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?
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).
Once in a while, it’s fun to get creative about something you feel passionate about, and that’s how this “fairy tale” came to be. Over the course of the first three installments, the big and powerful B-Techs became frustrated when the New Innovators threatened their dominance, so they hatched a pernicious plan to bring down the pesky patentees.
So, yes: I wrote “a fairy tale.” Well, sort of. As I noted in the “first installment” on Monday, a bunch of things came together all at once—including a Sunday morning when I had a little extra time. So I cued up this story of how the Behemoth Tech companies became big and powerful because of their imaginative use of chips. But as time passes, innovation can be hard to replicate.
“A fairy tale?” you ask. Well, yes. Because every once in a while, even though the work has piled up, you feel energized and spirited about something enough during breakfast on a Sunday morning that ideas just well up and the words spring onto the page. And if you have a couple of spritely, cheerful teenage daughters who occasionally read stories, narratives intersect and you just have a little fun with things. And that’s what happened here. So, a fairy tale … of a sort. And here goes.
In posts here on my blog on March 27 and April 3, I described how in Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint et al. the district court for the Northern District of California invalidated a valuable pair of what had been durable software patents—a decision that in February the Federal Circuit upheld.
Both courts erred in overlooking valid claims, although in the wake of the wacky Alice ruling, such a decision might not have been unexpected.
I have a hard time listening to Washington politicians these days. All I hear is obfuscation and finger-pointing. Nothing seems to get done. And while the finger-pointing seems worse than ever, the inability to get anything done is par for the course.
If neither Congress nor the President can provide results, how can we get this country back on track?
Please consider the below amicus request for support overturning an important section 101 decision at the Federal Circuit and thereby providing consistent guidance on what types of inventions are “abstract.”
Evolutionary Intelligence will be filing a combined petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit on April 19, 2017. Amicus support would be due by May 3, 2017.
Here come the biosimilars. Last month, Sandoz, a subsidiary of Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis, launched Zarxio, the first U.S.-approved biosimilar to be introduced under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
BPCIA, as the reader likely knows, created a pathway to regulatory approval of a competitive biologic, analogous to what Hatch-Waxman did with the accelerated new drug application (ANDA) route for generic pharmaceuticals in 1984.