Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect (Fed. Cir. 2016) In an interesting decision, the Federal Circuit has rejecting a district court Section …
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently announced that it would reform its workplace practices after it was discovered that patent examiners golfed while supposedly on the job.
The revelation about the golfing appeared in a review of the USPTO’s time and attendance policies by the Department of Commerce’s Office of the Inspector General.
The report followed an earlier internal report by the USPTO itself. The draft version of the internal report said that patent examiners “can work inconsistently throughout the year, and even fail to be present at work, with little or no consequences.” However, the final version of the internal report said that investigators were “not able to reach a conclusion” about work-time abuses.
According to the Inspector General’s report, “Inspector A” was authorized to telecommute. The report found that he committed at least 730 hours’ worth of time and attendance abuse and was paid about $25,000 for time he did not actually work in Fiscal Year 2014 – about 43% of the hours he reported.
The investigation was launched when two supervisory patent examiners found copies of an anonymous letter claiming that Examiner A came into the office only at the end of the quarter and that his work was “garbage.”
Examiner A was joined on his worktime golf outings by at least one USPTO co-worker.
The Inspector General referred the matter the US Attorney’s office, which declined to prosecute Examiner A.
When she was still deputy-director of the USPTO, current director Michelle K. Lee told members of Congress that fraudulent time and attendance reporting would be met with appropriate disciplinary action.
Reforms to combat telecommuting abuse at the USPTO include:
• Annual required training on time and attendance rules
• Identifying the causes for attendance misconduct
• Forming employee teams to combat the problem
Many patent applicants are frustrated by the extremely slow pace of the patent examination process. It is not clear whether lax workplace policies may play a role in examination delays, but with these reforms the USPTO is showing acute sensitivity to any indication that its examiners are less than diligent.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in John Wiley & Sons Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, No. 15-375 (cert. granted January 15, 2016). The issue in this case is the appropriate standard in awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under Section 505 of the Copyright Act.
There are currently four different standards used by district courts for awarding attorneys’ fees: (1) whether the prevailing party’s successful claim or defense advanced the purposes of the Copyright Act (9th and 11th Circuits); (2) a presumption in favor of attorneys’ fees for a prevailing party (5th and 7th Circuits); (3) the four “non-exclusive factors” listed in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994) (3rd, 4th, and 6th Circuits); and (4) the 2nd Circuit’s placement of “substantial weight” on the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s claim.
In this case, a college student sought to win attorneys’ fees after defeating claims he imported and illegally sold foreign edition textbooks on eBay. The case first reached the Supreme Court in 2013 where it was held that the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine applies to goods made anywhere.
As a result of the ruling, Kirtsaeng did not have to pay $600,000 in damages to Wiley for willfully infringing the company’s copyrights. However, Kirtsaeng lost his bid to obtain attorneys’ fees from Wiley, which lead to the present case.
Stay tuned for more information as the case develops.
Special copyright rules apply to collective works under the Copyright Act. A collective work is defined as a work “in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.” Common examples include magazines, academic journals, anthologies, and encyclopedias. The articles, columns, or short stories that make up the collective work are referred to as “contributions to a collective work.”
The copyright in a collective work covers only the collective work as a whole (i.e., the order and organization of the entire magazine or encyclopedia). Thus, the copyright in each individual contribution is distinct from the larger work.
In the absence of an express transfer from the author of the individual article, the copyright owner in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the right to use the contribution in the collective work and in subsequent revisions and later editions of the collective work. However, in many cases, authors submitting articles to magazines and journals must agree that they will not retain a copyright to the work once it is published as part of a collective work.
For individual advice on the copyrights to a contribution to a collective work, please contact me.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, U.S. No. 15-446 (cert. granted January 15, 2016). There are two issues in this case.
The first issue is in regards to the claim construction standard used during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Currently, the PTAB construes the claims of an issued patent in an IPR proceeding according to their broadest reasonable interpretation. This standard is different than the “plain and ordinary meaning” standard used in federal district court. The question is whether or not the PTAB is using the correct claim construction standard, or if it the claims should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.
The second issue is whether or not the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable. In Cuozzo, the Federal Circuit held that 35 U.S.C. 314(d) bars it from reviewing a PTAB decision to institute an IPR, even if the issue is raised in an appeal of a PTAB final decision.
Stay tuned for more information as the case develops.
Now qualifies as an Elimination of Bias MCLE !
“Men’s brains and women’s brains are different, and those differences are reflected in how we behave and are perceived in the workplace.”
In her provocative book, screenwriter and director Valerie Alexander writes candidly about how she believes “female” instincts often get in the way of women’s success and what she believes women can do to talk the language of success and then to walk the talk. Please join us for what promises to be a lively luncheon presentation, where she is bound to challenge many of your basic assumptions about how to navigate the workplace.
11:30 am – CHECK IN AND NETWORKING
12:00 pm – PRESENTATION BEGINS
Location: Leech Tisman Fuscaldo & Lampl
100 CORSON ST, THIRD FLOOR
Pasadena, CA 91103
Please RSVP to Laura Lloyd at firstname.lastname@example.org or 626-796-4000
The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (The Hague Agreement) allows applicants in the US who wish to protect their industrial designs in multiple jurisdictions to file only a single international application.
Applicants may register up to 100 designs in more than 64 territories — including the US, EU, Korea, and Japan — at one time.
The process for publishing a Hague Agreement application is fast — within several weeks, versus over a year for the publication of design patent applications in the US.
This is beneficial to US applicants because, under specified conditions, a US patent holder can collect reasonable royalties for infringement that occurs after a patent application is published but before the patent issues.
The right to obtain a reasonable royalty is available if the invention as claimed in the patent is substantially identical to the invention as claimed in the published patent application.
That “substantially identical” language is problematic when it comes to utility patents, because during the examination process patent claims are often amended or cancelled. Thus, the final patent is rarely “identical” to the invention as depicted in the application.
Design patents, however, have only a single claim, and this usually does not change during the examination process. Thus, it is more likely that a design patent would meet the “substantially identical” requirement.
Making use of the Hague Agreement process provides numerous advantages to US patent applicants and should be strongly considered as part of a company’s IP protection strategy.