USPTO Archives - The National Law Forum

Federal Circuit Weighs in on Exceptional Case Determinations in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV and Dish

A recent Federal Circuit decision provided some additional insight into exceptional case determinations in patent infringement disputes. In Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV, the Federal Circuit reviewed an award of attorneys’ fees granted to DISH and related Sling entities (collectively, DISH) by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C. , Fed. Cir., 23-1035, vacated 8/23/24.

History of Events

On August 31, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC sued DISH and related Sling entities for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,275,897; 8,867,610; and 8,934,535. Early in the case, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings, asking the district court to find the asserted claims invalid under § 101. The district court denied these motions.

In October 2018, the Central District of California issued an order finding Claims 15-30 of the ‘535 patent ineligible under § 101 (Google decision). In December 2018, a magistrate judge in the District of Delaware found Claim 15 of the ‘535 patent ineligible (Netflix decision). Shortly after that, the district court stayed the infringement litigation pending IPR proceedings.

During the IPR proceedings claims 1-14 of the ‘535 patent were found to be unpatentable on obviousness grounds. Realtime then withdrew its claims under the ‘535 patent.

The district court lifted the stay on January 15, 2021. Shortly after stay was lifted the USPTO rejected claim 1 of the ‘610 patent as obvious as part of an ex parte reexamination.

In February 2021, DISH sent Realtime a letter conveying its belief the ‘610 patent was invalid and expressing its intention to seek attorneys’ fees.

On July 31, 2021, the district court granted DISH’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, finding Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18 of the ‘610 patent directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101 and ultimately granted DISH’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, highlighting six “red flags” that Realtime’s case was fatally flawed.

On May 11, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s order concluding that the asserted claims of the ‘610 patent are directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101. On August 23, 2024, it issued its opinion on the appeal of the attorneys’ fees award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, vacating the district court’s opinion and remanding for further consideration.

Federal Circuit’s Analysis of the District Court’s Red Flags

The Federal Circuit reviewed each of the six red flags identified by the district court:

a) Google and Netflix decisions: The Federal Circuit agreed that these decisions, which found claims of a related patent ineligible, were significant red flags.

b) Adaptive Streaming decision: The Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in treating this as a red flag, as it involved different technology and lacked sufficient analysis to show the patent infringement claim was exceptionally meritless.

c) Board’s invalidation of the ‘535 patent: The Federal Circuit found that the district court failed to adequately explain how these decisions supported a finding of exceptionality.

d) Reexamination of the ‘610 patent: The Federal Circuit found that the district court’s analysis was lacking and failed to adequately explain how these decisions supported a finding of exceptionality.

e) DISH’s notice letter: The Federal Circuit found that the letter alone was not sufficient to trigger § 285 and support an exceptionality finding.

f) Expert analysis evidence: The Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in its justification of Dr. Bovik’s opinions as a red flag.

Notice Letter Insufficient

The notice letter from DISH was not considered sufficient to trigger § 285 and support an exceptionality finding for several reasons:

Limited analysis: The letter contained only two paragraphs dedicated to discussing the ineligibility of the asserted claims of the ‘610 patent. These paragraphs were described as “conspicuously short” and “riddled with conclusory statements” asserting similarities between the ‘610 patent claims and those of the ‘535 patent and the Adaptive Streaming patent.
Lack of specific comparisons: The letter did not provide any further analysis or specific comparisons to support its assertions about the similarities between the patents.
Insufficient notice: The court found that simply being on notice of adverse case law and the possibility that opposing counsel would pursue § 285 fees does not amount to clear notice that the ‘610 claims were invalid.
Potential for abuse: The court noted that if such a notice letter were sufficient to trigger § 285, then every party would send such a letter setting forth its complaints at the early stages of litigation to ensure that—if it prevailed—it would be entitled to attorneys’ fees.
Lack of follow-up: DISH did not follow up regarding its allegations after Realtime responded to the notice letter eleven days later.

The Federal Circuit concluded that without more substantive analysis or specific comparisons, the notice letter alone was not enough to put the patentee on notice that its arguments regarding ineligibility were so meritless as to amount to an exceptional case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the Federal Circuit agreed that some of the red flags identified by the district court were valid considerations, it found that others were not properly justified or explained. As a result, the court vacated the attorneys’ fees award and remanded the case for reconsideration consistent with its opinion.

The findings regarding the notice letter are not surprising. Patent cases may take a long time to develop and typically include an enormous amount of information. Both parties have a limited amount of information early in the case and so positions are staked out carefully. The court did not give an indication of what would be necessary to serve as adequate notice of the defects of a plaintiff’s patent assertion. It remains to be seen how the court treats the exceptional case analysis in light of the remand guidance from the Federal Circuit.

PTAB MTA Pilot Program to the Rescue

On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the possibility of the patent owner amending the claims under the Motion to Amend (MTA) Pilot Program. ZyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, Case Nos. 22-2220; -2250 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2024) (Dyk, Prost, Stark, JJ.)

ZyXEL Communications petitioned for IPR challenging claims 1 – 4, 6, 7 and 8 of a patent owned by UNM Rainforest Innovation (UNMRI). The patent relates to methods for constructing frame structures in communication systems using orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) technologies. The patent describes a method for constructing a frame structure with two sections, each of which is configured for a different communication system, where the second communication system is used to support high mobility users (i.e., faster moving users).

Before the Board, ZyXEL argued that claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7 were unpatentable in light of two prior art references (Talukdar and Li), and that claim 8 was unpatentable in light of Talukdar and another prior art reference (Nystrom). During the Board proceedings, UNMRI filed a contingent motion to amend if any of the challenged claims were found to be unpatentable. As part of its motion, UNMRI requested preliminary guidance from the Board pursuant to the Board’s MTA Pilot Program. In its opposition to UNMRI’s motion to amend, ZyXEL argued that UNMRI’s amended claims lacked written description support, and in its preliminary guidance, the Board agreed. UNMRI attempted to file a revised motion to amend, but the Board rejected the revised motion and instead permitted UNMRI to file a reply in support of its original motion. It also allowed ZyXEL to file a sur-reply. The Board determined that claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7 were unpatentable, but that claim 8 was not. The Board also granted UNMRI’s motion to amend and determined that the new claims were nonobvious over the prior art of record. Both sides appealed.

With respect to the Board’s decision on the obviousness of claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7, the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the ruling. UNMRI’s primary argument was that a person of skill in the art (POSA) would not have been motivated to combine Talukdar and Li, but the Court credited the Board’s reliance on ZyXEL’s expert, who demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine the two references.

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s finding that claim 8 had not been shown to be obvious, however. The Court noted that while the Nystrom reference may not explicitly state the benefit of the missing limitations, “a prior art reference does not need to explicitly articulate or express why its teachings are beneficial so long as its teachings are beneficial and a POSA would recognize that their application was beneficial.”

Regarding UNMRI’s motion to amend, ZyXEL argued that the Board erred in granting the motion because UNMRI did not satisfy the requirement that the motion itself contain written description support for all of the claim limitations of the substitute claims. The parties agreed that UNMRI’s reply contained the missing written description, but ZyXEL argued that this could not cure the procedural defect. The Federal Circuit acknowledged the procedural error but determined that “the core purpose of the MTA Pilot Program is to allow for the correction of errors in the original motion [and is thus] designed to allow reply briefs to address and correct errors.” The Court noted that ZyXEL had opportunity to respond in its sur-reply brief. The Court upheld the Board’s decision to grant UNMRI’s motion to amend and remanded the IPR back to the Board to determine, in light of the Court’s rulings on claim 8 and the fair teachings of Nystrom, whether the substitute claims were nonetheless obvious.

The Federal Circuit also reminded the Board that it may sua sponte identify a patentability issue for the proposed substitute claims based on any prior art of record in the proceedings.

Trademark Insights: What the First Precedential TTAB Expungement Decision Means for You

As a trademark applicant, encountering a prior registration that obstructs your path to registration is never a pleasant experience (nor for your attorneys who have to inform you about it). The frustration only intensifies when it becomes evident that the registered mark has never been used for the specified goods or services. Until 2021, the sole recourse with the USPTO to address this issue was filing a Petition to Cancel, with the hope that the registrant would not respond, leading to a swift default judgment. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and a response means expending an appreciable amount of time and money before resolution can be obtained, often through a settlement agreement.

In late 2021, the landscape changed with the passing of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020, which brought about two new ex parte proceedings: reexamination and expungement. The goal was to provide faster, more efficient, and less expensive alternatives to contested cancellation proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”).

Expungement proceedings, in particular, offer a means to cancel trademarks that have never been used in commerce. “Any party can request cancellation [by the USPTO Director] of some or all of the goods or services in a registration because the registrant never used the trademark in commerce with those goods or services.” This action is available against all types of registrations, but must be requested between three and ten years after the registration date.

Now, after two-and-a-half years of these proceedings, on July 1, 2024, the Board issued its first precedential decision in an expungement proceeding: In Re Locus Link USA.

In July 2022, a third party filed expungement actions against Locus Link USA’s (the “Registrant”) two SMARTLOCK registrations, alleging nonuse of the marks for the specified goods: “components for air conditioning and cooling systems, namely, evaporative air coolers.” The USPTO Director found sufficient evidence of nonuse and proposed cancellation. The registrant responded with evidence of use in the form of specimens showing connectors for metal tubing and air condition components, arguing that this evidence was sufficient, and had been previously accepted by the USPTO during examination. The USPTO maintained the cancellation, noting that the subject registrations only covered the specific goods following the term “namely” in the identification, here “evaporative air coolers.”

On appeal, the Registrant argued that the SMARTLOCK marks are in use in connection with the goods identified in the registration because the identification of goods covers components for evaporative air coolers. The Board disagreed and affirmed the USPTO’s decision.

Goods and services in an application should “state common names for goods or services, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid indefinite words and phrases.” TMEP § 1402.03(a), cited in In re Solid State Design Inc., Ser. No. 87269041, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *18 (TTAB 2018).

Applicants take notice: “the goods or services listed after the term ‘namely’ must further define the introductory wording that proceeds ‘namely’ using definite terms within the scope of the introductory words.” In other words, the goods or services that come after “namely” must specifically define the broader category mentioned before. Essentially, “namely” helps to clarify otherwise vague descriptions.

In this case, the broad category is “components for air conditioning and cooling systems.” The applications were only accepted for registration because they specified “namely, evaporative air coolers.” This means the SMARTLOCK marks cover evaporative air coolers that are components for air cooling systems. It does not cover component parts that go into making evaporative air coolers.

Key Takeaways

Grammar Matters. Properly identifying goods and services in an application is vital. The USPTO continues to increase its specificity requirements for identifying goods and services, and applicants need to ensure not only original identifications, but also amendments to identifications proposed by an examiner accurately and correct reflect their goods and services. In Locus Link, was the Board, splitting hairs? Maybe, but the lesson is critically important for obtaining and maintaining trademark registrations.
Specimen Acceptance Isn’t Conclusive. The acceptance of specimens by the USPTO does not control the ultimate question of use. Although not a new concept, one to keep in mind. It is more important to have multiple records of proper and consistent trademark use than to rely on a single specimen. It is wise to retain an attorney with experienced eyes to review your use specimens prior to filing for both registration and for maintenance of your registrations.
File for New Marks as Necessary. While the SMARTLOCK marks were never in use for the goods, nonuse or lack of coverage can happen. Businesses expand and evolve over the years and so too should the portfolio of trademark registrations. It is important to occasionally audit your trademark portfolio to look for any gaps in coverage for certain marks and certain goods and services. Do not just think you have proper coverage, be sure so you are in the best offensive and defensive position possible for your brand. You never know who else is out there, looking to use your mark. If your registrations are in not order, your marks are vulnerable.

It is still early days for these new ex parte proceedings, but the hope is that they will prove a useful tool moving forward. This precedential decision although not groundbreaking does provide a good overview of the relatively new expungement proceeding and some good reminders for trademark owners.

For All Patent/Trademark Practitioners: USPTO Provides Guidance for Use of AI in Preparing USPTO Submissions

The USPTO expounds a clear message for patent and trademark attorneys, patent agents, and inventors: use of artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI, in patent and trademark activities and filings before the USPTO entails risks to be mitigated, and you must disclose use of AI in creation of an invention or practice before the USPTO if the use of AI is material to patentability.

The USPTO’s new guidance issued on April 11, 2024 is a counterpart to its guidance issued on February 13, 2024, which addresses AI-assisted invention creation process. In the new guidance issued on April 11, 2024, USPTO officials communicate the risks of using AI in preparing USPTO submissions, including patent applications, affidavits, petitions, office action responses, information disclosure statements, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) submissions, and trademark / Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) submissions. The common theme between the February 13 and April 11 guidance is the duty to disclose to the USPTO all information known to be material to patentability.

Building on the USPTO’s existing rules and policies, the USPTO’s April 11 guidance discusses the following:

(A) The duty of candor and good faith – each individual associated with a proceeding at the USPTO owes the duty to disclose the USPTO all information known to be material to patentability, including on the use of AI by inventors, parties, and practitioners.

(B) Signature requirement and corresponding certifications – using AI to draft documents without verifying information risks “critical misstatements and omissions”. Any submission for the USPTO in which AI helped prepare must be carefully reviewed by practitioners, who are ultimately responsible, to ensure that they are true and submitted for a proper purpose.

(C) Confidentiality of information – sensitive and confidential client information risks being compromised if shared to third-party AI systems, some of which may be located outside of the United States.

(D) Foreign filing licenses and export regulations – a foreign filing license from the USPTO does not authorize the exporting of subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States. Practitioners must ensure data is not improperly exported when using AI.

(E) USPTO electronic systems’ policies – Practitioners using AI must be mindful of the terms and conditions for the USPTO’s electronic system, which prohibit the unauthorized access, actions, use, modifications, or disclosure of the data contained in the USPTO system in transit to/from the system.

(F) The USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct – when using the AI tools, practitioners must ensure that they are not violating the duties owed to clients. For example, practitioners must have the requisite legal, scientific, and technical knowledge to reasonably represent the client, without inappropriate reliance on AI. Practitioners also have duty to reasonably consult with the client, including about the use of AI in accomplishing the client’s objectives.

The USPTO’s April 11 guidance overall shares principles with the ethics guidelines that multiple state bars have issued related to generative AI use in practice of law, and addresses them in the patent- and trademark-specific context. Importantly, in addition to ethics considerations, the USPTO guidance reminds us that knowing or willful withholding of information about AI use under (A), overlooking AI’s misstatements leading to false certification under (B), or AI-mediated improper or unauthorized exporting of data or unauthorized access to data under (D) and (E) may lead to criminal or civil liability under federal law or penalties or sanctions by the USPTO.

On the positive side, the USPTO guidance describes the possible favorable aspects of AI “to expand access to our innovation ecosystem and lower costs for parties and practitioners…. The USPTO continues to be actively involved in the development of domestic and international measures to address AI considerations at the intersection of innovation, creativity, and intellectual property.” We expect more USPTO AI guidance to be forthcoming, so please do watch for continued updates in this area.

New USPTO Obviousness Guidelines Seek to Refine Examiner Evaluations Likely Making Path to Patent Grant More Difficult and Potentially Opening Door to More Patent Challenges

On February 27, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released new guidance aimed at enhancing the methodology used to assess the obviousness of patent applications. The updated USPTO guidance emphasizes the need for a clear articulation of a reasoned analysis, grounded in relevant facts, in determining whether a claimed invention meets the criteria of being obvious. The USPTO asserts that this initiative is in line with the directives of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., advocating for a flexible approach toward obviousness evaluations.

The USPTO suggests that this newly issued guidance will act as a practical manual for USPTO examiners, applicable to all utility patent applications under review or contestation. It allegedly aims to ensure a standardized application of the law of obviousness across various cases.

A brief synopsis provided from the USPTO’s updated guidance and garnered since the KSR decision of the Federal Circuit include:

In KSR, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art also may glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. “Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned.”
Since KSR, the Federal Circuit has confirmed that “the flexible approach to obviousness encompasses not only how to understand the scope of prior art, but also how to provide a reasoned explanation to support a conclusion that claims would have been obvious.”
However, a flexible approach to obviousness does not negate the need for articulated reasoning and evidentiary support, the USPTO said.
Obviousness decision-makers must examine all the evidence before them.
The USPTO states that, “there is no one-size-fits-all approach to crafting an obviousness rejection.”

Kathi Vidal, Director of the USPTO, expressed the agency’s commitment to issuing reliable patent rights while ensuring clarity and consistency across the board. “Our initiative aims at bolstering transparency and uniformity within our processes and across the innovation landscape,” Vidal remarked.

The implications of this USPTO guidance extend to design patents as well, with the USPTO keenly awaiting the Federal Circuit’s verdict in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC.

Additionally, the USPTO makes notes that it is gearing up to explore the influence of artificial intelligence on the landscape of prior art and the competence of someone skilled in the art, particularly how these factors interplay with patentability assessments including obviousness determinations. The USPTO plans to invite public commentary on these topics soon.

The updated USPTO guidelines initially appear to increase the burden on the patent applicant or the patentee to show that a claimed invention is not obvious by allowing the obviousness decision-makers (e.g., USPTO examiners and judges of the Patent Trial and Appellate Board (PTAB)) more flexibility in rejecting claims and to go outside of the boundaries of patent documents used to reject claims as long as reasoning is articulated and evidentiary support is provided. To counter an obviousness rejection made by an obviousness decision-maker, patent applicants or patentees should review obviousness rejections for a clearly articulated obviousness reasoning, including evidentiary support (e.g., not purely the examiner or judge’s argument) that is sound (e.g., actually supports the examiners or judges’ positions). Patent applicants and patentees also may need to rely on more expert declarations or affidavits to help overcome obviousness rejections.

by: Samuel A. Savanich , Jeffrey S. Whittle of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

For more news on Patent Law Guidance, visit the NLR Intellectual Property Law section.

Intellectual Property for the Metaverse

How do you use the patent system to protect inventions related to the metaverse?

What is the Metaverse?

Merriam-Webster defines the metaverse as “a persistent virtual environment that allows access to and interoperability of multiple individual virtual realities.” The term “metaverse” originates from dystopian science fiction novels in which it referred to an immersive, computer-generated virtual world. Today’s “metaverse” is now firmly integrated into the technology sector and can be thought of as a common virtual world shared by all users across a plurality of platforms. Examples of metaverse-related technology includes the software that generates these virtual environments, as well as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) headsets and other devices that enable human interaction with the environment and representations of other humans within it.

The adoption of metaverse-related technology is expanding. In 2021 the company then known as Facebook rebranded to “Meta” in an effort to emphasize the company’s commitment to developing a metaverse. In Fall of 2022, Apple announced the development of its own VR/AR headset. 2022 also saw the launch of the first Metaverse Fashion Week.

These events are indicative of the growing emphasis on the metaverse and the expectation amongst technology companies that the metaverse will be the eventual successor to the internet, smartphones, and/or social media. Applications of the metaverse are not limited to socialization and gaming—as the metaverse expands there is increased acknowledgment of the benefits it may provide in other settings, including in education, finance, and medicine.

As patent attorneys and innovators, we ask: How do you use the existing framework of the patent system to best protect inventions related to the metaverse?

Using Patents to Protect Inventive Concepts in the Metaverse

In this blog post, we explore considerations for protecting inventions in and related to the metaverse. Because many of these technologies are new and the industry surrounding the metaverse is in its infancy, inventions made today may prove to be quite valuable in the coming years. Protecting these inventions today is likely to be well worth the investment in the future. Inventive concepts in the metaverse can be protected using both utility patents which focus on the functional benefits of an invention and design patents which focus on the ornamental aspects of an invention.

Utility Applications for Metaverse

Utility patents may be used to protect the functional aspects of hardware or software-based innovative technologies in the metaverse.

Innovators in the metaverse environment might pursue patent protection on technologies associated with headsets, displays, cameras, user control interfaces, networked storage and servers, processors, power components, interoperability, communication latency, and the like. These hardware-based inventions for the metaverse may be a natural expansion of those previously developed for augmented and virtual reality, video-game technology, or the internet. Accordingly, patent applicants may look to those fields for best practices in protecting their hardware-based inventions. As with any patent application, identifying a point of novelty early on in the process is essential to deciding whether and how to pursue patent protection.

Software-based inventions may include technologies associated with performing tasks in the metaverse, such as representation of virtual environments and avatars, speech/voice processing, and blockchain transactions (e.g., for purchasing virtual goods). These software-based inventions may face additional challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where the patent eligibility bar under 35 U.S.C. §101 prohibits the patenting of “abstract ideas” which may include methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts. It is typical for software-related patent applications to receive a patent eligibility rejection during the examination process.

One challenge in patenting software-based applications for the metaverse includes the fact that software that merely implements a process that is equivalent to a known process outside of the metaverse environment is unlikely to be allowed by the USPTO. However, a software-based invention that accounts for the changes introduced by being in a metaverse environment and addresses what specific problems were unique to the metaverse may be found patentable by the USPTO. Thus, best practices for drafting patent applications related to the metaverse may be to include details surrounding the considerations taken to account for the change in operating in the metaverse environment as opposed to a non-metaverse environment in any patent applications.

Additionally, while patent applicants may draft patent applications with the USPTO in mind, applicants should also consider the intricacies of claiming patent protection for software related technologies on a global basis. For example, patent applicants should consider that patents for software processes are more difficult to acquire in Europe unless clear indications of how a software-based invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem are included in the application.

Design Applications for Metaverse

Innovators in the metaverse may also use design patents to protect ornamental aspects of their invention. For example, fashion companies may seek protection of their branded objects within the metaverse. Technology companies may try to protect the ornamental features of their headsets or user interfaces.

The protection of objects within the metaverse presents an interesting avenue for patent protection. Objects displayed within the metaverse may be protected similarly to how innovations in video-game technology, web applications and graphical user interfaces are currently protected using design patents. For example, representations of physical items within a virtual environment can be considered computer-generated icons that can be protected so long as they are shown in an embodiment tying them to an article of manufacture such as a computer screen, monitor, other display panel, or any portion thereof in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 171. Similarly, movement of items within a multiverse environment can be protected similar to how changeable computer generated icons are protected today.

Again, while patent applicants may focus on the requirements of the USPTO, it is important to note that the metaverse is inherently global in its nature and that industrial design applications across the globe may have different requirements. For example, Europe does not require a display screen for industrial designs. Accordingly, comprehensive strategies for design protection of metaverse related technologies may consider the nuances of seeking industrial design protection in various jurisdictions.

Other Methods for Protecting Inventive Concepts in the Metaverse

As with any product or company, a comprehensive strategy for intellectual property protection includes not only patents but also trademarks and copyrights. As intellectual property attorneys consider the best ways to protect a client’s product, they may often turn to trademarks and copyrights in connection with design and utility patent applications to provide more holistic protection of intellectual property assets. For example, fashion-based companies may utilize a combination of trademark protection and design patent protection for their brands and the innovative designs for which they are known in the metaverse. Software-based companies may turn to a combination of copyright and utility patents to protect innovative functionality for the metaverse.

Concluding Thoughts

The growth in use of utility and design patent applications to protect concepts related to the metaverse is immense. One study conducted by IALE Tecnología found that “over the past five years, metaverse-related patent applications have doubled to more than 2,000.” This rapid expansion in patents for innovative concepts surrounding the metaverse is only expected to advance in the coming years.

Cohesive and comprehensive strategies involving utility patents, design patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets are likely to provide the best protection to innovators operating in the metaverse.

For more Intellectual Property Legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

War and Peace at Rospatent: Protecting Trademarks in Russia

Yes, we shall live, Uncle Vanya. Could Anton Chekhov ever have imagined that his literary work would be used to sell hamburgers? In March, a controversial application for an “Uncle Vanya” mark in connection with “snack bars, cafes, cafeterias, restaurants, bar services, canteens, cooking and home delivery services,” incorporated the red-and-yellow golden arches logo of McDonald’s. It was just one in a series of recent applications in Russia that have caused serious pearl-clutching among intellectual property lawyers.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, the country has faced numerous financial, trade and travel sanctions. It’s also been snubbed by major intellectual property partners. In a February 28 letter, a group of whistleblowers and staff representatives at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) called for the entity’s public condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the rapid closure of its Russia Office. The European Patent Office severed ties with Russia on March 1, and shortly thereafter the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) confirmed that it had “terminated engagement” with officials from Russia’s agency in charge of intellectual property, the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent), and with the Eurasian Patent Organization.

In response, Russia has adopted an aggressive posture in the intellectual property realm where it once sought to peacefully engage with the world, an effort that began well before the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. When the USSR joined the Paris Convention in 1965, it eagerly sought to develop Soviet intellectual property. Yet in March, Russia issued Decree No. 299, which effectively nullifies the enforcement value of Russian patents owned by entities and individuals in “unfriendly” countries including the United States, European Union member states, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin also greenlighted the importation of branded products without the brands’ permission, creating gray market headaches. As Boris Edidin, deputy chairman of the Commission for Legal Support of the Digital Economy of the Moscow Branch of the Russian Bar Association, clarified in a recent legal commentary published by Moscow-based RBC Group: “entrepreneurs have the opportunity to import goods of well-known brands, regardless of the presence or absence of an official representative on the Russian market.”

Russia, like the EU, had traditionally adopted a tougher stance than the United States on parallel imports. Now, however, “both by ‘anti-crisis’ measures and by cloak-and-dagger methods” Russia is sure to do all it can to keep its planes flying and its factories running, said Peter B. Maggs, research professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and noted expert on Russian and Soviet law and intellectual property.’

The increase in parallel imports makes trademark prosecution and maintenance more important than ever in Russia, but it’s not the only cause for concern. In March, as political tensions reached a crescendo, a Russian court declined to enforce the trademark rights for Peppa Pig, the famous British cartoon character, due to “unfriendly actions of the United States of America and affiliated foreign countries.” (See case No. A28- 11930/2021 in the Arbitration Court of the Kirov Region; an appeals court later overturned this holding, in a win for the porcine star.) RBC Group reported in March that it had tracked more than 50 trademark applications by Russian entrepreneurs and businesses for the marks of famous foreign brands, many in the fashion and tech sector. While most trademark applications were explicit copies of existing brands, in other cases applicants were content to imitate well-known trademarks and trade dress.

For example, a Russian entrepreneur from a design studio called Luxorta applied to register an IDEA brand that mimics the style and yellow-and-blue color schemes of famous Swedish brand IKEA. He told RBC that his business had suffered after IKEA suspended its Russian operations, and that he aspired to develop his own line of furniture and work with IKEA’s former suppliers. Other applicants RBC interviewed indicated they hoped to sell the marks back to foreign companies once those companies return.

On April 1, Rospatent published a press statement clarifying that “in case an identical or similar trademark has already been registered in the Russian Federation, it would be the ground for refusal in such registration.” More recently, the head of Rospatent, Yury Zubov, has responded with frustration to news coverage of trademark woes in Russia, noting that intellectual property legislation is unchanged and the “Uncle Vanya” hamburger mark had been withdrawn.

Prof. Maggs agreed that those trying to register or use close copies of foreign marks in Russia will likely fail. He cited a June 2 decision by the Court of Intellectual Property Rights to uphold lower court findings that the mark “FANT” for a carbonated orange soft drink violated unfair competition laws, because it was confusingly similar to the “FANTA” brand owned and licensed to third parties by Coca-Cola HBC Limited Liability Company. Russia’s consumer protection agency had originally brought the case.

The Court reasoned that “confusion in relation to two products can lead not only to a reduction in sales of the FANTA drink and a redistribution of consumer demand, but can also harm the business reputation of a third party, since the consumer, having been misled by the confusion between the two products, in the end receives a different product with different quality, taste and other characteristics.”

In addition, Prof. Maggs said, “the Putin Regime is and will be promoting Russian products as ‘just as good’ as foreign products. An example, obviously approved at high levels is the adoption of a totally different trademark for the sold McDonald’s chain,” he said, referring to the June 12 reopening of former McDonald’s restaurants in Moscow under the name “Vkusno & tochka” (“Tasty and that’s it”).

Brands should be wary of inadvertently jeopardizing their Russian marks by suspending local operations; a trademark may be cancelled in Russia after three years of uninterrupted non-use. While Article 1486 of the Russian Civil Code states that “evidence presented by the rightholder of the fact that the trademark was not used due to circumstances beyond his control [emphasis added] may be taken into account,” brands claiming infringement still risk being ineligible for damages or injunctive relief, because technically they are not losing sales while pausing business in Russia.

Moreover, if a company has suspended sales in Russia to show solidarity with Ukraine but seeks to stop sales in Russia by others, it may be accused of violating the good faith requirement of Article 10 of the Russian Civil Code, which states that exercising “rights for the purpose of limiting competition and also abuse of a dominant position in a market are not allowed.”

Russia remains a party to numerous intellectual property treaties, including the Paris Convention, the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Hague Agreement. But as the Peppa Pig case illustrates, court decisions on intellectual property are not immune to political heat.

The question looming on the horizon is whether, if the current crisis escalates, the Russian government would outright cancel trademarks from hostile countries. It would not be the first time a state denied intellectual property rights during political conflicts. In the aftermath of the First World War, for example, the US government advocated for the “expropriation” of property, including intellectual property, of German nationals, perceived as responsible for the militarism of their government1. And in the 1930s, the German patent office removed Jewish patent-holders from its roster as part of its notorious “Aryanization” process. However, because Russia is not officially at war with the countries it has deemed “unfriendly,” these precedents are not directly on point.

Brands that have suspended business operations in Russia should monitor their trademark portfolios closely for infringement and consider how they can prove use of each mark during a prolonged absence from the Russian market. In other words: keep your eyes on Uncle Vanya.

FOOTNOTES

¹Caglioti DL. Property Rights in Time of War: Sequestration and Liquidation of Enemy Aliens’ Assets in Western Europe during the First World War. Journal of Modern European History. 2014;12(4):523-545. doi:10.17104/1611-8944_2014_4_523.

Article By Cynthia Martens of Katten

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Green Innovation Being Fast Tracked by USPTO

The USPTO now fast tracks applications involving greenhouse gas reduction technologies. The new Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program targets impact on the climate by accelerating examination of patent applications for innovations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Qualifying applications may be advanced out of turn for examination (granted special status) until a first action on the merits—typically the first substantive examination—is complete. Advantageously, qualifying applications do not incur the petition to make special fee and is not required to satisfy the other requirements of the accelerated examination program.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) accept petitions to make special under this program until June 5, 2023, or the date when 1,000 applications have been granted special status under this program, whichever occurs earlier. “This program aligns with and supports Executive Order 14008, dated January 27, 2021, and supports the USPTO’s efforts to secure an equitable economic future, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate the effects of climate change.” The new program takes steps toward working to incentivize and expedite clean energy technologies that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change.

To qualify for the Program:

Patent Applications must contain one or more claims to a product or process that mitigates climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and be: (a) a non-continuing original utility non-provisional application; and (b) an original utility non-provisional application that claims the benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of only one prior application that is either a non-provisional application or an international application designating the United States. Note: Claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of one or more prior provisional applications or claiming a right of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) to one or more foreign applications will not affect eligibility for this pilot program.
The application or national stage entry and the requisite petition form must be electronically filed by use of the Patent Center of the USPTO, and the specification, claims, and abstract must be submitted in DOCX format.
Applicants must file the petition to make special with the application or entry into the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 or within 30 days of the filing date or entry date of the application. The fee for the petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(d) has been waived for this program.
Applicants must use Form PTO/SB/457—which contains the petition and requisite certifications—to request participation in this program.
Petition filing limitations: Applicants may not file a petition to participate in this pilot program if the inventor or any joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four other non-provisional applications in which a petition to make special under this program has been filed.

In a recent blog post announcing the Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal said, “It’s essential to protect these transformative energy innovations with intellectual property (IP). Innovation is a primary driver of the U.S. economy, and IP is the bridge between an idea and bringing that innovation to market. Industries based on innovation and the protection of intellectual property generate almost $8 trillion ($7.8 trillion) in GDP, and account for 44% of all U.S. jobs. Workers in patent-intensive industries earn almost $1,900 per week. That is 97% higher than the average weekly wage of workers in non-IP intensive industries.”

Vidal also said, “Startup companies that have a patent are far more likely to be successful in raising funding than those that have not secured intellectual property protection. When used as collateral, a patent increases venture capital funding by 76% over three years, and increases funding from an initial public offering by 128%, the approval of a startup’s first patent application increases its employee growth by 36% over the next five years, and after five years, a new company with a patent increase its sales by a cumulative 80% more than companies that do not have a patent.”

Moving forward to protect essential green energy transition technology can be helpful for future corporate and strategic goals. This new Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program opens the door to accelerating potential patent protection for many of these developing technological fields.

Article By Jeffrey S. Whittle, Karthika Perumal, Ph.D., Christopher Kent, Kevin J. Davis, Ph.D., and Samuel A. Savanich of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

For more environmental, energy, and resources news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

The Time Has Come for Trademark Modernization Act Regulations

On Dec. 18, 2021, regulations implementing the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA) went into effect. Trademark owners and practitioners should be aware of the new procedures and ensure they are ready for the changes.

Trademark Modernization Act Regulations

Our posts “Three Things to Know About the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020” and “The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020: New Rules and Procedures” from March and May 2021, respectively, gave an overview of the changes that will be implemented with the act. Most notably, the TMA provides for new procedures to challenge trademark registrations based on nonuse – expungement, and reexamination. It is intended that the new ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings will be faster and more efficient alternatives to cancellation procedures before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. You can read the final rule here.

Another significant change is the requirement for filers to verify their identity with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). This is part of the USPTO’s efforts to protect the integrity of the register and combat fraudulent filings, which have been on the uptick. Beginning in early 2022, the following must verify their identity with the USPTO using one of the verification options that includes an electronic process by ID.me

Trademark owners and corporate officers not represented by an attorney, US-licensed attorneys (including in-house counsel), and Canadian attorneys or agents are required to verify their identity. Paralegals and other support staff working for an attorney must be sponsored by a verified attorney. Trademark owners who are represented by an attorney do not currently need to verify their identities to sign electronic forms sent by their attorney; however, if the representation by that attorney ends, the owners will need to submit to the verification process.

It is important that trademark holders and practitioners prepare for these new policies and procedures to ensure they can complete filings on a timely basis.

Article By Danielle M. DeFilippis of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Intellectual Property Consolidation in the Agriculture Industry

Ever since agencies around the world such as the USPTO, USDA, and Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) have started recognizing and enforcing intellectual property rights relating to plants, there has been a slow yet massive consolidation in global seed markets. This article discusses a brief history of how intellectual property rights and lax antitrust enforcement in the seed industry created one of the largest industry consolidations and how the current Administration seems to be taking steps in the right direction.

Intellectual Property in the Agriculture Industry

In 1930, the United States began granting plant patents and the USPTO issued the first plant patent in 1931 for a rose. The UPOV is an international organization that was founded in 1961 to acknowledge and make available exclusive property rights for breeders of new plant varieties in all member states to the UPOV Convention. The U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) was enacted by Congress in 1970 to encourage the development of new varieties and to make them available to the public. The Plant Variety Protection Act established in the Department of Agriculture an office to be known as the Plant Variety Protection Office. These regulations are all very important for the protection and continued innovation of certain varieties of crops and plants. However, when genetically modified seeds were introduced in 1996, seed companies began to take advantage of these protections and began to invest heavily in amassing as many seed-related IP rights as they could. As these companies have merged and acquired smaller businesses, they remove competition from the industry, harming farmers, families, and consumers.

There are many ways that companies protect intellectual property in the agricultural industry. For example, companies file for utility patents to protect a wide variety of plant-related inventions, such as breeding methods, plant-based chemicals, plant parts, and plant products. Plant patents are unique to the United States and provide protection to any distinct and new variety of plant that has been asexually reproduced, other than a tuber-propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. Plant Variety Protection certificates, which are similar to plant patents, provide certain exclusive rights to breeders of any new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually or asexually reproduced or tuber-propagated plant varieties. Other rights, known as Breeders’ Rights, exist in other countries outside the United States and are very similar to the Plant Variety Protection regulations. These protections generally last for 20 years from the date of filing and, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization, the patent owner has the right to decide who may – or may not – use the patented invention for the period in which the invention is protected.

The Key Players in the Agriculture Industry

Monsanto was a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and based in the United States. In 1970, Monsanto scientist John Franz discovered that glyphosate was an herbicide and quickly patented it as such. In 1974, Monsanto brought the patented glyphosate herbicide to the market using the tradename “Roundup.” In 1996, Monsanto created the first genetically engineered (GE), glyphosate-resistant crop, causing Roundup-resistant soybeans to be planted commercially throughout the United States. By 1998, glyphosate-resistant corn was available on the market, and Monsanto became the largest supplier of these new GE, “Roundup-Ready” seeds. This was such a breakthrough in the agriculture industry that in 2003, Roundup-Ready seeds accounted for about 90% of the genetically modified seeds planted around the globe.

As with many industries, the agriculture industry has those companies that are at the top and those that are not. The agriculture industry’s “Big Six” companies—Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, and BASF—turned into the “Big Four”—ChemChina, Corteva, Bayer, and BASF— after a series of mergers and acquisitions that took place in the last decade with very little oversight from some of the antitrust authorities in the United States and around the world. As a result of these mergers, the “Big Four” companies now control around 60% of the proprietary seed in the world market.

The Consolidation of the Seed Industry

Dr. Phil Howard from Michigan State University discussed the tremendous consolidation of the commercial seed industry in one of his first publications, 2009’s Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996-2008. Dr. Howard describes how the hybrid-seed corn industry of 1930, the enforcement of patent-like protections, and especially the commercialization of fully patent-protected transgenic, genetically engineered seeds in the mid-late 1990s triggered a wave of consolidation in the agricultural industry. To make matters worse, when these companies consolidated and amassed massive intellectual property portfolios, it was not uncommon for seed rights to be bundled with other inputs to protect profits in other, agrochemical divisions. For example, as Dr. Howard details in Visualizing Consolidation, in order to use Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant transgenic seed, farmers are required to also use Monsanto’s proprietary glyphosate herbicide, rather than a generic herbicide. Essentially, if you were buying Roundup-Ready seed, you were buying Roundup herbicide, and if you were using Roundup herbicide, it was probably a good idea to buy Roundup-Ready seed. This type of competitive business practice is one that eventually creates a multitude of problems for smaller, independent businesses, breeders, and farmers.

Antitrust and Anti-Competition in America

Antitrust laws are not a new concept in American society. Antitrust laws are statutes and regulations that are designed to promote the overall competition in the market by promoting free, open, and competitive markets. Congress passed the first antitrust law in 1890 when it wrote the Sherman Act, which made it illegal for companies to enter into agreements to compete with one another, resulting in price fixing and monopoly power. Several years later, in 1914, Congress passed the Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act to protect American consumers by giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) the authority to oversee and review mergers and acquisitions that are likely to stifle competition. Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, the FTC and DOJ review most of the proposed transactions that affect commerce in the United States and either agency can take legal action to block deals that it believes would “substantially lessen competition.”

While these laws are all beneficial in theory, their implementation in the agricultural industry has been lacking to say the least. According to a study in 2018, Bayer alone is estimated to control 35% of corn seed, 28% of soybean seed, and 70% of cottonseed in the global market! Even more alarming may be the USDA’s 2014 report citing concerns that glyphosate-resistant crops have become ubiquitous with American agriculture with 93% of soybeans, 85% of corn, and 82% of cotton planted being genetically modified to be glyphosate-resistant. The herbicides that are used to combat the weeds surrounding the crops, in many cases, are supplied by the same company that provides the seeds.

Promoting Competition in the Agriculture Industry

It has been almost a century since the first antitrust laws were enacted, and yet the problem of corporate consolidations remains in many industries across America. On July 9, 2021, the Biden Administration signed an executive order aimed to promote competition within various industries in the United States. The order includes 72 initiatives by more than a dozen federal agencies to promptly tackle some of the most pressing competition problems across our economy. According to the Administration, this order is a “whole-of-government” approach to drive down prices for consumers, increase wages for workers, and facilitate innovation. This was a major step in the right direction to weaken the power that major businesses have obtained as a result of corporate consolidation in industries like healthcare, technology, transportation, and especially agriculture.

This Executive Order also established the White House Competition Council to drive forward the Administration’s whole-of-government effort to promote competition. On September 10, 2021, the Competition Council held its inaugural meeting to discuss promoting pro-competitive policies and new ways of delivering concrete benefits to America’s consumers, workers, farmers, and small businesses. During the meeting, the heads of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Justice, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Trade Commission briefed the council members on their efforts to implement the directives of the Executive Order.

The Challenge of Facing the Consolidated Agriculture Industry

According to an October 20, 2021 report by Thomson Reuters, Tom Vilsack, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, said that the Biden Administration plans to take a hard look at the consolidation of the seed industry and figure out “why it’s structured the way it’s structured” and “whether these long patents make sense.” The White House Competition Council is certainly faced with a difficult challenge to parse through both anti-competition law and intellectual property law. For centuries these bodies of law have caused great debate. One body of law restricts monopolization wherein the later grants monopolistic opportunities.

There is no doubt that any changes to the current seed industry scene would shake things up. But what exactly would that look like? Are we going to see the “Big-4” morph into another, new identity? Are changes to the patent law system likely? Whatever happens, the agriculture industry will likely pay close attention to the actions of the White House Competition Council over the next couple months.

Article By Reinier R. Smit of Summa PLLC

Tag: USPTO

Federal Circuit Weighs in on Exceptional Case Determinations in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV and Dish

Like this:

PTAB MTA Pilot Program to the Rescue

Like this: