Blog

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has provided interim guidelines for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 for process claims in view of the United States Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Bilski v. Kappos.  The guidelines provide additional factors to aid in the determination of whether a method which fails the machine or transformation test is patentable or vice versa.  The guidelines state that §101 outcomes are not likely to change in most cases, and reminded that §101 should not be relied upon to avoid a full examination under other sections.  The guidelines outline specific factors weighing toward and against eligibility under §101.  Click here for more information on the interim guidelines. 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was successful in its lobbying efforts to get an important funding bill (H.R. 5874) passed by Congress and signed by the President.    The legislation allows the USPTO to increase its spending authority by $129 million for its 2010 fiscal year.  According to USPTO Director Kappos, the increased spending authority will support innovation and spur job creation and economic growth.  More specifically, Director Kappos asserts that the bill will allow the USPTO to hire additional patent examiners, fund full overtime for patent examiners and support staff, accelerate patent examination process reengineering, continue to fully fund PCT contract work, and upgrade information technology systems to increase USPTO effectiveness.  In essence, the bill will return to the USPTO most of the funds it collects in excess of the amount originally appropriated.

The Iraq Trademark Office posted in its official website, the list of trademarks which files have been lost during the war. The first group of the missing trademark files includes the files of trademarks (1 -16090).  Trademark Owners are required to submit evidence of ownership- namely registration certificate- within 6 months starting from June 7, 2010, otherwise, the registration will be cancelled.

How often have you noticed that a product bears a label of “patent pending” or “U.S. Patent No.”?  But, what if that patent does not cover the product?  Or maybe there is no “patent pending”?  Well, anyone could have a “false marking claim” against that manufacturer and could recover up to $500 per article manufactured with such label.  As one could imagine, the recoverable amount or damages could be very large.  Therefore, it is recommended that businesses implement procedures to avoid potentially false marking their products and minimize potential risk for liability. 

Many products or packaging are marked with the label “patent” or a variant such as “pat.” and a full patent number or “patent pending”.  This “marking” provides notice to the public that the product is patented or has a patent pending.  Notice to the public is required to ensure a patentee’s right to damages for a time period prior to notice to the offending party if the patent is ever litigated.  In other words, failure to properly mark a patented product limits the time period by which one can recover damages. 

There are three types of “marking” prohibitions. The first type includes “counterfeit marking” which is the use of a patent mark without the owner’s permission.  The second type includes “false marking” which is the use of a patent mark on an unpatented article.  The third type includes “false patent pending marking” which is the use of “patent applied for” or “patent pending” when no patent application covering the product is pending with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

If an unpatented product is marked with a patent number and it can be proven that the party marking the product had the intent to deceive the public, then a penalty of up to $500 per article can be recovered.  Any person can sue for this penalty, in which event one-half of the recovery goes to the person suing and the other half to the U.S. government.  By permitting members of the public to sue on behalf of the government, Congress has allowed individuals to help control false marking.

 However, for patents directed to process or method claims the notice provision or “marking” does not apply.  The reason that the marking statute does not apply to method claims is that, ordinarily, where the patent claims are directed to only a method or process there is nothing to mark. Where the patent contains both apparatus, i.e., product, and method claims, however, to the extent that there is a tangible item to mark by which notice of the asserted method claims can be given, a party is obliged to do so if it intends to recover damages under the method claims prior to notice to the offending party.

Some recommendations that businesses may implement to avoid potentially false marking their products and minimize potential risk or liability include the following.  One recommendation is to review all current patent marking to verify that a product is marked with at least one claim in a patent that covers the product.  Also it is important to check for any expired patents and if there are any expiration dates approaching.  If any expired patents are found, then it is recommended to stop marking with that number upon expiration.  Similarly, if the maintenance fees have not been paid for a patent and the patent is no longer enforceable, then stop marking with that number.

 Additionally it is suggested to avoid conditional marking, i.e., “product may be covered by one or more of the following patents”, unless the product is covered by at least one claim of every listed patent.  Also avoid marking “patent pending” unless there is a reasonable belief that such marked products are covered by one or more claims in a pending patent application.  If a patent application is no longer pending, i.e., abandoned, then businesses should stop marking products with “patent pending”.

In addition to reviewing products, it is recommended to review product literature, brochures, presentations, advertising, and other materials that may be marked.  Businesses may also want to review any licensing programs for third party marking activities.

The preceding discussion is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Please contact one of our attorneys to learn more about patent marking or any other aspect of intellectual property law.

Clients often want to know if they can file a patent application after they started selling, offering for sale, or telling the public about their invention. In most circumstances, the answer is ‘yes’; however, it is not without some caveats.

One drawback is the loss of patent protection in some foreign countries. Therefore, a patent application should be filed in the U.S. before any public disclosure of the invention if the right to file foreign patent applications is to be preserved.

A U.S. patent application can be filed any time within one year of publicly disclosing, publicly using, selling or first offering to sell the invention to another. This “in public use or on sale” in the U.S. results in an inventor losing their right to a patent on their invention and is termed a “statutory bar”.

The “on-sale bar” applies when two conditions are satisfied before the critical date. First, the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale. Second, the invention must be ready for patenting.

It seems very little use and very little publicity are required to constitute a “public use.” Typically public use is defined by its natural and intended way. However, private use of one’s own invention is permissible.

There is an exception to the “on-sale” or “public use” bars – an experimental use. The experimental use exception provides that an activity that would place an invention “in public use or on sale” would not trigger the statutory bar if the use or sale was incidental to experimentation.

The preceding discussion is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Please contact one of our attorneys to learn more about statutory bar dates or any other aspect of intellectual property law.