Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

The Patent Reform Act is on the Senate’s calendar and is expected to be voted on in February. The version voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee is different than the version passed by the House. Experts expect that, instead of forming a joint committee to resolve the differences which generally requires a second vote by both chambers, the House will vote on any version of the Patent Reform Act passed by the Senate.

That means that it is time to take a close look at the Senate version of the Patent Reform Act. The damages and venue provisions continue to be some of the most significant and hotly-contested. And it is no surprise that the various stakeholders are making their positions heard loudly again. I considered analyzing each provision of the current Senate bill, but Patent Docs beat me to it and did an excellent job:

• First to File
  
• Assignee Filings, Mandatory Publication, and Third Party Submissions
  
• Interlocutory Decisions & Venue
  
• Damages
  
• Applicant Quality Submissions & Micro-Entities
  
• Post-Grant Procedures
  
• Inequitable Conduct Provisions
  
• Late Patent Filings         

Several other blogs are also keeping a close eye on the stakeholders and the sausage-making aspects of the Patent Reform Act, among the best:

• 271 Patent Blog
  
• Filewrapper
  
• IP Biz
  
• Patent Baristas
  
• Patently-O
  
• Maryland IP Law Blog (and here regarding the increased internet coverage of Patent Reform during February)

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

With Patent Reform not expected to be considered by the full Senate before January 2008, the House appear to be turning its focus to copyright reform.  The Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog has a series of posts on the new copyright legislation (click here and here to read them).  The most recent bill would prevent lawsuits from being dismissed for unintentional errors in copyright registration forms and would give courts discretion to treat compilations as more than one work for statutory damages purposes.  Treating compilations* as multiple works for damages is significant because it increases the potential award for infringing a compilation from a maximum of $150,000 (the maximum willful infringement award for a work) to multiples of $150,000 depending on how many separate works the court determines the compilation to be.

*  Compilations are grouped works such as collections of short stories, magazines with multiple articles or databases.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

I, along with many others, blogged last week that the Patent Reform Act had stalled in Congress.  But Congress has changed its mind and today the House is debating its version of the bill (available here).  And experts expect some version of the bill to be passed by the House at the end of today's debate.  You can find an excellent summary of key amendments to the House bill at Tech Daily Dose.  If you want a list of each amendment to the bill, by Congressperson, go to the House website.  And it should come as no surprise that with the Patent Reform Act moving forward again both the MSM and blogs are full of commentary.  Here is some of the best:

• Chicago Tribune surveys the opinions of some Chicago-area companies.
  
• 271 Patent Blog weighs in with the President's view and a survey of news stories on the Act.
  
• FileWrapper says that the House will likely pass some form of the Patent Reform Act today, but that the Senate is not expected to consider it until October.
  
• IP Central is watching the House debate on CSPAN and says that most of it centers on procedural issues, not substance.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

My recent story about Ebert's use of his "Two Thumbs Up" has been receiving a lot of attention (and I even scooped the Sun-Times):

• Likelihood of Confusion -- Ron Coleman agrees with E. Leonard Rubin, interviewed in the Chicago Tribune today, who says that the written "Two Thumbs Up" mark is pretty strong.
  
• Robert Feder of the Chicago Sun-Times -- Feder says that the "Two Thumbs Up" mark is "the most powerful and influential symbol in movie marketing."

The fact that the Patent Reform Act has stalled in Congress, which I discussed earlier this week, has been picked up by several blogs:

• Maryland IP Law Blog -- Citing my post.
  
• Patently-O -- Dennis Crouch says that the Patent Reform Act is not just stalled, it is dead.
  
• 271 Patent Blog -- Leads with a great Simpsons' quote in saying the Act is on hold.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

This week the House Judiciary Committee sent its version of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 to the full body for a vote.  The damages provisions that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Michel publicly spoke against remained in the House bill, but the controversial post-grant review process was removed completely, instead of being limited as many interested parties are suggesting.  The Senate continues to markup its version of the Patent Reform Act, but so far has tightened venue requirements and is debating the damages provisions.  The Patent Reform Act feels like a long breakaway in the Tour de France.*  When a group of riders is leading the peloton (the large group consisting of most of the riders in the race) they each want to win the day's race, but in order to do that they must work together until the last 200-500 meters of what may be a 200 km ride.  If they stop cooperating before the last several hundred meters, they become disorganized, slow down and get swallowed by the peloton.  They are generally exhausted from their efforts in the breakaway and have no chance of winning once they rejoin the peloton -- all of their individual efforts are thrown away because they stopped cooperating with their competitors too early.  Cooperating with competitors is difficult and counter-intuitive, but is often the only way to achieve individual success.  The Patent Reform Act is just such an effort, but it looks like the interested parties may not win this race.

You can read more about Congress's deliberations at:

• Patently-O
  
• FileWrapper
  
• Patent Prospector
  
• Patent Baristas
  
• 271 Patent Blog
  
• Maryland Intellectual Property Blog -- a new regional IP blog & a new member of the LexBlog family.  Welcome to the conversation Brian.

* Forgive the analogy, but I love the Tour and today is the first individual time trial of this year's race.  Go Levi, Alberto & the rest of the Discovery Channel team!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)

In yesterday's edition, the Chicago Tribune published a commentary on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 by Cummins-Allison Corp.'s Chairman William J. Jones -- Cummins-Allison is based in Mt. Prospect, Illinois and develops and distributes coin and currency handling/counting machines.  Jones has strong feelings about the Act and offers some unique opinions.  First, he is against "harmonizing" US law with international patent laws, arguing that the European and Japanese systems are "parochial."  He also makes the, in my experience unfair although widely held, argument that the Chinese system "specializes in intellectual property theft."  I believe if you look at recent Chinese cases or the experts on Chinese IP law -- like the excellent IP Dragon -- you will see that China has become increasingly willing to protect the intellectual property of foreign entities, as long as the entities have invested in the necessary Chinese patents, trademarks, etc.

Jones notes that at the recent Congressional hearings, no manufacturing firms testified, despite some interesting statistics:

U.S. manufacturers undertake 60 to 70 percent of the nation's research and development and hold 60 percent of its patents.

                                                                   * * *

. . . .  Roughly one-third of all patent applications are made by independent inventors, small manufacturers, universities and non-profit research groups. Their efforts are crucial for leading-edge scientific advances, and their views should be heard.

Jones is against the proposed post-grant review process because he believes it will diminish the value of patents by making their strength very uncertain.  He also suggests that instead of giving an "overburdened" PTO broad, new rule-making powers, Congress should fully fund the PTO so that it can hire and retain a high quality staff of sufficient size to expedite the prosecution of patent applications.  Finally, Jones points to what he believes is the diverse opposition to the Act, which he argues warrants taking the time for additional, robust debate.

Jones has some very strong views, not all of which I agree with.  But I do not see how additional debate and discussion could harm the Act at this point.  There are some strong dissenting voices, the Federal Circuit's Judge Michel for example.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

In January the House of Representatives passed a bill that would establish a pilot program in five district courts to develop district court judges with patent expertise.  The program will provide judges in the five districts the opportunity to get specialized patent training.  Cases, including patent suits, in the five districts will continue to be randomly assigned, but judges without the specialized patent training will have the option to transfer the cases to one of the patent-trained judges.  Each of the five district's will also be allowed to hire patent law clerks available to help judges on patent cases.  I assume these clerks will be like habeas clerks that many district courts already have or staff clerks/attorneys at some of the regional circuits.

I expect that many district court judges will, quite reasonably, believe they already have gained the necessary experience through their own hard work, but will also appreciate the extra law clerk help and the training.  It is a very interesting proposal which many expect to be approved by the Senate and signed into law this year.  For more on the pilot program, check out Patently-O, the Infinite Monkey Theorem Blog (a new blog affiliated with www.patentmonkey.com  - both of which are worth checking out), the IP Blawg and the WSJ Law Blog (an older post, but with some good information).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Father Robert Drinan, S.J. died on Sunday.  Father Drinan was a founder of modern (post-Watergate) legal ethics and a colorful, important character in American political history, having been a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment proceedings and an outspoken critic of American activities in Vietnam and Cambodia while he was in Congress.  Father Drinan was also a professor at Boston College (actually the Dean) and then at Georgetown.  While getting my JD at Georgetown, I was blessed to spend a considerable amount of time with Fr. Drinan as an Editor on the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, created by Fr. Drinan and still the only ethics journal in the country, and when I took several of his classes, including his Advanced Legal Ethics Seminar.  Fr. Drinan loved teaching and he had an endless supply of experience from which to teach. 

Despite my obvious love and respect for Fr. Drinan, I was not going to post about his passing on the Blog because I could not see how he had much to do with intellectual property law or Chicago (he was a Boston man who loved the BC sports teams, it really hurt him when he lost our friendly wager over the 98 Wolverines-BC Eagles NCAA Hockey National Championship).  But it turns out I was wrong, Fr. Drinan also played an important role in shaping IP as a member of the House IP subcommittee, according to Bill Patry.  Father Drinan will be missed.  He was a great man and an amazing teacher who brought kindness and warmth to everything he did and all he met.

You can read more on Father Drinan, among other places, at the WSJ Law Blog and Georgetown's touching page of student, staff and faculty tributes.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks