Asserting patent rights is a surreal endeavor these days. Two weeks ago, our team at Tabet DiVito & Rothstein was celebrating a key win for client Thales Visionix at the Federal Circuit. That same week, Andrei Iancu was confirmed as our new Director of the USPTO. (Welcome to the party, Andrei.)
Shout out to Gene Quinn for publishing my short piece in IPWatchdog this week on what we both feel is an important development at the Federal Circuit: two rulings within a week of each other vacating lower court determinations of patent ineligibility.
I’m optimistic about the court’s future approach to reviewing such decisions!
Any time a patent survives today’s dual gauntlet of a dismissal on the pleadings and inter partes review, I get a big smile on my face. The patent system may not be working as efficiently as it could be, but it’s working.
On Feb. 6, our client Thales Visionix prevailed at the Federal Circuit in a long-running dispute with infringer Elbit Systems of America, on the key claims of a patented technology for the helmet-mounted display used in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
In this environment, big companies have a huge advantage. When they decide to enter a business, they can pretty much win it because they have scale. But if you are overly worried about Apple or Google or Amazon.com getting into a space, you’d never invest in anything.
Avadis “Avie” Tevanian, Founder – NextEquity Partners
On October 23, 2017, inventor and patent-holder Evolutionary Intelligence LLC (EI) will file a petition for writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court in Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel et al., appealing the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of a lower court’s invalidity decision under Section 101.
I love talking to inventors about protecting ideas.
But while I used to receive calls asking about the procedure for getting a patent, I no longer do. I fear it’s because inventors no longer believe patents are worthwhile.
I get it: if I were to get a call today, I couldn’t paint a rosy picture for would-be patentees. What do we say, today, to someone who calls to ask about patenting their invention? Who wants to file an infringement litigation? What if they ask how much it’s going to cost?
Do inter partes review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violate the U.S. Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury?
That’s the issue the U.S. Supreme Court will consider in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et al., No. 16-712 (2017).
This spring Tabet DiVito & Rothstein submitted a brief on behalf of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) as amicus curiae, in support of a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 16-1288 (2017).
Still more voices are attesting to the instability of patent policy in the U.S., noted Steve Brachman on IPWatchdog.com last week, reporting on the May 8 discussion, “The Impact of Uncertainty and Negative Attitudes Towards IP Rights on U.S. Business,” which was part of an International IP Commercialization Council (IIPCC)-sponsored event in Washington, DC.
Last month I requested amici to support a combined petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit in Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., which Evolutionary Intelligence had filed on April 19, 2017.
On behalf of Evolutionary Intelligence, I am extremely pleased that both IP Lodge BVBA and U.S. Inventor, Inc. submitted briefs on May 3, 2017.