Entries by PatentAttorney.com

Patent Application Basics – types of applications

This article is an introduction into some of the basics on the type of applications one needs to consider before applying for a patent. The types of patents are Utility Patents, Design Patents, or Plant Patents, while applications take a wider variety of forms depending on your goals.  These include Provisional vs. Non-Provisional applications, along […]

Patent Basics – Patentability

This article is an introduction to some of the characteristics that determine whether a patent application may result in a successful patent, that is to say whether the application has “patentability”. Patentability requires that the claimed invention (1) is patent eligible, (2) is useful, (3) has not been anticipated by prior art, (4) is not […]

What Is A Patent?

  What is a Patent An inventor may obtain a patent by applying for one with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). A patent operates as a property right for the inventor, similar to how owning land lets you prevent other from entering it, a patent gives the owner the ability to exclude […]

New USPTO Leadership

With presidentially appointed positions, the leadership of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) traditionally sees a shake-up with each new administration. The transition will be no different with the Biden Administration. Former Director Andrei Iancu has left the USPTO after being appointed Director in 2017 by President Trump. In his place, Drew Hirshfeld […]

FY 2017-2019 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement

On Monday, December 12, 2016, the White House’s Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) released a joint strategic plan for intellectual property enforcement, entitled “Supporting Innovation, Creativity, & Enterprise: Charting a Path Ahead.” The coordinated approach, mandated by Title III of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (PRO-IP […]

Federal Trade Commission Releases New Report on PAEs

The Federal Trade Commission has released a long-awaited report on “patent assertion entities” (PAEs). As defined by the FTC, a “patent assertion entity” is a company that, as a primary business function, acquires patents from third parties and seeks to generate revenue by asserting them against accused infringers. These firms typically generate revenue by licensing […]

联邦巡回法院最新判决授予软件专利保护

012年,当Enfish在加州地区法院中区起诉Microsoft侵犯其专利时,地区法院判定在Enfish专利权利要求中所提及的“在逻辑表中存储、组织、并提取内存”或者“使用数据表结构进行信息组织的概念”指向的都是抽象概念,因此是无效的权利要求。而在上诉过程中,美国联邦巡回上诉法院法官Todd Huges并不认同地区法院的观点。他认为,这些权利要求并不是抽象概念,正确的做法是跳过在Mayo和Alice两案中所采用的两部测试的第一步。尽管最后法官给出了Microsoft非侵权的建议判决,Todd Huges意见的重要性在于他明确指出了软件专利需要如何、何时、以及为何需要避免采用两部测试法。 由于违背了对专利申请人的原创发明进行保护的宗旨,Mayo和Alice两案的判决几乎已经是老生常谈。不论如何,在两个案件中模棱两可的判决涉及到(1)如何判断一个权利要求“指向”(directed to)的是一个不可授予专利的对象,(2)如何判断权利要求所提及的每一个元素(element),单独地或者组合地,将一个不可授予专利的对象转换为一个可受专利保护的对象。 迄今为止,专利律师们为争论专利法第101条对专利性的判断到底是在第一步还是第二步进行耗尽口舌。他们对于一些其他“发明概念”(inventive concept)是否也需要采纳两步法分析的讨论也是无休无止。在我们看来,两步法的第一步侧重于一些简单的问题,即“被申请的发明到底是什么”和“这个发明具有什么创新性”。第二步则涉及到了最高法院长久以来对抽象技术概念的判定原则:所申请专利是否采用了具体细化的语言对专利范围进行了恰当的描述。 在Alice一案中,最高法院提到“一个计算机功能,或者一个对现有技术过程的改善并不一定是一个抽象概念”。然而,绝大多数美国专利局和地区法院只是在两步法的第二步对这个问题进行考量。在Enfish一案中,Todd Hughes法官巧妙地解释了该案两步法的第一步涉及的是一个未命名的受专利保护的类别。对这个必要类别的定义为他后续的精辟判定奠定了重要的基础。Todd Huges法官首先解释说,软件的本质其实并不是抽象的, 如果像地区法院那样从抽象的角度看待一个软件流程改进的专利只会让101条的例外条例破坏整条规则 。接着,法官申明到,由于最高法院并没有明确定义“抽象概念”(abstract idea),如果需要对一个专利进行鉴定的话,判案人员就需要将案头的权利要求与之前被最高法院定义为抽象概念的权利要求进行对照。   案件焦点: 我们认为,对本案分析最重要的着手点在于对专利说明书的审查,以及对软件业(尤其是数据库)所带来的进一步的考核。Enfish专利主要描述的是对“关系型数据库”(relational database)存储大量信息并进行快速数据分析的能力的一种改进。该专利采用了一种“自参考式”(self-referential)数据表结构。相比于传统的关系型数据库需要将信息根据行、列、单元格进行排列并存储在不同的数据表中,自参照式的数据表可以将信息整合存储在同一个文档。这种实施方式的优点在于对单一表的搜索和索引的优化,可以极大程度地增强数据存储的效率和速度。 审理Enfish一案的上诉法庭认为,当判定一个专利是否应该直接在两步法的第二步中进行,真正的考量应该基于对专利权利要求的理解。 原文说到,“我们没有任何理由认为只要是对计算机有关系统进行改进的专利,包括软件专利,就一定属于抽象概念而进行第二步的分析。相反,我们认为,本案对可专利性的判定应该在第一步就进行,直接判断该权利要求到底是对现有计算机技术的改进,还是一种只把电脑当成工具的抽象概念流程”。   实际操作: 继Enfish一案后,专利律师在与客户的合作中应将对创新软件的专利申请尽可能描述为对指向特定电脑功能的改善(而不是一个抽象概念)。通过强调“改善”并且提供详尽的专利说明书来具体描述这个改善,专利人可以在今后的案件审理中像Enfish一样顺利通过Alice两步测试的第一步而无需进行第二步测试。此外,在专利撰写中还需要尤其注意避免采用传统的模版语句来描述权利要求。 法律的不确定性也导致了我们应对权利要求的说明进行一定的约束。在DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com一案中,法官Chen很大程度上依赖于对整体的权利要求的理解,他注意到了对整体权利要求的约束条款并不是一些常规传统语句。通过对DDR一案约束条款的理解,他认为相应的权利要求是 “根深蒂固于计算机技术,并且为了解决计算机网络一个具体问题”的发明。 我们认为,在实践中应该尽量模仿Enfish一案中的专利,通过撰写一个详尽的专利说明书来避免判案法庭对Alice第二步的分析,而不是像DDR一案那样依赖于约束性条款以期望法官能认同专利的技术性。然而,一个尽职的专利律师应该尽可能采取综合的撰写手段来尽可能为客户争取到那张金光闪闪的专利证书。 综上,知识产权从业人员现在有两个案件可以申诉专利的可专利性(Enfish和DDR)。每一个案件都从不同的角度为申诉人提供了一个路线图。Enfish的重要性在于其观点有助于撰写人通过详尽描述专利说明书来直接通过101条对可专利性的测试。与此同时,DDR的重要性在于专利的权利要求应该尽可能的具体细化来展现发明的技术背景。从Enfish学到的另外一课是,对于软件发明,我们需要通过使用足够多的“虚拟装置权利要求”(means for)的语言来更好地描述一个发明的功能。我们建议,每三条独立权利要求中至少采用一次“means for”。根据我们的经验,有关设备权利要求、方法权利要求、和“虚拟装置权利要求”类型的语句可以让法官或者审查员更加容易理解所申请发明的具象化概念。Enfish的案件就是一个很好的例子,体现了为什么有经验的专利律师能更好地在使用说明中使用精准独到的语言来保护专利。 我们Maier and Maier PLLC的专利律师和专利代理人在计算机科技、软件应用、云端应用方面都有非常资深的经验。我们的团队通过与发明人之间的紧密合作,对专利进行精准的定位解析并最终将其转换成可以经受住USPTO和各地法庭考验的高质量专利。 本文作者:Timothy J. Maier, P. Marshall Ticer, 郭家臻 (JiaZhen Guo) of Maier and Maier PLLC

Patents for Humanity – The perfect blend of social consciousness, technology, and incentives to create

n 2012, the Patents for Humanity initiative was started to encourage innovations and solutions to the numerous challenges of global development such as infrastructure, energy, and medicine to name a few. Under the program a potential applicant can submit an application to the USPTO and upon approval the applicant may be given an acceleration certificate […]

Fed Circuit swings the pendulum towards eligibility and away from abstraction

In 2012 when Enfish sued Microsoft the District Court for the Central District of California found all claims invalid because they were directed to the abstract idea of “storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a logical table” or “the concept of organizing information using tabular formats.” On appeal, Judge Todd Hughes of the United States […]

PTAB Designates Five Precedential Opinions aimed at establishing workable body of law

In a desperately needed release on Tuesday May 10th 2016 the USPTO designated five PTAB opinions as precedential in a laudable effort aimed at establishing a workable body of law for post grant proceedings. Per Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Revision 9) “a precedential opinion is binding authority in subsequent matters involving similar facts or issues.” […]