Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Goes Into Action

On September 16, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This Act is Congress' attempt to revamp the patent system in the U.S. which has been criticized over the years for being costly, inefficient, and difficult to maneuver. The new Act is also aimed at reducing needless litigation over patent rights. This is being implemented with a switch from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system. This means that from now on the first person to file their patent with the USPTO will gain the patent rights. This encourages inventors to file for a patent as soon as they conceive of an invention, rather than sitting on the idea. This has the potential to reduce litigation which can often arise when parties both maintain they were the first-to-invent. The potential drawback is that it favors inventors who are familiar with the patenting process while leaving out smaller inventors who do not realize the urgent need to file. However, it greatly simplifies the overall process and streamlines the U.S. version with the patent systems of Europe and Japan.

Another important aim of the Act is to encourage innovation by small inventors who historically have been shut out of the patenting process because of its costliness. It can cost thousands of dollars and several years of paperwork to get a patent through the USPTO. Many small inventors simply do not have the time, resources, or patience for this process. In order to reduce the barriers to patenting for small inventors, the Act creates the category of "Micro-Entities." This refers to inventors with 4 or less filed patents who do not have a median household income of 3 times the median according to the IRS for the previous year. These micro-entity inventors receive as much as 75% off of the usual fees associated with patent filing. The idea behind this is that new and small inventors are reluctant to file their patents and thus, either the invention goes unpatented and potentially unmarketed, or bigger inventors and companies are able to infiltrate the market for the new idea even though the small inventor may have thought of the product first. The drawback of this provision is that it might not be very far reaching since micro-entities have a fairly specific definition in the Act which may even leave out many small inventors. Additionally, many of the industries that rely heavily on patents, like pharmaceuticals and medical devices, really only have inventions coming out of years of R&D funding from major corporations or in connection with universities. These groups would presumably all be left unaffected by the micro-entity provision.

To read the entire act or to learn more about the implementation of Leahy-Smith America Invents go to uspto.gov or click on this link: Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

ACLU and PUBPAT say “Do Not Patent My Genes”

In May 2009 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Public Patent Foundation of Cardozo Law School (PUBPAT) filed suit against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, who hold patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 human genes. These genes are associated with breast and ovarian cancer, and, according to research, women with mutations of such genes have a higher risk of developing these cancers. Although screening for these genes can allow women to catch such cancers early and thus advance their treatment more quickly, the ACLU and PUBPAT believe that patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes can prevent such screening. The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation argue that these patents thus are unconstitutional and invalid. The first hearing on this case was held on October 1, 2009, based on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Due to the wide-reaching effect of these patents on women’s health and cancer research, it seems this debate will not quiet down in the near future. With organizations, such as the American Medical Association and the March of Dimes, supporting the ACLU in this suit and the amount of awareness the ACLU has raised regarding this topic, even if this suit is dismissed, the fight against such genetic patents will continue.

For more on this topic and events held by the ACLU and PUBPAT please go to http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/brca.html.

Apple is sued over the search technology of the IPhone

EMG Technology LLC, a one-man's company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit on Monday against Apple in the US District Court in Tyler, Texas.

The suit alleges that the navigation and display technology used for mobile websites by the IPhone infringes a patent that was obtained last month by EMG's founder and two co-inventors and assigned to EMG.

Mobile websites are modified versions of regular websites, designed for display on small screens.

The complaint is available here.

Is the Poor Economy Affecting Patent Filings?

It is commonly accepted wisdom that patent lawyers will be in demand no matter how badly the market is faring. However, a recent Patently-O post, courtesy of Paul Janicke at the University of Houston Law Center, now casts doubt on that belief.

Since the economy tanked in September, Prof. Janicke has found that patent filings are down by 20%. In September and October of 2007, 513 patent suits were filed; during that same period in 2008, there were only 409 filings.

Could the decrease be due to the fact that there are fewer deep pockets to sue? As one Patently-O commentator put it, "When the host dies, the parasites die with it. With fewer profitable companies to leach off it is inevitable that there are fewer leaches."