Life Sciences — Drafting Terms to Expand Product Lines, Reduce Costs and Risks, and Leverage and Protect Assets" on February 21, 2017 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST).  Judith A. Hasko of Latham & Watkins and Amy L. Toro of Covington & Burling will provide guidance to counsel for companies in the life sciences industry for structuring collaborative agreements, and discuss key considerations including allocation of risk, establishment of milestones and obligations, protection of IP rights, and termination of agreements.  The webinar will review the following issues:

    • What considerations and potential pitfalls should counsel keep in mind when crafting collaborative agreements?
    • What are the key contract terms that should be included in life sciences collaborative agreements?
    • What approaches are most effective for assigning ownership and development rights?

    The registration fee for the webinar is $297.  Those interested in registering for the webinar, can do so here.

  • Strafford #1Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled "Functional Claiming for Software Patents: Leveraging Recent Court Treatment — Surviving 112(f) and Disclosing Functional Basis for Software to Meet Heightened Standard of Review" on February 23, 2017 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST).  James J. DeCarlo of Greenberg Traurig and Doris Johnson Hines of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will provide guidance to IP counsel on functional claiming in software patents and in USPTO prosecution, and examine recent court treatment and how to navigate the issue of functionality given the uncertainties in the prosecution and litigation contexts.  The webinar will review the following issues:

    • What impact will the Williamson decision have on functional claim interpretation for software patents?
    • What are the benefits and limitations of using functional claims for software patents?
    • What are the lessons from recent decisions regarding functionality in software patents?

    The registration fee for the webinar is $297.  Those interested in registering for the webinar, can do so here.

  • Strafford #1Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled "Responding to Patent Demand Letters: Leveraging State Laws on Bad Faith Assertion of Patents — Determining What to Include or Exclude in Response, Minimizing Risk of Litigation" on March 2, 2017 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST).  Sharon A. Israel of Mayer Brown, Brian R. Iverson of Bass Berry & Sims, and Baldassare Vinti of Proskauer Rose will provide guidance to patent counsel for responding to demand letters, discuss legal and strategic considerations, as well as current and proposed state laws addressing bad faith assertion claims, and also discuss what to include or exclude in the response to avoid creating potential harm in future litigation.  The webinar will review the following issues:

    • What are the key considerations for patent counsel when evaluating whether and how to respond to patent demand letters?
    • What is the effect of state laws on bad faith assertion claims on the response to a demand letter?
    • What are some of the pitfalls patent counsel confront in responding to demand letters—and how can they be avoided?

    The registration fee for the webinar is $297.  Those interested in registering for the webinar, can do so here.

  • By Kevin E. Noonan

    IPO #2In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision not to grant certiorari in Sequenom v. Ariosa (and in some quarters, considerably before that), many have voiced the opinion that only Congress can resolve the acknowledged uncertainty that recent Supreme Court decisions have created in the law of patent subject matter eligibility.  While many groups (such as the AIPLA and ABA-IP law section) have been said to be working on their own legislative proposals, the Intellectual Property Owners this week released theirs (see "Proposed Amendments to Patent Eligible Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101").  It proposes the following amendments to the statute (with strikethrough indicating text to be deleted and underlining identifying new language):

    101 Inventions patentable.

    101(a) ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER: Whoever invents or discovers, and claims as an invention, any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereto, shall be entitled to thereof, may obtain a patent for a claimed invention thereof therefor, subject only to the exceptions, conditions, and requirements set forth in this Title of this title.

    101(b) SOLE EXCEPTION TO SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY: A claimed invention is ineligible under subsection (a) if and only if the claimed invention as a whole, as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, exists in nature independently of and prior to any human activity, or exists solely in the human mind.

    101(c) SOLE ELIGIBILITY STANDARD: The eligibility of a claimed invention under subsections (a) and (b) shall be determined without regard as to the requirements or conditions of sections 102, 103, and 112 of this Title, the manner in which the claimed invention was made or discovered, or the claimed invention's inventive concept.

    This effort avoids any attempt at outright abrogation of Supreme Court precedent (likely a fool's errand in any case) in favor of codifying the IPO's understanding of the Court's intentions (which clearly could not have been to hamstring if not abolish vast swaths of American industry).  The IPO's approach is similar to the approach Giles Sutherland Rich and PJ Federico took almost two generations ago in codifying the Court's inchoate "inventiveness" standard into the modern concept of obviousness.  Thus, in proposed Section 101(b), the proposed revised statute expressly defines what have been judicially created exceptions based on Supreme Court law.  This section posits that claims must be considered as a whole (as required under Diamond v. Diehr) and that their interpretation be bounded by the understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art (echoing Section 103 in this regard).  Rather than merely then reciting the judicial exceptions ("abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena"), IPO's suggested language binds these concepts up into one:  that "the invention existed independent of and prior to any human activity, or exists solely in the human mind."  This phrasing keeps some of the novelty aspects in the revised statute that may have otherwise been banished by removing "new" from the preamble and is reminiscent of (but neither as elegant nor nuanced) as the language from Diamond v. Chakrabarty, that the invention be the product of human ingenuity.  It also risks some degree of misinterpretation should all natural products be considered to have existed "independent of and prior to" human activity; it is possible that the drafters believed this risk to be mitigated by proper claim drafting, wherein an "isolated" natural product would pass statutory muster provided that the claim is construed as a whole.  In like manner the proscription that the invention not exists "solely in the human mind" might cabin ineligibility of computer and like inventions to those capable of existing in the human mind.

    The proposal comes closest to a Congressional "we really mean it this time" in proposed Section 101(c), where the drafters have tried to restore the doctrinal distinctions between Section 101 and the other statutory requirements of patentability.  It also owes inspiration from Section 103 ("Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.") and contains the only direct rebuke of Supreme Court language by excluding considerations of "inventive concept" from the eligibility calculus.

    The election of Donald Trump as the 45th President has thrown into a cocked hat any expectations regarding what Congress may be willing to consider.  Amending the patent statute, particularly on fundamental matters like eligibility, could be a Pandora's box of goodies every species of political interest will want to exploit for their own purposes.  But IPO (and the other groups) should be applauded for not just throwing up their hands in despair.  In the current political climate perhaps anything is possible.

  • By Donald Zuhn

    NVCALast month, the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), a trade association representing the U.S. venture capital industry, released the results of its Pitchbook-NVCA Venture Monitor report on venture funding for the fourth quarter of 2016, as well as for the year as a whole.  With respect to the fourth quarter, the report indicates that venture capitalists invested $12.71 billion in 1,744 deals in the fourth quarter, which constituted a 19% decrease in dollars and an 11.8% decrease in deals as compared with the third quarter of 2016, when $15.7 billion was invested in 1,979 deals (see chart below, which shows total venture funding from the first quarter of 2013 through the fourth quarter of 2016; data from Pitchbook report; click on chart to expand).  The fourth quarter of 2016 was the 16th consecutive quarter in which more than $10 billion in venture capital was invested.  However, as compared with the fourth quarter of 2015, invested dollars and deals were down 24.7% and 26.6%, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2016.

    Venture Funding - Quarterly
    The report also indicates that venture capitalists invested $69.11 billion in 8,136 deals in 2016, which constituted a 12.8% decrease in dollars and a 22.3% decrease in deals as compared with 2015, when $79.26 billion was invested in 10,468 deals (see chart below, which shows total venture funding from 2006 to 2016; data from Pitchbook report; click on chart to expand).  Although venture funding topped $68 billion for the third consecutive year, which represented the second highest annual investment total in the past 11 years, the drop in venture funding in 2016 as compared with 2015 snapped a string of four consecutive year-over-year increases.  The NVCA, however, explained that "[g]iven the high levels of venture investment activity recorded in 2014 and 2015, 2016 represented less of a decline and more of a return to normal for the venture capital industry."  NVCA President and CEO Bobby Franklin suggested that "venture investment levels are readjusting after peaking in 2015," and that the NVCA viewed the "recalibration [in 2016] as a healthy normalization and a return to a much steadier pace of investment."

    Venture Funding - 2006 to 2016
    In 2016, the software sector once again took the top spot in funding — with $32.98 billion invested in 3,100 deals — which constituted an 11-year high in funding for that sector, and marked the third consecutive year in which the sector topped $29 billion in funding and the eighth consecutive annual increase in funding for this sector.  Funding in the software sector in 2016 was up 5.6% as compared with 2015.  Pharma and biotech venture funding in 2016 ran a distant second to the software sector, with $7.79 billion invested in 515 deals, with funding in 2016 down 21.2% as compared with 2015.  The decrease in funding in 2016 in the pharma and biotech sector snapped a six-year string of consecutive year-over-year increases.

    For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:

    • " Second Quarter Venture Funding Increases 20% from First Quarter," October 11, 2016
    • "Venture Funding Reaches Highest Level in More Than a Decade," February 25, 2016
    • "Third Quarter Venture Funding Declines 27% from Second Quarter," October 22, 2014
    • "Software Sector Leads Pack in 2Q Venture Funding and Biotech Sector Finishes Second," July 20, 2014
    • "Software Sector Leads First Quarter Venture Funding to Thirteen Year High; Biotech Sector Finishes Second (Again)," April 30, 2014
    • "Biotech Venture Funding Rebounded in 2013 After Strong Fourth Quarter," January 26, 2014
    • "Biotech Venture Funding Sees Second Quarter Rebound," July 22, 2013
    • "Biotech Venture Funding Down 33% in First Quarter," April 30, 2013
    • "Annual Venture Funding Drops for First Time in Three Years," February 4, 2013
    • "Biotech Venture Funding Up 64% in Third Quarter," October 29, 2012
    • "Venture Funding in Life Sciences Sector Drops 9% in Second Quarter," July 22, 2012
    • "Biotech Venture Funding Drops 43% in First Quarter," May 3, 2012
    • "Venture Funding Increased 22% in 2011," February 2, 2012
    • "Life Sciences Venture Funding Drops in Third Quarter," October 27, 2011
    • "Life Sciences Venture Funding up 37% in Second Quarter," August 1, 2011
    • "VentureSource Reports 35% Increase in 1Q Venture Funding," April 26, 2011
    • "NVCA Reports Modest Gains in First Quarter Venture Funding," April 19, 2011

    • "NVCA Reports 31% Drop in Venture Funding for Third Quarter," October 17, 2010

    • "NVCA Reports 34% Increase in Venture Funding for Second Quarter," July 22, 2010

    • "NVCA Report Shows First Quarter Drop in Venture Funding," April 20, 2010

    • "Biotech/Pharma Financing Improving, R&D Spending Up," August 31, 2009
    • "NVCA Study Shows Increase in Third Quarter Venture Funding," October 23, 2009

    • "First Quarter Venture Capital Funding at 12-Year Low," April 23, 2009

    • "NVCA Study Shows Decline in 2008 Investment; BIO Study Predicts Biotech Rebound in 2009," February 16, 2009

  • By Donald Zuhn

    USPTO SealLast month, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a notice in the Federal Register (82 Fed. Reg. 3758) requesting comments from stakeholders regarding whether the accelerated examination program should be retained or discontinued.  The Office notes that while the accelerated examination program, which was implemented in August 2006, was once relatively popular, fewer than 250 applications were accepted into the program annually between 2012 and 2015.  As a result, the Office is now seeking stakeholder feedback as to whether the program provides a sufficient benefit to the public to justify the cost of implementation.

    Part of the decrease in the popularity of the accelerated examination program may be due to the creation in September 2011 of the prioritized examination ("Track One") program under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.  In contrast with the accelerated examination program, where applicants must file a petition to make special and perform a pre-examination search, the Track One program requires that applicants simply pay an additional fee to advance an application out of turn.  According to the Office's notice, since the Track One program was implemented, the number of annual requests has approached 10,000.

    The notice also suggests that the drop in accelerated examination requests may be attributable in part to a recent decrease in overall first action pendency.  From FY 2006 to FY 2011, when the accelerated examination program was the only option available, average first action pendency increased from 22.6 months to 28.0 months (the latter being an 11-year high), but from FY 2012 to FY 2016, first action pendency decreased from 21.9 months to 16.2 months (the latter being an 11-year low).  In addition, average total pendency increased from 31.1 months in FY 2006 to an 11-year high of 35.3 months in FY 2010, and then decreased from 33.7 months in FY 2011 to an 11-year low of 25.3 months in 2016.  Average first action pendency (blue line) and average total pendency (orange line) from FY 2006 through FY 2016 are shown in the chart below (click on chart to expand).

    Pendency
    In the notice, the Office suggests that "[a] lower first action pendency and lower accelerated examination numbers seem to indicate that applicants have less need for as many programs that expedite patent examination."  Comments regarding the retention or discontinuation of the accelerated examination program can be submitted by e-mail to AEcomments2016@ uspto.gov, or by regular mail addressed to:  Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, marked to the attention of Pinchus Laufer, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.  Comments must be received by the Office by March 13, 2017 to be ensured of consideration.