Harrity Team Helps Stock Santa’s Secret Workshop Shelves

Duffy House is a non-profit organization that provides a supportive safe haven to women and children who have survived abuse. Santa’s Secret Workshop is a holiday event that allows survivor children to “buy” gifts for their families at no cost to them, so that they can celebrate the holidays without the worry of financial burden. 

The team at Harrity has pulled together gifts and dollar donations to ensure the workshop shelves are stocked with a variety of items to allow every child to find just the right gift for their family members. We extend our warmest wishes to Duffy House families this holiday season.

To learn more about Harrity 4 Charity or to become involved in our charity initiative, visit harrityllp.com/charity.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

 

Elaine Spector Named Harrity Diversity Committee Chair

We are proud to announce Elaine Spector as the new Chair of the Harrity Diversity Committee.

Elaine is already involved in several diversity-focused initiatives and we look forward to seeing her next accomplishments as she continues to promote inclusion within the patent law field.

Of the new role, Elaine states:

“I am honored to assume the position of Diversity Chair of Harrity’s Diversity Committee. Like our firm, our diversity team members are innovators, collectively finding solutions to address not only diversity issues within our firm, but also diversity issues within the patent profession at large. With the introduction of our Minority Firm Incubator, we are committed to not just talking the talk, but walking the walk.”

To learn more about the progressive work of Elaine and our Diversity Committee, and how you can become involved, please visit harrityllp.com/diversity.

Harrity Continues to Expand, Adding Four Patent Attorneys, Two Law Clerks

Harrity & Harrity, LLP, a leading patent preparation and prosecution law firm, is pleased to announce the addition of four highly skilled patent attorneys and two law clerks to its legal team. This includes Joseph Lentivech, a former Administrative Patent Judge with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Marine Corp. Veteran, who the firm announced last week returned as counsel.

“We are excited for this seasoned group of superstars to join our team and assist the firm in continuing to provide excellent customer service to our Patent 300 clients,” said Partner Paul Harrity. “It’s great to have Joe back as he brings highly valuable experience and insights through his recent work as a USPTO Administrative Patent Judge that will greatly benefit our clients.”

Patrick Hansen, based in Raleigh, NC, specializes in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications in electrical, computer, and mechanical technologies.  Hansen has represented petitioners and patent owners in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  He utilizes his comprehensive understanding of the industry and extensive legal experience to build high quality patent portfolios.

Joseph Lentivech, based in Mobile, AL, specializes in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications in electrical and computer technologies, including telecommunications and computer hardware and software systems.  Lentivech returns to the firm, where he was a patent attorney for four years, after working as an Administrative Patent Judge at the USPTO, where he decided appeals from adverse examiner decisions in patent applications directed to electrical and computer-related technologies and business methods.

McCord Rayburn, based in Charlotte, NC, has significant experience in all aspects of patent preparation and prosecution for U.S. and international applications, including leading teams of patent attorneys to efficiently obtain high-value patent protection.  Rayburn brings extensive technical knowledge and international legal experience, including the coordination of inbound U.S. national stage patent application filings for foreign corporations with global patent portfolios.

Bret Tingey, based in Raleigh, NC, focuses his practice on patent preparation and prosecution for inventors in mechanical and electrical technology fields.  He began his legal career with a specialty in IP litigation and wrote memos and briefs, including those for submission to the United States Supreme Court.  He primarily focuses on patent preparation and prosecution, applying his litigation experience to every patent that he drafts or prosecutes.

Sora Ko, based in the Washington, D.C. metro area, is a law clerk specializing in patent preparation and prosecution before the USPTO. She has experience in different aspects of patent prosecution, including assisting with the preparation and prosecution of patent applications related to computer software, telecommunications, networking devices, and mechanical devices.  Ko previously served as Editor-in-Chief of The University of Richmond Law Review and worked as a summer associate at Harrity & Harrity before joining the firm full-time.

Abigail Troy based in the Washington, D.C. metro area, joins Harrity as a law clerk specializing in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications with a focus on computer hardware and software, telecommunications, computer networking, business methods, and consumer products.  She is a former Primary Patent Examiner at the USPTO, where she worked for nearly a decade examining patent applications directed to mechanical devices, including jewelry and fasteners. Troy also worked as a training assistant in the Patent Training Academy and as a technology center trainer in TC 3600.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

 

Joseph Lentivech Harrity Counsel

Former USPTO Administrative Patent Judge and Marine Corp. Veteran Joseph Lentivech III Rejoins Harrity as Counsel

WASHINGTON (December 5, 2019) – Harrity & Harrity, LLP is pleased to announce that Joseph P. Lentivech III, a former administrative patent judge with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), has returned to the firm as counsel. He was a patent attorney at Harrity & Harrity from July 2010 until late 2014 when he joined the USPTO.

“We are thrilled to welcome Joe back to our firm,” said Harrity & Harrity Managing Partner John Harrity. “Joe brings highly valuable experience and insights through his recent work as a USPTO administrative patent judge that will greatly benefit our clients.”

Lentivech will be joining Harrity’s patent application drafting team, where he will draft patent applications for the leading technology companies in the world.  He will also oversee all PTAB appeals at the firm.

As an administrative patent judge, Lentivech served as a member of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. The PTAB conducts trials, including inter partes, post-grant, and covered business method patent reviews and derivation proceedings; hears appeals from adverse examiner decisions in patent applications and reexamination proceedings; and renders decisions in interferences.

Lentivech also was a patent attorney at Brouse McDowell L.P.A. before his earlier stint at Harrity & Harrity. Prior to his law career, Lentivech served with the U.S. Marine Corp., most recently as a captain/artillery officer.

Lentivech received his J.D. (cum laude) from the University of Akron School of Law and his Bachelor of Science from State University of New York at Buffalo.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

Harrity’s Elaine Spector Named AIPLA’s Women in IP Law Outreach Subcommittee Chair

Congratulations to the newly named chair of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)‘s Women in IP Law Outreach subcommittee, Harrity’s own Elaine Spector.

“I am excited to take on my new role as chair of AIPLA’s Women in IP Law Outreach subcommittee. The Outreach subcommittee is responsible for coordinating the Women in IP breakfast at each stated meeting, as well as overseeing the Global Networking Event and Community Events. This position has also allowed me to become part of the Executive Team within AIPLA’s Women in IP committee, and to work with some truly amazing women in our field. In my new role, I am looking forward to further advancing the needle for women IP practitioners,” states Elaine.

To learn more about Elaine’s roles in driving diversity in the IP legal field, visit harrity.com/diversity.

 

In Design Patents, Claim Language Matters

By Ryan Thelen, Associate

Often when a design patent application is prepared, the primary focus and effort of the drafting process is given to the drawings, while little thought is given to the wording of the actual claim.  However, the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in a case of first impression in Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., 2018-2214 (Fed. Cir. Sep 12, 2019), in which the Federal Circuit highlighted how the words in a design patent claim can limit the scope of a design illustrated in a patent drawing.

Curver is the assignee of U.S. design patent no. D677,946 (’946 patent), which claims an “ornamental design for a pattern for a chair.”  However, the drawings of the ’946 patent do not show a chair and merely illustrate an overlapping Y design.  The term “chair” was added to the claim and title during prosecution as a result of an examiner objection to the use of the term “furniture part.”

Curver sued Home Expressions on the basis that Home Expressions sells baskets that incorporate an overlapping “Y” shape that infringes the ’946 patent.  The United States  District Court for the District of New Jersey first construed the scope of the ’946 patent to include the design illustrated in the drawings as applied to a chair, and then determined that Home Expressions’s baskets do not infringe under the “ordinary observer” test.  The District Court reasoned that the scope of the ’946 patent is limited to the article of manufacture listed in the ’946 patent, and found that an ordinary observer would not purchase Home Expressions’s basket with the ornamental “Y” design believing that the purchase was for an ornamental “Y” design applied to a chair, as protected by the ’946 patent.”

On appeal, Curver took issue with the claim construction aspect of the District Court opinion, arguing that the District Court improperly limited the scope of the claim due to the word “chair” in the claim, rather than focusing on the design shown in the drawings in which no chair is present.  35 U.S.C. § 171 permits patent protection for a “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture” (emphasis added), yet no article of manufacture was illustrated in the drawings of the ’946 patent.  Thus, the issue before the Federal Circuit is how to construe the scope of a design patent in which the claimed design is illustrated in the abstract (i.e., is not applied to an article of manufacture in the drawings).

The Federal Circuit held that “claim language can limit the scope of a design patent where the claim language supplies the only instance of an article of manufacture that appears nowhere in the figures.”  The Federal Circuit cited various persuasive sources to support its decision, such as Gorham Co. v. White (Sup. Ct. 1871), Ex parte Cady (USPTO 1916), 37 C.F.R. § 1.15, and the MPEP.  The Federal Circuit specifically noted that 37 C.F.R. § 1.15 permits the scope of a design patent to be defined by a combination of the drawings and the language of the design patent.

This case makes clear that when filing and prosecuting a design patent application, applicants and practitioners should ensure that the claimed design is tied to an actual “article of manufacture,” and should carefully choose the words that will be used in the claim, description, and title.

First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot Program Usage Remains Low

By Tia Brand

Since its inception in 2008, the First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot Program has been hailed as an efficiency booster, increasing face time with examiners and potentially decreasing the number of office actions per application.  Numerous articles, blog posts and the USPTO itself have maintained that the program increases the rate of first action allowance, boosts total rates of allowance over a 5-year period from the filing date, and decreases total prosecution time compared to applications which do not take advantage of the FAI program.  All these things logically translate to decreased prosecution costs and happier clients, so why do few applicants take advantage of this fee-free program?

Despite a drastic decrease in 2013 and the subtler usage decrease in 2018, FAI program usage has trended up during the past 10 years, with the 510 total FAI requests filed in 2008 more than doubling to over 1100 FAI requests in 2018.  However, this is still a small percentage of the nearly 300,000 original utility applications filed in the US each year.

The First Action Interview program has been available to all art units since the Full Pilot Program was introduced in 2011, yet there are some tech areas, most notably Biotechnology & Organic (1600) and Chemical and Materials Engineering (1700), where the FAI program is hardly being used at all.  Upon implementation of the Full Pilot Program in 2011, all technology centers saw an uptick in FAI filings, led by Computer Networks, Multiplex, Cable and Cryptography/Security (2400) and Communications (2600).  However, in 2013 Mechanical Engineering (3700) was the only tech center with over 100 FAI requests.  It would be interesting to review changes in patent law during calendar years 2012-2013 to determine the cause of this drastic decrease in FAI requests across all technologies.

After the decline in 2013, FAI filings tended to increase for every technology area through 2016, with Computer Networks, Multiplex, Cable and Cryptography/Security (2400) and Communications (2600) again seeing the most impressive number of FAI filings.  In 2016, Chemical and Materials Engineering (1700) and Biotechnology & Organic remained the tech areas with lowest FAI program usage.  In recent years, Computer Networks, Multiplex, Cable and Cryptography/Security (2400) has continued to dominate FAI usage, with Communications (2600) dropping to near the bottom of the pack and all other areas maintaining, at best, modest FAI Program usage.

Despite promising reports on benefits of the First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot Program, most applicants, especially those in the Chemical and Biological fields, are not taking advantage of the tool 10 years after its original introduction to the public.  The reason for this may simply be due to lack of knowledge surrounding the First Action Interview process or total unfamiliarity with the existence of the program.  Moving forward, applicants should consider using the FAI Pilot Program in order to decrease prosecution time and costs.  Detailed information regarding filing requirements for FAI requests can be found in the USPTO Official Gazette.

Analytics Chart on Laptop

WIPO Releases 2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators Report

Last month the World Intellectual Property Organization released the 2019 World Intellectual Property Indicators Report, a report showing considerable increase in worldwide patent applications.  Nearly half of all patent applications in 2018 were filed in China, with that number increasing to 66.8% if you consider all filings in Asia.  The top five countries receiving patent applications in 2018 were China (1.54 million), U.S. (597,141), Japan (313, 567), South Korea (209,992) and the European Patent Office (174.397).

Although US applicants lead the charge in foreign filings, applications filed at the USPTO are down slightly from 2017.  The last time the USPTO saw a decrease in patent applications was 2009. Despite the recent decrease in applications, the US maintains the top spot for patents in force, with 3.1 million out of 14 million active patents worldwide.

For more information on 2018 intellectual property trends, read the full report at the WIPO website, here.

 

Mind the Gap Analysis

Portfolio Gap Analysis of Globalfoundries and Taiwan Semiconductor

Globalfoundries and Taiwan Semiconductor announced an agreement to cross-license each other’s patents and those patents filed over the next ten years.

Below is gap analysis portfolio comparison of each company’s active U.S. patent families with the ability to filter the data by type of application, publication date, filing date, and cpc subclass description.

To learn more about how Harrity Patent Analytics can help you find insights into the patent world, contact us via email HERE.

TRY OUR INTERACTIVE DASHBOARD

 

USPTO October 2019 Update On Subject Matter Eligibility

By Tim Hirzel

The PTO’s Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) has been generally well received for providing a more reliable manner of applying the Alice/Mayo test used by the courts.  Even so, the 2019 PEG still left some matters unclear and the PTO has now responded to public feedback by providing further clarification in the October 2019 Update.  Below, we discuss the updates and how practitioners can use the updated guidance in practice.

Step 2A Prong One

In Step 2A Prong One, the 2019 PEG instructs examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites an abstract idea by a) identifying specific limitations in the claims believed to be an abstract idea, and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within any of the three specific groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes).

However, there was some question as to how explicitly limitations in the claims have to recite an abstract idea.  The October 2019 Update clarifies that “recites” should broadly be construed to mean that the claims either explicitly set forth the abstract idea or merely describe the abstract idea without explicitly using words that identify the abstract idea.  The PTO further clarifies that claims may recite multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, and that the groupings are not mutually exclusive (i.e., a single claim limitation may fall into more than one abstract idea grouping).

The October 2019 Update also provides clarification on what the three groupings of abstract ideas entail.

  • Mathematical Concepts – The 2019 PEG defines “mathematical concepts” as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The PTO interprets the courts as having declined to distinguish between types of math when evaluating claims for eligibility, and the PTO will do the same.  For example, math used to solve a particular technical problem (e.g., an engineering problem) will still be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping.  However, a claim does not recite a mathematical concept if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.
  • Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity – The PTO clarifies that not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas, and this grouping is limited to only fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior, and relationships or interactions between people.
  • Mental Processes – Under the 2019 PEG, “mental processes” are concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A footnote in the 2019 PEG indicates that a claim limitation is not a mental process when it “cannot practically be performed in the mind.”  The October 2019 update expanded on this and clarified that this is “when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations.”  The PTO reemphasized that claims can recite a mental process even if they are performed by a computer in the claim and further clarified that there is no requirement that the claim be performed entirely in the human mind to fall into the mental processes grouping.

The 2019 PEG also allows for the possibility that a claim limitation that does not fall into one of the three groupings of abstract idea may be still determined to be an abstract idea upon TC Director approval.  The October 2019 update indicates that the public will be notified once such an office action issues.  At this time, the PTO has not provided any such notification.

Step 2A Prong Two

In Step 2A Prong Two, the 2019 PEG instructs examiners to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and gives several considerations in making this determination, such as: improving the functioning of a computer or a technical field, effecting a treatment for a medical condition, using the judicial exception with a particular machine, or transforming or reducing a particular article to a different state or thing.

The October 2019 Update reemphasized that this analysis considers the claim as a whole, and that the additional elements of the claim (i.e., those not identified as an abstract idea) are not to be evaluated separately from the limitations reciting the abstract idea.  Moreover, the PTO clarified that merely claiming a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two and is not enough by itself to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.  However, the specificity of the claims is relevant to the considerations related to using a particular machine, a particular transformation, and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception.

The October 2019 Update devotes lengthy discussion to how a claim improves the functioning of a computer or a technical field and provides a two-step procedure for how examiners are to perform this analysis.

  • Step One – Examiners are to evaluate the specification to determine if sufficient details are provided to establish the claimed invention provides an improvement to technology. However, there is no requirement that the specification explicitly recite the improvement.  The improvement is not relative to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, but rather relative to existing technology.  Importantly, the PTO noted that an improvement to an abstract idea is not an improvement to technology.
  • Step Two – If the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claims must be analyzed to determine if the claims recite features that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, there is no need for the claims to explicitly recite the improvement.

Step 2B

In Step 2B, examiners are to evaluate whether the claims provide an inventive concept by reciting significantly more than the abstract idea.  The October 2019 Update itself provides almost no discussion or clarification of Step 2B other than to reemphasize that well-understood, routine, conventional activity will only be considered under Step 2B and not Step 2A.  However, the PTO provided Example 43 along with the October 2019 Update that shows how a claim can fail Step 2A but still be determined eligible under Step 2B.  Such an example was notably absent from the examples provided with the 2019 PEG.

Example 43 is a hypothetical based on the well-known Diamond v. Diehr case.  Example 43 is directed to a controller for an injection molding apparatus that repeatedly obtains temperature measurements of a mold, calculates an extent of curing completion based on the temperatures and an equation, and determines a percentage of curing completion.  Claim 3 specifies that the controller is connected to a means for temperature measuring (which is specifically interpreted to be an ARCXY thermocouple).  Under Step 2A Prong One, the claim is determined to recite a mathematical concept.  Under Step 2A Prong Two, the step of obtaining the temperature measurements is deemed to be insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.  Notably, the fact that claim 3 uses an ARCXY thermocouple to obtain the temperature measurements is not considered in Step 2A Prong Two (not even to establish use of a particular machine).  Thus, claim 3 is determined to be directed to the abstract idea.

However, the consideration of whether the ARCXY thermocouple feature is mere insignificant extra-solution activity is reconsidered under Step 2B taking into account whether such extra-solution activity is well-known.  The PTO found that while use of ARCXY thermocouples is known in the aeronautical industry, the use of ARCXY thermocouples was not routine or conventional in injection molding apparatuses.  Because the ARXCY thermocouple resulted in better long-term performance, durability, and response time than other thermocouples, the result of using the unconventional thermocouple in the claimed manner amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept) and the claim is patent eligible.

Key Takeaways

The October 2019 Update reinforces the idea that the best practice when drafting a patent application is to describe the invention as providing a technical solution to a technical problem.  In this way, should a Step 2A Prong One argument fail, practitioners can rely on a Step 2A Prong Two argument that the claims improve the functioning of a computer or other technology.  This argument seems to be the argument preferred by examiners and often cited by the courts as a basis for patent eligibility when there is a 101 issue.

Specifically, practitioners should keep in mind that examiners will heavily rely on the specification to determine if such a technical solution or technical improvement is provided.  The improvement should not be merely recited in a conclusory manner (e.g., an unsupported assertion that the invention provides a specific improvement), but should be explained in sufficient detail to tie specific features of the invention to the improvement.  Importantly, the claims should be drafted in such way to include the features that provide the improvement.  Examiners have often requested, or even required, that the claims explicitly recite the improvement to overcome a 101 rejection even though these claim features are often considered intended use or given little patentable weight.  The October 2019 update makes it clear this is not necessary.

The PTO also appears to narrow at least some of the three groupings of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One.  Practitioners should use this to their advantage when drafting applications to characterize features that may be arguably abstract in a way that avoids falling into the three groupings of abstract ideas.  For example, when appropriate, the application could describe the complexity of steps that may be arguably mental processes (e.g., determining steps, processing steps, analyzing steps, etc.) to establish that these steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind.  However, practitioners should be careful not to try to game the system by describing a simple step, which truly could be performed in the mind, as a complex step that cannot be performed in the mind because such a characterization could have unintended consequences for potential infringement and claim interpretation.  Moreover, if a feature truly could be performed in the mind, then there is most likely a better way to establish eligibility under Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B.

The 2019 PEG stripped Step 2B of most of its previous considerations and moved them to Step 2A Prong Two.  While the 2019 PEG indicated that Step 2B was still a viable option to establish eligibility, there was little instruction on how practitioners could actually present a successful argument and no examples of succeeding under Step 2B were given.  Given this, examiners have been reluctant to seriously consider Step 2B arguments.  Although arguments under Step 2B are likely to remain an improbable way to overcome a 101 rejection in view of the of the October 2019 Update, practitioners should keep in mind that new Example 43 provides a manner of establishing an inventive concept and a rationale that can be used as a backup position under Step 2B going forward.  Therefore, practitioners should draft their specifications to highlight how their inventions differ from what is well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, even if it is a feature that is more tangentially related to the core invention that could be considered extra solution activity.

Overall, the October 2019 Update should help the PTO continue to provide more reliable subject matter eligibility analysis and clarify what kinds of arguments will successfully overcome a 101 rejection.

Top Companies in Blockchain Patents

By Rocky Berndsen

Blockchain is an emerging technology that has taken the world by storm.  In October 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published a seminal paper, titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System“, and the age of blockchain was born.  Since then, entrepreneurs and large corporations have explored implementation of blockchain technology in financial transactions, smart contracts, automotive, retail, healthcare, energy, utilities, travel, supply chain, and gaming, among other industries.

Based on our analysis of active patents & pending applications, blockchain-related filings have increased significantly around the world in recent years.  For instance, there were only 126 filings in 2014, but by 2017 there were over 3,700 applications filed in the blockchain space.  In 2018, a year in which not all the filings have yet become public, there have already been over 8,200 filings.  The growth curve in blockchain filings is truly exponential.  It will be interesting to see over the coming years whether this trend continues.

TRY OUR INTERACTIVE DASHBOARD

Page 1 highlights the top players in the blockchain space, page 2 highlights the filing trends, and page 3 highlights the patent issuance trends.  You can click on elements (e.g., country code, company name, type filter, filing date filter) of the dashboard to filter the data.

The geographic distribution of filings is also very interesting.  To date, over 10,000 blockchain filings occurred in China, more than half of all blockchain related filings worldwide.  According to a recent Forbes article, nearly 70% of crypto mining activity occurs in China, creating significant interest in protecting IP in the crypto currency space.  The top ten filers of chinese patent applications in the blockchain space are as follows:

China Blockchain Patent Applications Filed (as of 10/1/2019)
RankCompanyActive Patents & Pending Applications
1Alibaba259
2CUNC189
3Hangzhou Fuzamei163
4Ping An151
5Baidu139
6Shenzhen Launch102
7Tencent102
8Zhongan IT89
9Shenzhen Oneconnect77
10Shenzhen Onething74

Notably, the U.S. has the second most blockchain filings, with over 2,700 filings.  In the U.S., the top ten filers of patent applications in the blockchain space are as follows:

US Blockchain Patent Applications Filed (as of 10/1/2019)
RankCompanyActive Patents & Pending Applications
1IBM252
2Alibaba93
3Bank of America81
4Mastercard73
5Wal-mart63
6Accenture52
7Intel46
8Nchain32
9Coinplug29
10TD Bank28

In comparison, the top ten U.S. patent owners in the blockchain space are as follows:

US Blockchain Patents Issued (as of 10/1/2019)
RankCompanyActive Patents
1IBM57
2Accenture26
3Bank of America24
4Mastercard13
5Winklevoss IP13
6Capital One12
7Dell9
8Vijay Madisetti9
9TD Bank9
10Blockchain Asics7

According to a recent report published by Accenture PLC, worldwide spending on blockchain solutions has a forecast annual growth rate (CAGR) of 76.0%, reaching $12.4 billion in 2022.  The blockchain space is still in the early stages of development, and it will be interesting to see how the technology evolves and who else enters the space.

To learn more about how Harrity Patent Analytics can help you find insights into the patent world, contact us via email HERE.

John Harrity, Harrity Team

Law360 Law Firm Leaders: Harrity & Harrity’s John Harrity

Law360 (October 16, 2019, 2:04 PM EDT) — John Harrity has served as managing partner of Harrity & Harrity LLP, the patent law firm he founded in 1999 with twin brother Paul Harrity, since 2016. During that time, the law firm’s revenue has grown by 127%, profits have gone up by 167% and the attorney headcount increased by 100%.

Here, Harrity discusses how his law firm has streamlined and automated the patent application process a la McDonald’s, why lawyers are not paid based on origination credits and why charity is such a big part of the firm’s culture.

How is your law firm different from a traditional law firm?

There’s a lot of ways that we’re different. From the very beginning, we’ve had this focus on quality. People talk about quality in our field, but one of the things we like to do when we talk about something is we want to make sure that it’s measurable. From the very beginning of our firm, my twin brother and I, we started with the traditional question: Why us? Why would anyone send us work over the thousands of firms doing patent prosecution and preparation? After some discussion, we honed in on quality. We implemented a couple of procedures, one was adopted from my brother’s former firm, Finnegan, and the other we created on our own.

We made sure everything goes through a very thorough second attorney review. It’s all about expectations here. Attorneys know that when they hand something in to me, there’s a certain level of quality that’s expected. And when we send things out to clients, there’s a certain expectation. When we send it to an inventor or in-house counsel, we’re going to send something that thoroughly, accurately and technically describes your invention and in our eyes is ready to be filed.

It’s tracking some statistics in relation to that to see: Are we succeeding or are we failing? How often, when we send out a patent application to an inventor or in-house counsel, do we get “looks good” [in response]? That’s our level of expectation. Going back to the beginning of the firm, so over the course of 20 years and having drafted over 5,000 patent applications, 67% of the time we’ve gotten a “looks good.”

The other [quality procedure] is writing style. I liken it to McDonald’s. Why is McDonald’s successful? Every McDonald’s you go to in the United States and you order their premier burger, the Big Mac, it’s going to have the same look, the exact same flavor every single time. And it’s going to come out in roughly the same amount of time. Our uniform writing style works exactly the same. Individual companies have preferences for how they want their patents to look, often the attorneys that work internally have individual preferences. We have a uniform writing style for every single attorney and every single company so that when they come to our firm, regardless of the drafting professional, they’re going to get their uniform writing style every single time.

Your firm has eliminated origination credits. Why have you done that and what kind of impact does it have?

Let’s think about origination credits. When you look inside these firms that have origination credits, what you see inside these firms are law firms within a law firm. You’ve got all of these partners with their origination credit, rowing in different directions. When you look at my firm, every client here is the firm’s client. We make business decisions about whether to bring on a client and whether to keep a client. Our firm’s mission is to be the No. 1 firm in the world doing what we do. We do patent applications and prosecution and we just do it in the electrical and mechanical space. I can tell you, every single individual at my firm, we’re all rowing in the same direction. Since we opened up 20 years ago, every single client has been the firm’s client. I might manage some of them and be the face to our firm for a particular client, but it’s the firm’s client, it’s not mine. That’s why we can be so agile, and move so quickly in the field, because we’re all rowing in the same direction.

How does the law firm then figure out how to determine whether a particular lawyer is successful?

We track some statistics internally. Every patent application that’s drafted at my firm, every response to a rejection from the patent office that’s drafted, goes through a second attorney review. And if I’m the reviewer, I fill out a scorecard and I’m grading this application or response on a little over a dozen different categories. This gives feedback to our attorneys. You can see your statistics for the year, you can compare them to last year. If you’re struggling in a particular area of drafting a patent application, don’t you want to know what that area is? There’s a quality score that all of our attorneys have.

There’s also a production element. One of the things we do is we pay our attorneys for production. We’ve experienced, in the lifetime of this firm, the same thing other firms experienced. The pricing of patent applications continually went up from 1999 until it plateaued for four to five years and then we started seeing it dip and it’s come down almost all the way to 1999 numbers. Back in 2013, one of our clients decreased their prices and we had a discussion internally and said, this is a wake-up call. We can walk away from the client and say we only do work for top-paying clients. If we do that, there will be less and less companies willing to pay top dollar and every firm in the United States is going to be lined up fighting for that work. The other route, the one we chose, is: Let’s get efficient. I put [the patent application process] in steps. Which of these steps must be performed by an attorney? All of the other steps, I hand those off to support staff members. And then, at the beginning of this year, I said: Let’s start automating some of the stuff the support staff is doing and let’s start automating some of the stuff the attorneys are doing.

2012 was before our efficiency journey. Our top drafting attorney drafted 54 patent applications that year, second place was 42. Last year, we had four attorneys draft more than 90 patent applications. We had one attorney in December draft 19 patent applications. This year our automation tools have rolled out. We have an attorney this year who is on track to draft 150 patent applications.

Let me tie that back into pay. You join our firm and when you’re assigned a patent application to draft, you’re given a number of hourly credits. If the hourly credit is 40 hours, you get that same hourly credit regardless of your actual time spent on it. So if you spend 40 hours, you’re getting hour-for-hour credit. If I can get you efficient, without sacrificing quality, down to 20 hours, now you’re drafting two patent applications. If I can get you down to 10 hours, then in that same 40 hour period you’re drafting four, which means you make four times as much money. The big producers at our firm make what partners make at other firms.

What tasks and processes have you automated?

One simple one I‘ll tell you about is form filling. There are certain forms that need to be filled out when you’re filing a patent application. And these forms were taking our staff about 15 to 30 minutes. Now it takes them about five seconds to fill them out — it’s being populated based on our docketing system.

You had a massive heart attack in 2016 at age 49, how has that impacted the way you operate your law firm?

Let me start with charity. I had this health scare back in 2016 and it really set the firm on a different course. I was in intensive care for eight weeks. It took me a couple of months after that to actually get back to the firm. I became hugely service-focused and that bled over to everything we do at the firm now. Harrity for Charity, that’s our giving back initiative. We’ve committed at the partner level to give 5% of profits to our partner charities. Those are the American Heart Association, that was my health scare, I had a heart attack; Inova Children’s Hospital; UNICEF; and Zero, which is the fight against prostate cancer. What makes Harrity for Charity infinitely better than the 5% coming out of partner profits is every single employee at my firm is committing a portion of their paycheck to one or more of these partner charities. Service is hugely important to us.

On the diversity side, we started our diversity journey kind of late in the game. We started our firm in 1999 and we started diversity efforts in November, 2015. At the time we started the conversation, we were 8% [ethnically] diverse at the attorney level. We implemented our Rooney Rule 2.0. What we’ve done is this. For every single position at my firm, support staff included, when we interview a white male for a position, we will interview a non-white male for that same position. Fast forward three years and we’ve gone from 8% diverse to 30% diverse today.

The newest thing we did is our minority firm incubator. It is a unique, innovative program. We’re willing to spend the time and money to make this thing successful. What we’re doing is creating minority-owned firms, female-owned firms that are replicas of our firm. We’re going to teach them what we do here and spin them off into their own firms. What makes the program a truly once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is we’re going to line up companies that will commit to give work to these minority-owned firms. Accenture has already made that commitment. The biggest pain point any time you start your own business is: Where am I going to get the work? We’re going to get [top patent-owning] companies to make that commitment to try them out.

They’re completely independent. They’re with us for three years; the fourth year, they leave our firm to start their own.

By Aebra Coe
Editing by Katherine Rautenberg

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

 

Harrity 4 Charity

Harrity Receives Washington Business Journal Corporate Citizenship Award

WASHINGTON (October 11, 2019) – Harrity & Harrity, LLP received the Washington Business Journal (WBJ) Corporate Citizenship Award in recognition of its partnership with the American Heart Association (AHA) of Greater Washington Region.

Part of the WBJ’s Corporate Philanthropy Awards, the Corporate Citizenship Award honors partnerships between Washington, D.C. metro area businesses and nonprofits that demonstrate positive outcomes for both organizations. Harrity and other winners will be formally honored in November at the WBJ’s annual Corporate Philanthropy Awards event.

“We greatly appreciate the Washington Business Journal’s recognition of our firm’s important work alongside the American Heart Association,” said Harrity Managing Partner John Harrity. “As a heart attack survivor, I am personally very proud of the tremendous support that the Harrity community continues to give to this cause to fight heart disease and stroke while saving and improving people’s lives.”

Harrity began its partnership with the AHA of Greater Washington in 2017, joining forces to fight heart disease by working to educate policy makers, health care professionals, and the general public, with the goal of one day ending heart disease. The partnership was borne out of John Harrity’s personal experience of suffering and recovering from a “widow maker” heart attack in 2016 at the age of 49. The following year, Harrity launched Harrity 4 Charity, through which Harrity partners pledge to give 5 percent of their profits and Harrity employees pledge to donate a portion of their paychecks to partner charities.

Since 2017, Harrity partners and employees have donated countless volunteer hours to fighting heart disease. The firm also partners with the AHA of Greater Washington for its annual Lawyers Have Heart 10K Race, 5K Run & Fun Walk, which this year raised more than $900,000 for the cause. The last two years, Harrity has not only been the top corporate sponsor of the race, but also the top fundraiser. Most recently, the AHA of Greater Washington named John Harrity and Harrity & Harrity Controller Sandra Maxey co-chairs of the 30th annual Lawyers Have Heart 10K Race, 5K Run & Fun Walk. Also as part of its commitment to the cause, Harrity hosts the annual Harrity Race 5K Run and 1 Mile Fun Run, with 100 percent of the event’s proceeds going to the AHA of Greater Washington.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is the nation’s leading patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

Harrity Creates Incubator to Launch Minority- and Women-Owned Law Firms

LAW.COM (October 3, 2019) After years of reading about new legal diversity programs with nothing to show for it, Harrity & Harrity managing partner John Harrity decided he wanted to try something new.

Harrity & Harrity managing partner John Harrity was sick of reading about law firm diversity.

The effort to diversify firms, he agrees, is noble. But over the years he had read countless stories about how this new internship or mentorship program will mend the legal industry’s diversity problem. And despite all these efforts, nothing much has changed.

“We keep doing the same things over and over and over again,” said Harrity, who co-founded the IP firm 20 years ago. “If the programs were really impactful we wouldn’t be having these conversations today.”

After reading a book about apprenticeships, Harrity had an idea for something new: Why not incubate women- and minority-owned law firms?

he idea wasn’t a big hit when he first brought it before the firm’s diversity committee. The biggest objection was that the program would essentially create competition for the firm. Harrity didn’t see it that way.

John HarrityJohn Harrity

“The reality is that there’s a ton of work out there, much more than we could ever handle ourselves,” he said. “And if they’re really good and taking work away from us that means we need to up our game.”

Eventually, the program was approved, and Harrity got to work on structuring the incubator. For each of the next three years beginning Jan. 1, the firm will bring in one woman attorney and one male minority attorney. Candidates must be a licensed attorney with a degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, physics or a similar technical field.

The first year of the three-year program will teach the candidates how to draft patent applications. In the second year, the attorneys will learn how to prosecute pending applications. The third year marks a shift from legal practice training to management training. Participants will be taught how to hire and train attorneys, establish and maintain an office and pitch and retain clients.

At the beginning of the fourth year, the participants will each launch their own women- and minority-owned law firm.

The minority attorney incubator program has partnered with professional services firm Accenture, which will send work to the nascent firms to help get them off the ground and build a portfolio. Harrity hopes to bring in more companies as the apprenticeship develops.

Joel Stern, CEO of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, described the program as “novel” and “innovative.” Stern spoke with Harrity about the incubator when it was in development, and he applauded his firm for creating an unselfish and innovative program—especially in an area of the law that has traditionally been devoid of minorities.

He hopes that these new firms will join NAMWOLF, which just announced it had helped more than 100 minority- and women-owned law firms win $1.6 billion in legal spend since 2010.

“You can’t just keep doing the same thing over and over again. Harrity is trying something new and novel that I think is going to work,” Stern said. “Even if it doesn’t, he deserves credit. He’s subordinating his interests to help minorities thrive in the business.”

To learn more about the Minority Firm Incubator and Harrity’s other initiatives to drive diversity in the IP legal field, visit harrity.com/diversity.

 

By Dylan Jackson

Why a Brief Response is the Best Response to an Office Action

By Rebecca Bachner, Associate

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that reminds us of the importance of always remembering prosecution history estoppel when presenting arguments in responses to the USPTO.  Specifically, in Amgen Inc v. Coherus Biosciences Inc., 2018-1993 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 29, 2019)) (“Amgen”), the Federal Circuit highlights how prosecution history estoppel can bar a patent owner from succeeding on its infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents.

At issue was Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,273,707 which was being asserted against Coherus for infringement.  During prosecution, the USPTO rejected Amgen’s claims as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,231,178 (“Holtz”).  In response, Amgen presented multiple different arguments.  First, Amgen argued that “the pending claims recite a particular combination of salts. No combinations of salts taught nor suggested in the Holtz et al. patent, nor [are] the particular combinations of salts recited in the pending claims taught nor suggested in this reference.” See Fed. Cir at pgs. 4-5.  Amgen further included a Declaration from the inventor of the ‘707 patent.  “The Declaration did not discuss any salt pairs other than sulfate/citrate, sulfate/acetate, and acetate/citrate—the only claimed pairs in the ’707 patent.”  See Fed. Cir at pg. 5.  The Patent Office issued another rejection and, in a final response, Amgen reiterated that Holtz did not disclose a combination of salts nor did Holtz disclose enhancing the dynamic capacity of an HIC column.  The Amgen patent issued after these arguments were filed.

Amgen filed suit against Coherus alleging infringement of the ‘707 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.  Coherus moved to dismiss Amgen’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) stating that Amgen argued that Holtz did not disclose “one of the particular, recited combinations of salts.”  See Fed. Cir at pg. 7.  A magistrate judge issued a report that recommended that Coherus’ motion be granted due to prosecution history estoppel.  The report stated that Amgen “clearly and unmistakably—and indeed, repeatedly—indicated to competitors that it surrendered processes using combinations of salts different from the ‘particular combinations of salts recited in the . . . claims[.]’”  See id.  Therefore, the report found that “prosecution history estoppel bars Amgen from now attempting to reassert surrendered ground involving other combinations of salts.” See id.  The District Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted Coherus’ motion to dismiss.

At the appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court’s dismissal.   The Court looked at the prosecution history and noted that “Amgen distinguished Holtz on the basis that Holtz did not teach or suggest the “particular combinations of salts” recited in Amgen’s claims.”   See Fed. Cir at pg. 9.  The Court further noted that “Amgen emphasized “particular” and referred to its particular salts three times in the span of two pages.”  See id.  As to Amgen’s argument that it distinguished from Holtz on the basis of increasing dynamic capacity, the Court states that “while Amgen did assert multiple reasons for why Holtz is distinguishable, our precedent instructs that estoppel can attach to each argument.”  See Fed. Cir at pg. 11.  Importantly, the Court stated that “[t]here is no requirement that argument-based estoppel apply only to arguments made in the most recent submission before allowance.”  See id.

This case is a strong reminder that everything written during prosecution can be used against the patent owner in later litigation.  The fact that “this particular combination” was a non-convincing argument, but still was used against Amgen with doctrine of equivalents shows how careful patent practitioners must be in drafting responses to the USPTO.  Each argument written down is part of the record that can be used against the ultimate patent.  As such, a high emphasis must be placed on having successful interviews with the Examiner.  Examiner interviews should be used at every stage of prosecution.  The Examiner interview is an invaluable way to receive feedback from the Examiner without adding to the written record.  Often, an agreement on claim language can be reached during the Examiner interview.  Based on the agreement, a response can be drafted in a way that minimizes the written record.  As such, Examiner interviews not only help with efficiency but are also a crucial part of obtaining high quality patents.

Improving Speed and Quality Using Automation for Patent Application Drafting

Our own Shawn Lillemo writes about how the right automation tools can provide application drafters with extra time that can be spent fleshing out additional details of the invention, exploring alternative embodiments, and telling a good story about how the invention solves a technical problem.  Read more on IPWatchdog.com.

Watch Shawn’s IPO Presentation on Patent Drafting Automation below!

Peter Glaser Team

How the Wrong Applicant Entity Status Can Doom Your Patent

By Peter Glaser, Associate

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, more commonly referred to as AIA, provided the USPTO with fee-setting authority to implement micro-entity status in addition to the previously implemented small-entity status. Both small-entity status and micro-entity status designations reduce fees for some patent filers. In general, small entities are entitled to a 50% reduction in fees and micro entities are entitled to a 75% reduction in fees. For example, the basic Utility filing fee for regular entities, sometimes termed ‘large entities’ is $300.00. In contrast the same filing fees for small entities and micro entities are $150.00 and $75.00, respectively.

The USPTO sets a set of requirements for patent filers to claim small entity status or micro entity status. In short, a small entity may qualify based on organization type (e.g., an entity that is a non-profit organization or that has fewer than 500 employees) and assignee status (e.g., an entity that has not assigned, licensed, or conveyed an interest in the invention to a non-small entity). For micro entities, the USPTO qualifications include each inventor not having been named inventor on more than 4 prior patent applications or have a gross income greater than 3 times the US median household income.

Generally, entity status is a matter of self-certification. For example, a patent attorney may file an assertion of small entity status or micro entity status for an inventor or other entity. However, the entity status must be updated if there is a change. For example, if an inventor files a patent application and qualifies as a small entity at the time of filing, but later assigns the invention to a large entity, a notification of loss of entitlement should be filed and regular fees paid thereafter.

The USPTO provides a good faith error safe harbor, but remedies are not provided for fraudulent or other non-good faith errors. A common way that entity status may change is as a result of a change in size of the patentee. In such a case, the Federal Circuit has held that when small entity status has been established in error and small entity fees have been paid in error, a patent holder can correct a good faith mistake (DH Technology, Inc. v. Synergystex International). Notably, the Federal Circuit indicated that the patent does not lapse as a result of an erroneous payment of fess and become unenforceable.

Another situation where entity status may be in question is when a patent license agreement is entered that could result in an applicant no longer being entitled to small entity status. In Outside The Box Innovations L.L.C. v. Travel Caddy, Inc, a lower court determined that an agreement between a patentee (that was a small entity) and a distributor (that was not a small entity) included a patent license clause that stripped Travel Caddy of small entity status with regard to the patent at issue. Here, the per curiam panel of the Federal Circuit found that it was reasonable for those involved in the patent prosecution to have believed that the agreement did not includes a patent license clause within the meaning of 37 CFR Section 1.27(a)(2). In a dissent, Judge Newman provided instructive guidance that an incorrect filing of small entity status should not be per se material to patentability.

Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, patent prosecutors and applicants can take some of the following steps to ensure an accurate assertion of entity status.

  1. Include questions regarding entity status in an initial invention disclosure interview questionnaire that is provided to inventors and/or applicants. Questions may include questions relating to company size, patent assignment status or licensing status, inventor household income, and the number of patents on which each inventor has been named.
  2. Following up with applicants and inventors regularly to determine whether answers to the above questions have changed.
  3. Maintaining comprehensive records of licensing agreements, joint inventorship agreements, research sponsorship agreements, and the like, and associating these records with patent family numbers.
  4. Performing a final check at issuance and at each maintenance fee payment date as to whether there has been any change to entity status. If a change has occurred, file a notification to indicate the status change.

Flexibility for Lawyers, Clients Helps Harrity & Harrity Stay Competitive

Law.com (September 10, 2019) “We allow our attorneys to work where they want, when they want, and how much they want,” managing partner John Harrity says.

Firm Name: Harrity & Harrity, LLP
Firm Leader: John Harrity, Managing Partner
Head Count: 30 attorneys, 20 professionals
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Governance structure and compensation model: Management by a three-person management committee, compensation is a pay for performance model
Do you offer alternative fee arrangements? Yes

**The following answers were provided by Harrity and edited lightly for style.**

What do you view as the two biggest opportunities for your firm, and what are the two biggest threats?

Our biggest opportunity stems from the fact that we are consistently able to provide high-quality, uniform patent work in a timely and efficient manner. Other firms, especially those that are using the traditional law firm model, are struggling to compete in today’s competitive, price-conscious patent environment. While some firms think that it is impossible to provide outstanding customer service in today’s environment, we are thriving. Our biggest threat is the difficulty we have attracting superstar attorneys to join our firm. This has long been one of our challenges. Big Law firms offer high starting salaries to attorneys who have very little experience. It can be difficult for us to compete when our model is pay for performance.

Some other opportunities for our firm are related to our remote staffing model. We don’t need every attorney at the firm to operate from our central office location, so we benefit from a pool of candidates that many law firms won’t consider because the candidate is interested in working remotely, or isn’t in the geographic footprint of other firms. We also see opportunity in the price pressure that is impacting the practice of patent law—while the big law firms struggle to find profitability in this area while bowing to the price pressures mandated by the large corporations that are setting the pricing standard for patent applications, we leverage technology and process improvements to ensure efficiency without sacrificing quality or our ability to make a profit.

The legal market is so competitive now—what trends do you see, and has anything, including alternative service providers, altered your approach? Is your chief competition other mid-market firms, or is your firm competing against big firms for the same work?

We go head to head with law firms of every size. Although we don’t directly compete with alternative service providers, I would still consider them to be competition. In the patent field, we have seen pricing for patent application drafting and prosecution come down, and we don’t expect it to go back up. Law firms tend to think that Patent 300TM companies will come to understand that higher prices are required to be able to provide outstanding customer service, including outstanding quality. This just simply isn’t the case. We have been focusing on efficiencies for more than six years. When I say efficiencies, I’m talking about leaning out our process steps and creating automation tools. Being able to provide outstanding customer service while charging less for patent services is not only doable for us in today’s patent field, but we are also simultaneously able to pay our attorneys top dollar.

There is much debate around how law firms can foster the next generation of legal talent. What advantages and disadvantages do midsize firms have in attracting and retaining young lawyers, particularly millennials?

I think we have a huge advantage over the big firms with respect to attracting and retaining young lawyers, including millennials. One thing you hear about with respect to millennials is that they want freedom. So, we give it to them. We allow our attorneys to work where they want, when they want, and how much they want. This freedom is an instrumental reason why we attract such a large group of candidates for open attorney positions. In addition to this freedom, we have a pay for performance model, which allows hardworking young professionals to make substantially more than their peers at the big law firms.

Does your firm employ any nonlawyer professionals in high-level positions (e.g. COO, business development officer, chief strategy officer, etc.)? If so, why is it advantageous to have a nonlawyer in that role? If not, have you considered hiring any?

An integral (nonlawyer) member of our firm is Rocky Berndsen, who leads Harrity Patent Analytics. He oversees an analytical team using cutting-edge capabilities to analyze patent data and extract insights for clients to use when making strategic decisions regarding patent portfolios. The team recently published its inaugural Patent 300TM Report, which ranks and analyzes the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities in the patent field.

What would you say is the most innovative thing your firm has done recently, whether it be technology advancements, internal operations, how you work with clients, etc.?

In September, we introduced our Minority Firm Incubator program, established to help train, cultivate, and launch minority-owned patent law firms. The program is an integral and innovative part of our ongoing initiative to advance attorneys who will contribute to the diversity of the patent field. Our firm will select two candidates from a pool of skilled applicants, and begin training them through an exhaustive four-year program that will not only prepare them to draft and prosecute patent applications, but also prepare them to successfully run their minority-owned patent firm as a business. In addition, what makes this a truly once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is that these selected attorneys will develop, during their time at our firm, relationships with Patent 300TM companies that are part of our program. Ultimately, the selected attorneys will learn how to successfully run their law firms abiding by Harrity & Harrity’s proven best practices, then formally launch their firms assisted by the already established corporate relationships.

Does your firm have a succession plan in place?  If so, what challenges do you face in trying to execute that plan? If you don’t currently have a plan, is it an issue your firm is thinking about?

As a 20-year-old firm, our leadership is far from retirement age, but that has not stopped us from putting succession framework into place. We have established training programs that will help our associates develop the leadership and management skills they need to ascend the partner ranks. We have also engaged outside resources to make sure we’re doing the things we need to do to prepare for the day—many years down the road, we hope—when the firm’s leadership will transition to a new guard. We are prepared for that, and see no imminent challenges to implementing our succession plan.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

 

Gene Quinn – Clause 8 – Episode 13

On the Clause 8 Podcast, our own Eli Mazour talked to Gene Quinn about starting and running IPWatchdog.com – the most influential IP-focused website in America.  They also talked about the IP policy landscape in Washington, how to effectively impact the policy making process, and various patent issues.  #IntellectualProperty #Patents #Podcast

Harrity Diversity

IP boutique seeks to show that new thinking on diversity is not just for Big Law

IAM (September 10, 2019) In the latest issue of IAM our cover story “the Boston Manifesto” is a call to action for the IP industry to increase gender diversity across all parts of the market. The piece, which subscribers can read here, reflects some of the challenges that women face in reaching senior levels, particularly in-house and in private practice. The article also contains some specific areas that all stakeholders should focus on.

This is a challenge confronting all parts of the IP system as stakeholders try to increase both the gender and racial diversity in their ranks. Arguably it is most pressing among the largest law firms that have struggled to grow the diversity of their workforce, particularly at partner level.

But it’s by no means only the denizens of Big Law who are zeroing in on how they can make their workforces more diverse. Last week Harrity & Harrity, a respected IP boutique with around 30 attorneys based in Northern Virginia, announced the launch of its minority firm incubator, an initiative designed to help foster the growth of minority-owned specialist IP law firms.

Starting in January 2020, the firm will recruit two minority attorneys who will be trained over the next four years not only in the ins and outs of patent drafting and prosecution work but also on how to launch and manage their own firms. To help those fledgling firms thrive, Harrity is signing up a group of businesses as programme partners. They have committed to giving any new firms work on a trial basis as and when they get off the ground. Accenture was the first to get involved, with somewhere between three and six companies ultimately expected to join on top.

Should the Harrity recruits decide that they’d prefer not to go down the route of owning their own firm then managing partner John Harrity said he’s “not going to kick them out the door”. However, he also said that he hoped the new programme would attract entrepreneurial types willing to take the plunge.

Harrity, who established his firm with his twin brother Paul, admitted that he needed to get over some doubts among his staff, such as why they would create more competition for themselves, before getting the initiative off the ground.

“There’s more than enough work to go around,” Harrity said he told his firm’s diversity committee, but he also admitted that there are plenty of concerns to be overcome outside of his own practice.

“One of the things that I’m finding out as we go out to the industry, talking to chief patent counsel at the largest filers, there’s a perception that minority firm means a firm that’s not good and is not going to be able to perform at a high level – we’re going to change that impression,” Harrity commented.

This is by no means his firm’s first diversity initiative. Three years ago it introduced a rule whereby it must interview a female or minority candidate for every male, non-minority candidate for any position. Since then it has gone from 8% diversity at the attorney level to 30% and Harrity insisted that this has had a marked effect. “It’s amazing how my firm has grown in the last three years, as we’ve taken this diversity journey,” he remarked. He pointed to a doubling in headcount, significant growth in revenues and profits, and more innovative thinking among the workforce as clear byproducts of having a more diverse practice.

“If you expand that out to the industry in general I think you’ll see the same types of effects and we’re going to start thinking differently which is really what the legal field needs to do,” Harrity maintained. He pointed out the irony of a lack of innovation on the subject among a patent community where much of the work is grounded in new ways of thinking.

“We’re in a field of innovation, that’s what the whole thing is about, and firms don’t do anything,” he claimed. That maybe an unfair accusation to lay at all IP practices but as Harrity’s new incubator shows, there is a growing realisation that more work is required to produce clear results.

To learn more about the Minority Firm Incubator and Harrity’s other initiatives to drive diversity in the IP legal field, visit harrity.com/diversity.

 

By Richard Lloyd

Harrity Minority Firm Incubator Video Thumbnail

Harrity Introduces Innovative Legal Diversity Initiative

Harrity & Harrity Introduces Innovative Legal Diversity Initiative

Program designed to launch minority-owned IP law firms

WASHINGTON (September 3, 2019) – Harrity & Harrity, LLP today announced its Minority Firm Incubator program, established to help train, cultivate, and launch minority-owned patent law firms. The four-year program seeks to address the growing issues surrounding the lack of diverse representation in law firm leadership across the industry.

According to a study by the National Association of Law Placement, women account for just over 12% of partner ranks in U.S. law firms, while minorities account for just 8% of all law firm partners.

“The Minority Firm Incubator program is an integral and innovative part of our ongoing diversity initiative to advance attorneys who will contribute to diversity in the patent field,” said Harrity Managing Partner John Harrity. “The statistics show the legal industry has work to do and that’s why our firm has dedicated time and resources to take meaningful action.”

The Minority Firm Incubator program is comprised of four phases:

  • Drafting Patent Applications
    In the first year, attorney participants will be trained to draft effective, efficient, high-quality patent applications in the technical areas of software, optics, telecommunications, computer networking, e-commerce, business methods, and others. Using the firm’s in-house developed automation tools, participants will learn how to draft like Harrity attorneys, who complete over 100 applications a year and many of whom average less than 12 hours per application.
  • Prosecuting Patent Applications
    In the second year, program participants will be trained to prosecute patent applications, negotiate with examiners, communicate effectively with clients, and ensure high-quality outcomes in some of the most difficult art units. Use of examiner analytics and uniform procedures will be emphasized to ensure that responses and other matters can be completed in less time and with a higher likelihood of success.
  • Firm Management
    In the third year, program participants will learn firm management skills, such as how to hire and train patent attorneys and support staff; how to establish and manage a law office; and how to pitch, manage, and retain clients.
  • Firm Launch
    In the fourth year, program participants will launch their own new patent law firms with already established corporate relationships. New firm leaders will continue to receive ongoing mentorship from Harrity to ensure their success.

Candidates must be from a protected, diverse class; be an attorney or a law student graduating in 2019 and have a degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, physics, or a similar technical field; be registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; demonstrate a record of academic and professional achievement; and have a sincere interest in starting a law firm.

Applications will be accepted from September 1, 2019 through November 18, 2019. Candidates should email their resume and an essay, limited to 500 words, as to why they should be chosen to be part of the program to incubator@harrityllp.com.

For more information, please visit https://harrityllp.com/incubator.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is the nation’s leading patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

The Pencil Test

How Reliable is the Pencil Test for Expediting the Patent Prosecution Process?

By Nathan Phares, Associate

Many patent practitioners and Examiners have spoken of the “pencil test,” which suggests that an independent claim is more likely to be rejected or is rejected as a matter of course if the claim is shorter than a pencil laid upon the claim.  Some point to the pencil test as a useful rule of thumb and suggest “padding” the length of the independent claim in hopes of improving the outcomes of prosecution.  However, drafting a lengthy independent claim may unnecessarily narrow the scope of the claim.  Does the length of the independent claim truly impact prosecution outcomes, or is the pencil test a myth?  We’ve analyzed the data, and we provide our conclusions below.

The data set we created for this analysis includes all patents that issued from applications filed post-AIA.  We limited the scope of the data set to electrical, mechanical, chemical, and biotech tech centers (i.e., Tech Centers 1600, 1700, 2100, 2400, 2600, 2800, 3600, and 3700).  For each patent, the data set indicates the number of Office Actions (OAs), the Art Unit and Tech Center, the length of claim 1 in total words and unique words, the length of the specification, and various other data (e.g., number of RCEs, Assignee, Agent, pendency, and so on).  We didn’t filter for unusually long or short claims – the longest claims (topping out at over 8,000 words!) and the shortest claims seem to generally be legitimate.

According to the data, first-OA allowances are slightly more likely with a longer independent claim than with a shorter independent claim, suggesting that the pencil test may be a factor in first-OA allowances.  Figure 1 shows a chart of the average number of total words in Claim 1 for buckets of the number of OAs.  First-OA allowances, which are associated with zero OAs, have a slightly longer first claim on average than second-OA allowances.  This relationship holds across all the Tech Centers we analyzed except TC 1600.  Figure 2 shows a chart of the average number of unique words in Claim 1.  In Figure 2, the same impact is present but is far less pronounced, indicating that total word count is more strongly correlated with first-OA allowance than unique word count.

 

Figure 1

 

Figure 2

The pencil test seems not to predict outcomes other than first-OA allowances: as the number of OAs before allowance increases, so does the length of claim 1.  This is the opposite of what the pencil test would suggest and may reflect the tendency to amend features into claim 1 over the course of prosecution in pursuit of allowance.

As the data shows, independent claims that include more total words tend to receive better treatment at the outset of prosecution, but outcomes are not clearly impacted by the pencil test as prosecution continues.  Therefore, the patent drafter should consider lengthening the independent claim if a first-OA allowance is the goal.  However, the data shows that the impact of the pencil test is mild at best, so the drafter should not rely on claim length alone to carry the day.  For example, the art unit where the application is assigned is a powerful predictor of the efficiency of the patent prosecution.  Therefore, the drafter should consider how the language used in the application may impact the assignment of the art unit.

It is important to note the limitations of the data set.  First, the claim lengths shown above are claim lengths of the issued patent, not of the patent application when it is first examined.  Thus, it is hard to tell whether the correlation between claim length and length of prosecution is due to the amendment of features into claim 1.  Second, we omitted patents associated with 8 or more OAs from the charts above, since the data set gets quite sparse after 7 OAs – for example, the 10, 11, 12, and 13 OA buckets collectively represent only 59 patents.  However, the trend shown in Figures 1 and 2 continues through the 9 OA bucket.

Matthew Allen, Harrity Team

Statements in Specification May Harm Patent Eligibility

By Matthew Allen, Associate

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that indicates how certain types of statements, made in an Applicant’s own specification, can undermine patent eligibility.  Specifically, in Solutran Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., U.S. Bancorp, 2019-1345, (Fed. Cir. Jul. 30, 2019) (“Solutran”), the Federal Circuit highlights how patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 might turn based on a specification’s background information and statements regarding proposed advancements, or benefits, of an invention .

At issue in Solutran is claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945 (’945 patent), which recites:

A method for processing paper checks, comprising:

a) electronically receiving a data file containing data captured at a merchant s point of purchase, said data including an amount of a transaction associated with MICR information for each paper check, and said data file not including images of said checks;

b) after step a), crediting an account for the merchant;

c) after step b), receiving said paper checks and scanning said checks with a digital image scanner thereby creating digital images of said checks and, for each said check, associating said digital image with said check s MICR information; and

d) comparing by a computer said digital images, with said data in the data file to find matches.

When analyzing the claim under part one of the Supreme Court’s Alice test, the Federal Circuit determined that claim 1 was “directed to the abstract idea of crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check.”  In making its determination, the court examined the purported benefits of the ‘945 patent.  Two benefits were identified in the specification: “improved funds availability,” and “outsourcing.”  However, the court noted that while two benefits were identified in the specification, the claims were not limited to an embodiment that resulted in both benefits, stating that “[t]he only advance recited in the asserted claims is thus crediting the merchant’s account before the paper check is scanned.”  In other words, because the claims did not include features that required “outsourcing,” the court considered the only relevant benefit to be “improved funds availability.”

The court determined that the claimed advance (“improved funds availability”) was similar to abstract concepts such as “hedging” and “mitigating settlement risk,” and that “[t]he desire to credit a merchant’s account as soon as possible is an equally long standing commercial practice.”  Thus, the Federal Circuit used the purported advance of the ‘945 patent, as indicated in the specification and supported by the claims, in determining that claim 1 was directed to an abstract idea.  The court also noted that its characterization of claim 1 was appropriate where “the abstract idea tracks the claim language and accurately captures what the patent asserts to be the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.’”  This further signifies the importance the court placed on the alleged benefits of the application.

When addressing step two of the Alice test, the Federal Circuit used the background of the ‘945 patent against the patentee by stating that “the background of the ’945 patent describes each individual step in claim 1 as being conventional. Reordering the steps so that account crediting occurs before check scanning (as opposed to the other way around) represents the abstract idea in the claim, making it insufficient to constitute an inventive concept.”  In other words, simply re-ordering admittedly known steps will not constitute an inventive concept for purposes of step two of the Alice test.  Thus, the court used the applicant’s own statements in the specification, indicating that certain steps are conventional, to find that the claim was not patent eligible.

This decision provides important lessons about drafting and prosecuting a patent application that may increase the application’s likelihood to survive a §101 challenge.  First, practitioners should make sure that benefits identified in a patent application are exhibited in the claimed embodiments.  The identified benefits should ideally be clearly technical.  Second, practitioners should ensure that the patent application does not include any statements that might be used to argue against the patent eligibility of the claims.  This may include considering whether a detailed background may do more harm than good.

Top 20 Semiconductor and Energy Companies US 2018

Semiconductors and Memory Ranks as the #1 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

Chart 1 shows the Semiconductors and Memory technology area ranked highest in 2018.  There were 15,153 patents issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S.  Semiconductors and Memory technology covers multiple United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications.  Included are processes for manufacturing semiconductors and solid-state devices.  Also included are processes and apparatus for addressing, accessing and controlling, and forming memory addresses in a computer or digital data processing system.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

The top 20 companies in the Semiconductors and Memory area, shown in Chart 2, include Taiwan Semiconductor (#1), Samsung (#2), IBM (#3), Micron (#4), and others.  Taiwan Semiconductor tops the list having obtained 1,972 U.S. patents, up slightly from 2017.  Samsung had 1,522 U.S. patents, down nearly 15% from 2017.  IBM, at 1,318, was up slightly from 2017.  The top 20 companies represent a cross-section of the technology sector.  Included are chip makers, device makers, and various electronics companies.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Semiconductors and Memory

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 Rank in Semiconductors and MemorySemiconductor and Memory Patents 2018% of Company’s 2018 U.S. PatentsSemiconductor and Memory Patents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
Taiwan Semiconductor1197279%18934%
Samsung2152219%1744-15%
IBM3131814%12714%
Micron464569%55614%
Mubadala Investment559372%687-16%
Semiconductor Energy Lab647855%587-23%
SK Hynix746858%652-39%
Toshiba Memory841960%468-12%
Infineon939245%505-29%
BOE1038724%451-17%
Intel1137711%481-28%
Renesas1232055%365-14%
United Microelectronics1331893%326-3%
STMicroelectronics1424935%2288%
TCL1523024%16727%
LG Display1622433%2164%
Western Digital1721529%330-53%
Sony181979%1847%
Texas Instruments1917822%212-19%
Fuji Electric2017652%12827%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Patent 300™ Automotive Sector by 2018 US Patents

Toyota Tops Auto Market in Patent 300™

By Rocky Berndsen

Big head, long tail.  This isn’t the description of an exotic animal, rather it describes the automotive sector of the Patent 300™.  The top 25 auto companies and parts makers obtained more than 14,000 utility patents in 2018, but the top five obtained 60% of them.

The report, which details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities receiving utility patents in the U.S. last year, shows that the top 25 companies in the automotive space were awarded patents in a variety of areas, from the expected (Surface Transportation for Honda, Ford and GM) to the unexpected (Wells, Earth Boring/Moving for BMW, Magna and Schaeffler).

Toyota leads the pack with 2,554 patents obtained in 2018.  It is the No. 6 company in the Patent 300™ overall and has a leading position in several patent areas. The Japanese car maker is No. 1 in both Computerized Vehicle Controls and Fuel Cells and Batteries. It holds the No. 2 position in three areas: Surface Transportation; Material and Article Handling; and Static Structures, Supports and Furniture. It ranks No. 4 in Thermal & Combustion Technology, the area where it holds the highest number of its 2018 patents.

Ford is in second place with 2,149 patents and bests its rival, Toyota, to hold the No. 1 spot in both Surface Transportation and Static Structures, Supports and Furniture.  It holds the No. 2 spot in Computerized Vehicle Controls and in Vehicles and System Alarms.  It had most of its 2018 patents in Thermal & Combustion Technology, where it holds the No. 3 spot.  It is No. 15 overall in the Patent 300™.

South Korean car maker Hyundai rounds out the list at No. 3 with 1,539 patents.  It holds the No. 1 position in Material and Article Handling, the No. 3 position in Computerized Vehicle Controls and the No. 5 position in both Surface Transportation and Thermal & Combustion Technology.  Hyundai sits at No. 22 in the Patent 300™.

Those who follow the automotive field will recognize that the car makers’ rankings in the top three mirror their positions in Computerized Vehicle Controls, an area that includes utility patents for things that can control the direction and speed of a car, and controls for autonomous vehicles.  This is no coincidence, as cars become more and more automated and as the market moves toward autonomous vehicles.

Patent 300 Automotive Top 25

Parts manufacturers make up the other portion of the sector, including tire companies that are household names: Continental (9), Bridgestone (15), Sumitomo (16), and Michelin (23). These companies share top spots in the Tires technology area, including Sumitomo at No. 2, Bridgestone at No. 3, Michelin at No. 4.  In case you’re wondering, the No. 1 in this area, which includes adhesive bonding and plastic molding, is a company that tends to focus on much larger vehicles than others in the automotive space, namely Boeing, No. 32 in the Patent 300™.

The overall picture of the industry looks rosy, as car makers have obtained an increased number of patents year-over-year.  Toyota’s issued patents went up 41% from 2015 to 2018, and Ford, Hyundai, BMW and Mazda all experienced increases of more than 75% in the same period of time.

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Top 20 Electrical Circuits and Systems Companies patent 300 2019

Electrical Circuits and Systems Ranks as the #2 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

Chart 1 shows the Electrical Circuits and Systems technology area ranked 2rd largest in 2018.  There were 13,215 patents issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S.  Electrical Circuits and Systems technology covers multiple United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications.

Included are electrical systems and devices, covering a broad spectrum of electrical and electromagnetic systems, devices, and circuitry, as well as electrical connectors.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

The top 20 companies in the Electrical Circuits and Systems area, shown in Chart 2.  They include Murata (#1), Samsung (#2), Mitsubishi Electric (#3), GE (#4), and others.  Murata tops the list having obtained 458 U.S. patents, up 6% from 2017.  Samsung had 456 U.S. patents, down 11% from 2017.  Mitsubishi Electric, at 337, was down 4% from 2017.  The top 20 companies represent a cross-section of the technology sector.  Included are device makers, chip makers, and auto makers, and various manufacturing companies.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Electrical Circuits and Systems

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 RankPatents 2018Percentage of 2018 PatentsPatents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
Murata Manufacturing145861%4326%
Samsung24566%507-11%
Mitsubishi Electric333728%349-4%
GE428511%334-17%
Intel52838%333-18%
Panasonic628015%356-27%
Apple Inc.727813%24612%
IBM82493%2394%
Toyota924610%20019%
Yazaki1023873%272-14%
Sumitomo Electric1122647%248-10%
Denso1222619%273-21%
Infineon1322125%266-20%
Samsung Electro-mechanics1421465%17817%
Qualcomm152139%246-15%
Texas Instruments1621127%239-13%
Siemens1720915%231-11%
TE Connectivity1820867%246-18%
Toshiba1919612%15222%
Hon Hai2018839%296-57%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Multiplex and VoIP - Top 20

Multiplex and VoIP Ranks as the #3 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300 Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

Chart 1 shows the Multiplex and VoIP technology area ranked 3rd largest in 2018, where 9,875 patents were issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S.  Multiplex and VoIP technology covers United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications related to simultaneous transmission of two or more information signals in either or both directions over the same transmission medium.  Transmission in this manner allows discrete recovery of information signals.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

The top 20 companies in the Multiplex and VoIP area, shown in Chart 2, are large global technology companies.  They include LG Electronics (#1), Huawei (#2), Ericsson (#3), Qualcomm (#4), and others.  Despite a 19% decrease from 2017, LG Electronics tops the list having obtained 894 U.S. patents. Huawei had a 17% increase over 2017 at 882 U.S. patents.  Ericsson, at 747, was down 5% from 2017. The top 20 companies represent a cross-section of the technology sector.  Included are device makers, chip makers, and telecommunications companies.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Multiplex and VoIP

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 Rank in Multiplex and VoIPMultiplex and VoIP Patents 2018% of Company's 2018 U.S. PatentsMultiplex and VoIP Patents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
LG Electronics189436%1060-19%
Huawei288240%73217%
Ericsson374754%784-5%
Qualcomm471930%7003%
Samsung56118%5746%
Intel654216%5243%
Cisco730435%400-32%
Nokia830334%350-16%
AT&T924019%21212%
Softbank1021231%17816%
Sony112019%14926%
IBM121932%214-11%
Apple131879%1832%
ZTE1418138%212-17%
NEC1517922%215-20%
Fujitsu1617313%243-40%
Dell171638%14014%
Interdigital1815842%185-17%
ETRI1913626%10523%
Broadcom2013439%147-10%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Optics Ranks as the #4 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

Chart 1 shows the Optics technology area ranked the 4th largest in 2018.  There were 9,003 patents issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S.  Optics covers the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications for apparatus and corresponding processes used for storing and retrieving optical or magneto-optical information.  The basis of the technology is relative movement between an optical storage carrier or medium and a transducer along a continuous path.

The class includes apparatus and corresponding processes for making copies or editing optical records, falling within the above definition.  It includes the transfer medium having a specific information storage structure.  The scope of the Optics technology class overlaps with other classes and subclasses.  It is an integral part of the class of patents covering Dynamic Information Storage or Retrieval.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

The top 20 companies in the Optics area, shown in Chart 2, are large global technology companies.  They include Samsung (#1), Canon (#2), BOE Technology (#3), TCL Corporation (#4), and others.  Samsung tops the list having obtained 672 U.S. patents, down from 2017.  Canon had 366 U.S. patents.  BOE Technology, at 326, was up 8% from 2017.  The top 20 companies represent a cross-section of the technology sector.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Telecommunications

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 Rank in OpticsOptics Patents 2018% of Company's 2018 U.S. PatentsOptics Patents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
Samsung16728%769-14%
Canon236610%426-16%
BOE332620%3018%
TCL424826%19322%
Carl Zeiss524667%255-4%
ASML621686%1998%
Philips721316%224-5%
Panasonic820111%14130%
Japan Display919832%212-7%
Seiko Epson1018414%203-10%
GE111536%1437%
Nikon1215063%13013%
Fujifilm1314712%186-27%
Toshiba141398%7149%
Corning1513728%160-17%
IBM161251%1232%
Hitachi171249%175-41%
Sony181226%164-34%
Olympus1912018%10215%
LG Display2011817%1079%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Printing or Measuring and Testing Ranks as the #5 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

Chart 1 shows the Printing or Measuring, and Testing technology area ranked 5th largest in 2018.  There were 8,641 patents issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S.  Printing or Measuring and Testing cover United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications related to Printing and Measuring Technology, respectively.

Printing patents include means adapted to produce characters or designs on surfaces by the impression of types or dies.  Also included is applying coating material through the openings of a covering pattern sheet, such as stenciling. Printing patents also cover impression from graphic or intaglio surfaces.  These patents include organizations using a design or character dies that emboss, burn, or perforate, and that apply ink.

Measuring and Testing is the generic class for processes and apparatus for measuring of any kind or for any testing.  It includes all subjects not provided for in other classes.  The term “test” includes inspection, processes, and apparatus for examination or review not covered by other classes.  This class is the generic class for sampling and consists of all sampling apparatus and processes not otherwise classified.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

The top 20 companies in the Printing or Measuring and Testing area, shown in Chart 2, are large global technology companies.  They include Canon (#1), Seiko Epson (#2), Brother (#3), HP (#4), and others.  Canon tops the list having obtained 843 U.S. patents, up 8% from 2017.  Seiko Epson had 496 U.S. patents. Brother Industries, at 353, was down 1% from 2017.  The top 20 companies represent a cross-section of the technology sector.  Included are device makers and software producers, auto makers, and electronics companies.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Telecommunications

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 RankPatents 2018Percentage of 2018 PatentsPatents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
Canon184324%7728%
Seiko Epson249639%536-8%
Brother335358%357-1%
HP431042%22627%
Ricoh529228%325-11%
Kyocera627326%22617%
Siemens726619%2487%
Toshiba826316%16836%
IBM92393%251-5%
GE102128%234-10%
Fujifilm1119316%248-28%
Samsung121872%1775%
Konica Minolta1317426%13522%
Robert Bosch1416513%176-7%
Halliburton1512414%11110%
Hitachi161149%151-32%
Toyota171104%1064%
Panasonic181096%999%
Denso191059%8321%
Taiwan Semi20974%111-14%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems Ranks as the #6 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

Chart 1 shows the Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems technology ranked 6th largest in 2018.  There were 7,017 patents issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S. Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems covers several United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications.  Motive Power Systems are systems of electrical supply and/or of control for one or more electric motors.  Electrical Systems and Devices, Power Supply or Regulation Systems, Electrothermally or Thermally Actuated Switches, are among the many possible classifications related to this technology area.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

The top 20 companies in the Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems area are shown in Chart 2. They include UTX (#1), GE (#2), Ford (#3), Toyota (#4), and others.  United Technologies Corporation tops the list having obtained 906 U.S. patents, up 46% from 2017.  General Electric had a 6% increase over 2017 at 574 U.S. patents.  Ford, at 462, was down 4% from 2017.  The top 20 companies represent a cross-section of the manufacturing, transportation, and technology sectors. Included are automakers and supporting companies, tech companies, and other manufacturers.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 Rank in Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power SystemsThermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems Patents 2018% of Company's 2018 U.S. PatentsThermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems Patents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
UTX190642%49246%
GE257422%5376%
Ford346221%482-4%
Toyota440716%3816%
Hyundai525116%19722%
GM622619%2184%
Safran722444%16128%
Rolls-Royce821655%18415%
Denso921518%17817%
Siemens1018513%1765%
Mitsubishi Electric1117515%191-9%
Robert Bosch1217113%176-3%
LG Electronics131436%148-3%
Caterpillar1414028%192-37%
Mitsubishi Heavy1513841%161-17%
Honeywell.16999%104-5%
Continental179623%105-9%
Mahle189158%113-24%
Borgwarner199146%883%
Honda20879%808%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Selective Visual Display Systems Ranks as the #7 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

Chart 1 shows the Selective Visual Display Systems technology area ranked 7th largest in 2018.  Selective Visual Display Systems covers United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications related to processes and apparatus for selective, electrical control of two or more light-generating or light-controlling display elements. Processes and devices under these classifications use received or stored image data signal. The image data includes character, graphical information, or display attribute data.  Image data sources may consist of peripheral input devices, television signals, image data recognition, or computers.

This class also includes digital data processing systems or methods for visual presentation.  Data processing consists of the creation or manipulation of graphic objects (e.g., artificial images), or text.  The class includes telegraphy subclasses for digitizing writing tablets, styluses, and circuits.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

The top 20 companies in the Selective Visual Display Systems area, shown in Chart 2, are large global technology companies. Selective Visual Display Systems is an important technology area in the patent world with over 4,855 US patents in 2018 alone.  They include Samsung (#1), BOE Technology Group (#2), TCL (#3), Apple (#4), and others.  Samsung tops the list having obtained 909 US patents, up slightly from 2017.  BOE Technology had a 20% increase from 2017 at 481 US patents.  TCL, at 308, was up 28% from 2017. The top 20 companies represent a cross-section of the technology sector.  Included are device manufacturers, software, and media companies.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Selective Visual Display Systems

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 Rank in Selective Visual Display SystemsSelective Visual Display Systems Patents 2018% of Company’s 2018 U.S. PatentsSelective Visual Display Systems Patents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
Samsung190911%9011%
BOE248129%38720%
TCL330832%22328%
Apple425812%20421%
LG Display524136%20415%
Japan Display621535%18713%
Sony71849%1783%
Microsoft81546%12718%
Synaptics911659%119-3%
Seiko Epson10967%7918%
Semiconductor Energy Lab119411%940%
LG Electronics12924%113-23%
Sharp138913%111-25%
Panasonic14804%4642%
IBM15801%5235%
Lenovo167813%90-15%
Alphabet17703%657%
Microchip Technology186534%4235%
Intel19592%4819%
Immersion205841%3933%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Telecommunications Top 20 Patent 300 2019

Telecommunications Ranks as the #8 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

As is shown in Chart 1, the Telecommunications technology area is the 8th largest technology area in 2018 with 4,761 patents issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S.  The Telecommunications technology area covers United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications related to communications systems in which electric or electromagnetic signals are used to transmit modulated carrier wave information between points.  The transmission media is via radio wave generally of a frequency above human speech, yet at a frequency lower than infrared frequencies. Radiotelephonic communication via wireless link is included in this class.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

The top 20 companies in the Telecommunications area, shown in Chart 2, are large global technology companies.  They include Samsung (#1), Huawei (#2), Qualcomm (#3), LG (#4) and others.  Samsung tops the list having obtained 408 US patents, down slightly from 2017.  Huawei had a 23% increase over 2017 at 284 US patents. Qualcomm, at 277, was down 38% from 2017.  The top 20 companies represent a cross section of the technology sector.  Included are device manufacturers, wireless carriers, and media companies.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Telecommunications

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 Rank in TelecomTelecom Patents 2018% of Company’s 2018 U.S. PatentsTelecom Patents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
Samsung14085%412-1%
Huawei228413%21823%
Qualcomm327712%382-38%
LG Electronics42309%2166%
AT&T522017%2143%
Ericsson620615%282-37%
Intel71835%225-23%
Apple81828%224-23%
IBM91672%198-19%
Sony101155%138-20%
Nokia1110812%193-79%
Softbank1210315%106-3%
Microsoft13974%934%
Verizon149515%125-32%
Alphabet Inc.15924%113-23%
Skyworks167938%5827%
Deutsche Telekom177442%714%
Blackberry187220%108-50%
ZTE196714%81-21%
NEC20658%88-35%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Harrity Patent 300 Computer Networks

Computer Networks Ranks as the #9 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

As is shown in Chart 1, the Computer Networks technology area is the 9th largest technology area in 2018 with over 4,540 patents issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S.  The Computer Networks technology area covers United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications related to electrical computer or digital data processing system or corresponding data processing method including apparatus or steps for transferring data or instruction information between a plurality of computers wherein the computers employ the data or instructions before or after transferring and the employing affects said transfer of data or instruction information.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

When you look at the top 20 companies obtaining patents in the Computer Networks technology area, shown in Chart 2, all of the companies are large global technology companies such as IBM (#1), Amazon (#2), Alphabet (#5), and Facebook (#8).  IBM ranks #1 on the list having obtained 845 U.S. patents in the Computer Networks technology area, which is a 5% increase over 2017.  9% of IBM’s U.S. patents obtained in 2018 are classified in the Computer Networks technology area.  Samsung (#7) has the largest year over year increase in Computer Networks patents at 33%, while Nokia (#17) had the largest decrease at -62%.  While the companies in the top 20 are all large global technology companies, they cover a range of industries including enterprise IT, social media, telecommunications, consumer electronics, and more.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Computer Networks

Patent 300 Company NamePatent 300 Rank in Computer NetworksComputer Networks Patents 2018% of Company’s 2018 U.S. PatentsComputer Networks Patents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
IBM18459%8065%
Amazon230714%25019%
Dell327613%21622%
Microsoft427111%294-8%
Alphabet52118%280-33%
Cisco615618%178-14%
Samsung71532%10333%
Facebook813418%181-35%
Oracle911816%1143%
AT&T101078%132-23%
Huawei111075%1025%
Verizon1210015%1000%
Ericsson13796%110-39%
Tencent147122%90-27%
Intel15622%75-21%
Sony16593%5310%
Nokia17526%84-62%
HPE18479%3428%
Red Hat194715%52-11%
Qualcomm20462%72-57%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Kenneth Hartmann Harrity Team

Technical Details are Needed to Avoid Patent Eligibility Issues for Patent Applications

By Kenneth Hartmann, Associate

Many patent practitioners have likely found success in overcoming and/or avoiding 35 USC §101 rejections since the USPTO’s Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance was released last January.  However, the Federal Circuit (“the court”) recently made it clear that continued attention and care should be given when drafting patent applications focused on payment systems and/or payment processing.

In Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. 2018-1495 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 2, 2019) (“Innovation Sciences v. Amazon”) the court determined that a claim to an “online method for a payment server to support online buying over the Internet” in U.S. Reissue Patent No. 46,140 (the ’140 patent) was ineligible under Step 2 of Alice.  More specifically, the court agreed with the district court that the claim was directed to the abstract idea of “securely processing a credit card transaction with a payment server” and that the claim lacked an inventive step, stating that the transmission of credit card payment information through the completion of a purchase are the same as those used in a “conventional Internet transaction system having adequate credit card information security” as admitted in the specification of the ’140 patent.

While Innovation Sciences argued that a “wherein” clause indicating the process involved a switch from a server with less security to a server with more security, the court held that that claim is directed to the abstract idea of “switching.”  The court further mentioned that the claim seeks to capture the broad concept of switching to a more secure server, rather than a “specific way of doing so.”  For Step 1 of the Alice test, the court indicated that the claim may have avoided being directed to an abstract idea if the claim and/or specification had indicated a specific way of carrying out the switch from a less secure server to a more secure server.

Patent applications directed to payments or other financial related processes will likely continue to receive the highest level of scrutiny with respect to patent eligibility due to the Alice decision being based on a financial/business method patent application.  The fact is, many of these patent applications and/or patents likely involve novel technical features, communications, and/or processes that were overlooked and/or not considered when the patent application was drafted.  In Innovation Sciences v. Amazon, the court specifically referred to a lack of detail with respect to switching between a less secure server and a more secure server.  In fact, the word “switched” is mentioned only ONCE in the specification and ONCE in a flowchart.  It is no wonder that the court found Innovation Science’s arguments regarding the switch between servers to be futile.

The ’140 patent claims priority to a patent application filed back in April 2000.  That was obviously a different era of patent preparation and prosecution.  Today, patent practitioners should consider and outline the technical aspects of processes (especially business method processes) without taking for granted that one or more steps of the process are inventive, in and of, themselves.  Clearly, the switch between servers, considered to be one step in the overall process for performing an online method for a payment server, involved its own processes and/or steps.  How/when was the decision made to switch the servers?  What parameters were used to select the new server?  How were those parameters analyzed to make the selection? What types of communications (and/or how many) were needed to perform the switch?  Again, it was a different era of drafting patent applications in 2000.  However, if the patent application drafter was able to predict the future, those are just a few example questions that, if answered in the claim and/or specification, would have improved Innovation Sciences’ case for patent eligibility.  Moreover, to have the best chances of success, patent drafters should continue to discuss the technical problems solved by these processes (and/or by the steps of the processes) and any corresponding technical benefits.

https://soundcloud.com/clause-8/episode-12-gilbert-hyatt

Gil Hyatt – Clause 8 – Episode 12

Eli Mazour recently interviewed the inventor of the microprocessor – Gil Hyatt – on the latest episode of the Clause 8 Podcast.  Gil talks about devoting his life to innovation, licensing patents for hundreds of millions of dollars, and getting stuck in USPTO’s Sensitive Applications Warning System (SAWS) program. #IntellectualProperty #Patents #Podcast

Joseph Falkiewicz Harrity Team

How to Protect Your Client’s Reputation While Also Protecting Their Intellectual Property (IP)

By Joseph “Josh” Falkiewicz, Associate

An attorney that drafts a patent application must consider a multitude of issues to provide strong protection for a client’s IP. The patent application should be accurate from a technical standpoint while also satisfying statutory requirements of patentability (e.g., 35 USC §101, §102, §103, & §112). At the same time, the drafting attorney must also consider how the publication of the patent application or patent may impact the client’s reputation.

Journalists often misinterpret the publication of a patent as a statement by the client regarding its current actions or future intentions. This can cause problems with how people perceive the client if statements within the patent mischaracterize the client’s approach to sensitive issues, such as privacy. Therefore, the drafting attorney should write the patent application in a way that positively reflects – or at least avoids negative reflection – on the client.

For example, a patent describing steps for obtaining and storing personal information of individuals might raise a variety of privacy concerns. Therefore, the drafting attorney should also include, as part of the written description, statements explaining that implementations described in the patent are compliant with privacy laws of one or more jurisdictions, that the personal information is collected only after obtaining consent, that encryption is used to protect the security and/or integrity of the personal information, and/or the like. To provide a more specific example, if the disclosed subject matter involves capturing images or video of a particular area (e.g., a loading dock, an office, a home, and/or the like), the drafting attorney should include an example in the specification that illustrates how an individual would consent to being monitored, an example showing how the image data or video data is encrypted before being transmitted over a network, and/or the like.

Furthermore, the drafting attorney may want to include, in the written description, one or more additional examples that describe how the disclosed subject matter handles situations involving non-consenting individuals. For example, a camera or a drone may capture an image of a loading dock to verify whether a product has been delivered. What happens if an image of the loading dock also includes an image of a non-consenting individual that was walking by? By providing a thorough description of these situations in the patent application, the drafting attorney can help create a positive reputation of the client by illustrating that the client cares about privacy of its customers. This approach also reduces the likelihood of a skeptical or an antagonistic reader promoting negative press about the client based on the patent.

Harrity Patent 300 Cryptography and Security

Cryptography and Security Ranks as the #10 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States.  Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies.  The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

As is shown in Chart 1, the Cryptography and Security technology area is the 10th largest technology area in 2018 with over 4,300 patents issued in the U.S.  The Cryptography and Security technology area covers United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications related to secure communications and information security.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

RankPatent 300 Technology Area2018 U.S. PatentsPercentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1Semiconductors/Memory15,1539%
2Electrical Circuits and Systems13,2158%
3Multiplex and VoIP9,8756%
4Optics9,0035%
5Printing/Measuring and Testing8,6415%
6Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems7,0174%
7Selective Visual Display Systems4,8553%
8Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details4,7613%
9Computer Networks4,5443%
10Cryptography and Security4,3113%

When you look at the top 20 companies obtaining patents in the Cryptography and Security technology area, shown in Chart 2, most of the companies are large technology companies such as IBM (#1), Dell (#2), and Intel (#4).  In addition, there are also cryptography and security-focused companies like Symantec (#9) and Fortinet (#14).  IBM ranks #1 on the list having obtained 613 U.S. patents in the Cryptography and Security technology area, which is a 3% increase over 2017.  About 7% of IBM’s U.S. patents obtained in 2018 are classified in the Cryptography and Security technology area.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Cryptography and Security

Patent 300 - Company NamePatent 300 Rank in Cryptography and SecurityCryptography and Security Patents 2018% of Company’s 2018 U.S. PatentsCryptography and Security Patents 2017Change from 2017 Patents
IBM16137%5953%
Dell225712%23210%
Amazon325212%21415%
Intel42196%222-1%
Microsoft51998%248-25%
Samsung61232%10713%
Alphabet71195%144-21%
Cisco811013%8325%
Symantec910370%134-30%
Bank of America108928%7615%
AT&T11837%93-12%
Qualcomm12823%811%
Apple13733%678%
Fortinet146752%5518%
Oracle15578%64-12%
Huawei16563%535%
Verizon17569%64-14%
Blackberry184813%52-8%
Canon19471%48-2%
Ericsson20473%439%

Cryptography and Security is an important technology area in the patent world with over 4,300 U.S. patents in 2018 alone.  The importance and value of this technology is only increasing as evidenced by the daily news headlines related to data privacy, data security, and secure communications.

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

Recent Court Decisions Weigh in on Prior Art Standard in Patent Law

By Jonathan Goodman

Is a printed publication that predates a patent application always considered prior art?  Many may think that a reference published, and available to the public, prior to a patent application’s filing date is prior art.  While this is usually the case, recent court decisions have highlighted exceptions to this standard.

Courts Clarify What Constitutes Prior Art

In GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC,  2017-1894, 2017-1936 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018) (“GoPro”), the Federal Circuit determined that a catalog distributed at a trade show open only to dealers of action sports vehicles was prior art to patents relating to action sports video cameras.  Particularly, the Court noted that the trade show’s focus on action sports vehicles did not preclude persons of ordinary skill in the art from attending because a primary purpose of action sports cameras is for use on action sports vehicles.

GoPro clarifies that a printed publication disclosed at a trade show is publicly accessible within the meaning of section 102 even if the trade show is not aimed at persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art.  While GoPro takes an expansive view, practitioners seeking to overcome a printed publication distributed at a trade show, conference, meeting, or similar gathering may still find success arguing that the printed publication was not publicly accessible when there is no credible reason that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have been in attendance.  For example, a slight change to the facts in GoPro, such as the cameras at issue being used for portrait photography rather than action sports photography, may have persuaded the Court to find that the catalog was not publicly accessible.

In Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 2017-2084 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2018), the Federal Circuit found that an article published on a university website was not prior art to later-filed patents because the website only indexed articles by author and year, and lacked a reliable search function.  Specifically, the Court noted that the test for public accessibility is not whether a reference has been indexed, but whether the reference was indexed in a meaningful way that would permit a person of ordinary skill in the art to locate it.

It is worth noting that the university website at issue in Acceleration Bay was from 1999 and may have lacked competent search functionality that is now commonplace.  Moreover, today, articles published on a website likely would be keyword indexed by a search engine, thus making it difficult to argue against public accessibility regardless of the manner of indexing performed by the website.  Nevertheless, practitioners should be mindful that articles published on a website are not necessarily publicly accessible if it can be shown that no meaningful indexing of the article was performed.  In particular, if an article is not keyword indexed by the publishing website or a search engine—which may occur if the website prevents pages from being indexed by search engine crawlers—it may indicate that the article was not publicly accessible.

Key Takeaways

Although not every printed publication is considered prior art under Section 102, the growing ease with which nearly all printed material is easily accessible online makes that determination less and less likely.  Thus, when filing and prosecuting patent applications, practitioners should be wary of withholding references from the USPTO in reliance on prior art exceptions, such as those implied by GoPro and set forth in Acceleration Bay.

Getting To Know Your Patent Examiner Through Data

Law360 (June 13, 2019) — How many office actions should I expect at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? Should I file a request for continued examination or a notice of appeal? Is it worth filing a pre-appeal?

These, among others, are common questions that practitioners may ask themselves during patent prosecution. In the past, these were mostly questions that could not be answered by taking into account unique proclivities of different examiners. Now, using data analytics, we can get a better sense of how prosecution will go and be able to make an informed decision when a crossroad is reached.

Below, we will explore how to use public data about an examiner, provided by the USPTO, during patent prosecution.

Allowance Rate

By looking at an examiner’s allowance rate (i.e., allowance vs. abandonments), we can get a sense of the journey early on. A high allowance rate is an indicator that the examiner likely has no qualms about allowing applications, and that the examiner likely will not stubbornly stick to poor rejections. For these types of examiners, if appropriate, it may be worth taking a more assertive initial position, including arguing that the rejections should be withdrawn, or offering modest amendments.

However, if the examiner’s allowance rate is low, you may want to consider including substantial amendments or anticipate the possible need to file an appeal as these types of examiners tend to combine three, four, or even five-plus references in their art rejections. If the allowance rate in the art unit is significantly higher than the examiner’s allowance rate, you may want to consider getting the examiner’s supervisor or a primary examiner in the art unit involved early in the process as it may be easier to reach an agreement with them than with the assigned examiner.

Office Actions Per Patent, RCEs Per Patent

A high office action per patent and/or RCE per patent rate may be an indication that reaching allowability will be challenging. These types of examiners also are likely unafraid to combine three, four or five-plus references to make their art rejections. Similar to examiners with low allowance rates, you may want to consider including substantial amendments, getting the supervisory examiner or a primary examiner involved, or planning to file an appeal. You may even want to check the supervisory examiner’s and primary examiner’s allowance rates when deciding whether to get one of them involved.

Interview Statistics

Generally speaking, it is beneficial to interview an examiner as it gives a practitioner an opportunity to get a better sense of the examiner’s interpretations of the application and the applied references, and a chance to explain the invention.

A high interview success rate (i.e. the rate that interviews lead to an allowance in the next office action) may be an indicator that the examiner uses interviews for compact prosecution. These examiners are likely willing to provide suggestions for amendments that would lead to allowance or at least advance prosecution. For these types of examiners, you may want to be prepared to discuss multiple, different types of amendments to take advantage of their willingness to expedite prosecution. However, if the interview success rate is low for the examiner, consider sending a substantive interview agenda with proposed amendments to maximize the chance of reaching an agreement with the examiner.

A comparison of an examiner’s final rejection allowance rate with After Final Consideration Pilot and his/her final rejection allowance rate without AFCP may be an indicator of whether the examiner takes the AFCP program seriously. If there is a significant difference with those rates, the examiner likely uses the allocated two to three hours in the AFCP program to find a way to allow the application. For these types of examiners, consider filing an after-final amendment with an AFCP request before deciding whether to file an RCE or a notice of appeal. However, if the rates are similar, the examiner likely uses pre-pilot procedures regardless of whether an AFCP is filed.

Pre-Appeal Statistics

Pre-appeal statistics can be useful when deciding whether to file an appeal brief or a pre-appeal brief. A high rate of allowance and/or re-opening of prosecution when pre-appeals are filed may indicate that the examiner, the examiner’s SPE, and other panel members in the examiner’s art unit take the pre-appeals process seriously and that it is worth presenting arguments in a pre-appeal brief. However, a low rate of allowance and a low rate of reopening of prosecution after pre-appeal may indicate that it would be better to forego the pre-appeal process and go straight to appeal or go another round with an RCE.

Appeal Statistics

Analyzing an examiner’s appeal statistics may be useful in determining whether to file an appeal or an RCE. If the examiner’s rate of allowance after an appeal is filed is high, it may be worth appealing rather than filing an RCE and avoid narrowing claims unnecessarily. However, if the examiner’s rate of allowance after appeal is low, it is highly likely that your appeal will go to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Since it may take a couple of years for the PTAB to pick up your appeal due to their backlog, you may want to make certain that your client is comfortable with going through with the appeals process and waiting rather than filing an RCE and possibly reaching an agreement with the examiner earlier. For these types of examiners, you may want to consider the examiner’s allowance rate and RCEs per patent rate to help you and your client in making this decision.

If the examiner’s board decision success rate is high, it may be an indication that the examiner goes to the board only when he/she believes that his/her examiner’s answer would be particularly strong. If you receive a compelling examiner’s answer from these types of examiners, consider filing an RCE rather than going to the board.

Conclusion

Just like how data analytics has improved efficiency in other industries, examiner analytics has the potential to improve the efficiency of patent practitioners and patent prosecution. Therefore, using examiner data in your practice may lead to better, quicker and cheaper outcomes for you clients.

By Kris Rhu

The example screenshots in this article are from Patentprufer, which was developed by Harrity & Harrity.

John Harrity – Clause 8 – Episode 11

Our Managing Partner John Harrity is the featured guest on this episode of the Clause 8 Podcast, sharing his thoughts on everything from how firms in the patent law space should be innovating, to some of the secrets of our own firm’s success. #Innovation #LawFirms #IntellectualProperty #Podcast

Harrity 4 Charity


Harrity & Harrity’s John Harrity and Sandra Maxey Named Co-Chairs of 30th Annual Lawyers Have Heart Race Supporting American Heart Association

WASHINGTON (June 11, 2019) – The American Heart Association (AHA), the world’s leading organization devoted to fighting cardiovascular disease, has selected Harrity & Harrity Managing Partner John Harrity and Controller Sandra Maxey to co-chair the 30th annual Lawyers Have Heart 10K Race, 5K Run & Fun Walk.

“As a survivor of a 2016 ‘widow maker’ heart attack, I am honored and humbled to serve in this leadership position for a cause near and dear to my heart,” said Harrity. “I hope that my personal story helps to underscore the importance of working heart healthy activities into everyday life. Harrity & Harrity continues to support the AHA in our Harrity4Charity philanthropic initiative because of the impact that heart disease has on families across the globe.”

Lawyers Have Heart brings runners and walkers of all ages and experience levels together to raise awareness of heart disease and stroke. In 2019, the event raised more than $1 million in support of the AHA’s mission to be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives.

“I am honored to serve alongside John as co-chair of the 2020 Lawyers Have Heart race. This year, we hope to raise even more,” added Maxey. “To achieve our goal, we need more law firms, corporations, and the general Washington, D.C. community to join the fight for healthier lives.”

While largely supported by the Washington, D.C. legal and corporate community, Lawyers Have Heart 10K Race, 5K Run & Fun Walk is open to the public, and all are welcome to participate in support of the cause.

Lawyers Have Heart will take place on June 13, 2020, at the Washington Harbour in Georgetown. For more information on the event, visit www.lawyershaveheartdc.org.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is the nation’s leading patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com/.

About the American Heart Association

The American Heart Association is devoted to saving people from heart disease and stroke – the two leading causes of death in the world. We team with millions of volunteers to fund innovative research, fight for stronger public health policies and provide lifesaving tools and information to prevent and treat these diseases. The Dallas-based association is the nation’s oldest and largest voluntary organization dedicated to fighting heart disease and stroke. To learn more or to get involved, call 1-800-AHA-USA1 or visit heart.org.

Harrity IAM Patent 1000

Harrity Receives Highest Ranking in IAM Patent 1000 Guide

Harrity & Harrity is pleased to announce that the firm was ranked in the elite “Highly Recommended” category by IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals for prosecution firms in the Washington, D.C. metro area. The eighth edition of the IAM Patent 1000 guide lists the world’s leading patent experts and identifies only a few as “highly recommended” in instances where firms receive significantly greater positive feedback.

IAM writes:

“Fully deserving its promotion to the IAM Patent 1000 highly recommended tier for prosecution, Harrity & Harrity is a top performer in the patent field. It ensures consistent high quality by performing legitimate second-attorney reviews on every patent application and does this without ever missing a deadline.”

“Paul Harrity is extremely process oriented and has amazing attention to detail. He is doing a lot of interesting things in the practice – tracking examiner trends, for example – and the work he does helps his clients make the best decisions possible.”

“The two brothers have the firm way ahead of the curve when it comes to the development of disruptive technology for the patent field; their software development team has stepped up its efforts around machine learning prediction models and process efficiency, so watch this space.”

As one of the most respected guides in IP law, the IAM Patent 1000 identifies the top attorneys, law firms and patent experts in key jurisdictions around the globe. The organization’s rigorous research process is conducted over five months and involves approximately 1,800 interviews with patent attorneys and in-house counsel. Only firms that stand out for their depth of expertise, market presence and level of work are listed in the IAM Patent 1000. For more information on the methodology click here.

John Harrity Delivers Diversity Message to Meeting of Chief IP Officers

Managing Partner John Harrity was a featured speaker at the final day of the two-day Chief Intellectual Property Officers Council meeting, hosted by The Conference Board in New York City this week.  Speaking about diversity and inclusion in the legal profession, John presented an overview of Harrity & Harrity’s diversity and inclusion journey, mentioning among other things, the firm’s self-imposed adherence of an adapted version of the Rooney Rule for hiring.

The Conference Board is a global, independent membership and research organization working in the public interest. Its mission is to provide the world’s leading organizations with the practical knowledge they need to improve performance and better serve society.

In only its third year of existence, the Chief Intellectual Property Officers Council provides a confidential environment where a select group of chief and senior IP leaders come together to openly discuss both legal and business issues related to IP protection and management.

Harrity Womens Workshop 2019

Harrity & Harrity Holds its 2nd Annual Women’s Workshop

By Elaine Spector

Harrity & Harrity just completed its 2nd Annual Women’s Workshop.  The workshop is part of Harrity’s Diversity Initiative, whose Diversity Mission is to “promote and nurture a respectful, highly engaged, family friendly, and inclusive culture that values the diversity of our talented team with diverse backgrounds, experiences, perspectives, skills/talents, and capabilities.”  Nine women, including recent law school graduates, current law students, and one research scientist with a Ph.D in electrical engineering, participated in a 3-day long workshop. The interactive programs included patent preparation and prosecution skills training, resume and interview preparation, and sessions with prominent women guest speakers in the intellectual property field.  The guest speakers ranged from IP partners at major law firms (both litigation and prosecution partners), former leaders at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Chief IP Counsel and IP Counsel at major corporations, and leaders within Diversity and Inclusion organizations.

The participants were particularly interested in how these women navigated their careers in light of gender issues associated with working in a male-dominated profession as well as balancing career with life.  For example, Barbara Fiacco, President-Elect of AIPLA and litigation partner at Foley Hoag, indicated that her love for research and writing led her to a career in IP litigation, where she is thriving.  Ellen Smith, a partner at Sughrue Mion, shared her philosophy from her daughter’s school, “If there is no path, make your own,” as she described her experiences in navigating a different path for herself at Sughrue Mion while she was starting a family.

Cynthia Raposo gave us an inside look on how she helped develop the legal department for Under Armour before Under Armour was a household name.  Interestingly, Cynthia had moved back to a small firm to a part-time position in attempt to achieve a better work-life balance.  She began to do work for Under Armour and soon became their go-to lawyer for legal advice.  When offered the position to go in-house at Under Armour, she indicated it was too exciting an opportunity to turn down.  Cynthia was responsible for developing strategies for securing trademarks worldwide well before Under Armour would even enter those particular countries.

Other sessions included health and wellness issues in the practice of law, top career tips, as well as the very sage advice from our Harrity founders.  John and Paul Harrity both conceded that their best career advice includes reading as much as possible with a focus on continued learning.  We hope the participants had a great time, and we are looking forward to next year’s workshop!

Paul Harrity Selected by Managing Intellectual Property as a 2019 Patent Star

Harrity & Harrity is pleased to announce that Partner Paul Harrity was recently selected by Managing Intellectual Property, the leading specialist guide to IP law firms and practitioners worldwide, as a 2019 “Patent Star.”  Paul was recognized as a Virginia practitioner in the areas of patent prosecution, patent strategy and counseling. The annual “IP Stars” list recognizes leading lawyers and law firms for intellectual property work in more than 75 jurisdictions.

Paul is a patent attorney in the firm’s Fairfax, Virginia, office where he focuses on preparing and prosecuting patent applications.  He began his career in 1991 as a patent agent at the United States Patent and Trade Office.  Since leaving the USPTO, Paul has prepared hundreds of patent applications and thousands of Patent Office responses.

Plan Before You File: 3 Key Considerations in Patent Preparation

By Daniel Jebsen, Associate

It’s Monday, and your client comes to you with an urgent request for help: there will be a disclosure of an invention on Friday, and they’d like to file a patent application before that disclosure.  No problem, you can prepare a patent application for filing in a few days.  Other than the details of the invention itself, what do you need to consider when filing a patent application?  One easily overlooked issue, particularly in such a rush scenario, is the impact of inventor location, residency, and citizenship on your patent application filing.

Many jurisdictions, including the United States (see 35 U.S. Code § 184), impose some type of restriction on first filings outside of the jurisdiction (i.e., foreign first filings).  Such restrictions can be imposed on, for example, applications for inventions made in a given country, applications by inventors who reside in a given country, and applications by inventors who are nationals of a given country.  Note: the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has posted a list describing known filing restrictions for some Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) contracting states.

Some jurisdictions with foreign filing restrictions allow foreign first filing only with permission from the patent office (i.e., after obtaining a foreign filing license).  However, the amount of time needed to obtain a foreign filing license can vary from days to weeks, or even months, depending on the jurisdiction.  Some jurisdictions, such as Russia, do not allow foreign first filings at all and, as a result, do not grant foreign filing licenses.  Therefore, a very early consideration in the patent application preparation process should be whether inventor location, residency, and/or citizenship will dictate timing and/or jurisdiction of your first filing.  These scenarios can become quite complex when inventors are located in, reside in, or are citizens of different countries, and even more complex when an urgent filing is needed.

For example, maybe Inventor A is located in, resides in, and is a citizen of Country X, Inventor B is located in, resides in, and is a citizen of Country Y, and Inventor C is located in and resides in Country X, but is a citizen of Country Z.

Here are three steps to take before filing a patent application that should help preserve your invention’s first-to-file status:

  1. Before filing a patent application, the first step is to identify whether Country X, Country Y, and Country Z impose foreign filing restrictions based on the inventor relationships to the relevant jurisdictions. In this example, assume that Country X imposes a foreign filing restriction on applications made in Country X, Country Y imposes a foreign filing restriction on residents of Country Y, and Country Z does not impose a foreign filing restriction on citizens of Country Z.
  2. The second step is to determine whether permission for a foreign filing can be requested from any of these jurisdictions that impose such a restriction. Here, perhaps permission for a foreign filing can be requested from offices of both Country X and Country Y.
  3. The third step is to determine an approximate amount of time typically needed for a request for a foreign filing to be reviewed and (hopefully) granted. In our relatively simple example, perhaps a foreign filing license can be obtained from the Country X office in 3-4 days, but a foreign filing license from the Country Y office may take 4-6 weeks.  An attorney licensed in a given jurisdiction may have strategies for trying to expedite the review/grant process.

As you can probably imagine, results of these inquiries can dictate where and how quickly the patent application can be filed.  In the above example, if timing is urgent, a first filing in Country Y after obtaining a foreign filing license for Country X may be a workable strategy.  Conversely, if timing is not an issue, a first filing in Country X after obtaining a foreign filing license for Country Y may be the way to go.

Of course, it is advisable to contact the relevant patent office or an attorney licensed in a given jurisdiction in order to ascertain detailed information for a given jurisdiction.

In summary, inventor location, residency, and/or citizenship can have a significant impact on timing and/or jurisdiction for a given filing.  Therefore, foreign filing considerations should be handled as early as possible during the patent application preparation process.

Patent 300 Harrity Analytics

Law360 Covers the Release of Harrity’s Patent 300™ Report

Following the release of Harrity’s Patent 300™ Report, Law360 published an article, “IBM, Samsung, Canon Led 2018 Patent Gains, Report Says,” highlighting the key features and benefits of the patent rankings. The Patent 300™ Report lists companies, organizations and universities by the number of utility patents they received in 2018.

As the Law360 article describes, “The report, totaling more than 1,200 pages, takes a deep dive into each ranked company. For example, it breaks down that IBM has a revenue of nearly $80 billion and more than 360,000 employees. It then shows that the company received 9,111 utility patents in 2018.”

According to Rocky Berndsen, head of Harrity Patent Analytics, “The goal was really to provide something that’s going to be valuable across the spectrum of the IP community.” In-house attorneys can use the report to compare themselves against other companies, and law firms can leverage information in the report to develop business for their clients.

A spokesperson for Intel praised the report for recognizing innovation in the tech industry. “Every day, our engineers and other employees push the boundaries of computing and communication technologies, and we’re proud that the value of their inventions is recognized.”

Find the Law360 article HERE (subscription required) and more information on the Patent 300™ Report here.

Law360 Interviews Eli Mazour regarding latest Clause 8 Podcast

Following the release of Eli Mazour’s Clause 8 podcast interview with Makan Delrahim, Law360 published an article, “DOJ Antitrust Chief Wants To Take Thumb Off Patent Scales,” highlighting the impact of antitrust law on the patent field.

As the Law360 article describes, “Key to Delrahim’s ire is a 2013 guidance put out both by the DOJ and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that generally discouraged the use of injunctions and import bans sought by patent holders enforcing their technology.”

Find the Law360 article HERE (subscription required) and more information on the Clause 8 podcast here.

Kris Rhu Harrity Team

Using Data to Improve Patent Prosecution Performance

By Kris Rhu

How many office actions should I expect? Should I file an RCE or a Notice of Appeal? Is it worth filing a Pre-Appeal? These, among others, are common questions that practitioners may ask themselves during patent prosecution. In the past, they were mostly unanswerable questions. Now, using data analytics, we can get a better sense of how the patent prosecution process will go and be able to make an informed decision when a crossroad is reached.  Below, we will explore how to use statistics about a patent Examiner, which are based on public data provided by the USPTO, during patent prosecution.  I have provided example screenshots from Patentprufer, which was developed by Harrity & Harrity.

Examiner’s Allowance Rate

By looking at an Examiner’s allowance rate (i.e. allowance vs. abandonments), we can get a sense of the journey early on.  A high allowance rate is an indicator that the Examiner likely has no qualms about allowing applications, and that the Examiner likely will not stubbornly stick to poor rejections.  For these types of Examiners, if appropriate, it may be worth taking a more assertive initial position, including arguing that the rejections should be withdrawn or offering modest amendments.  If the Examiner’s allowance rate is low, you may want to consider substantial amendments, get the Examiner’s Supervisor involved early in the process, or anticipate the need to possibly file an appeal.

Office Actions per Patent, RCEs per Patent

A high office action (OA) per patent and/or RCE per patent rate may be an indication that reaching allowability will be challenging.  These types of Examiners likely are unafraid to combine three, four, or even five references to make prior art rejections.    To get a patent application allowed in a more efficient manner than an examiner’s statistics suggest, a more proactive posture may be needed from the beginning.

Examiner Interview Statistics

Generally speaking, it is beneficial to interview an Examiner as it gives a practitioner an opportunity to get a better sense of the Examiner’s interpretations of the application and the applied references, and an opportunity to explain the invention.  A high interview success rate (i.e. interviews that lead to an allowance in the next office action) may be an indicator that the Examiner uses interviews as opportunities for compact prosecution.  Some of these Examiners may even provide suggestions for amendments that would lead to allowance.  If the interview success rate is low for the Examiner, consider sending a substantive interview agenda with proposed amendments to maximize the chance of reaching an agreement with the Examiner.

A comparison of a patent Examiner’s final rejection allowance rate with and without AFCP may be an indicator of whether the Examiner takes the AFCP process seriously.  If there is a significant difference with those rates, the Examiner likely uses the allocated 2-3 hours to find a way to allow the application.  However, if the rates are similar, the Examiner likely uses pre-pilot procedures regardless of whether an AFCP is filed.

Pre-Appeal Statistics

Pre-Appeal statistics can be useful when deciding whether to file an Appeal Brief or a Pre-Appeal Brief.  A high rate of allowance and/or re-opening of prosecution when pre-appeals are filed may indicate that it is worth presenting arguments in a Pre-Appeal Brief.  However, a low rate of allowance and a low rate of re-opening of prosecution may indicate that it would be better to forego the pre-appeal process and go straight to appeal.

Appeal Statistics

Analyzing a patent Examiner’s appeal statistics may be useful in determining whether to file an appeal or an RCE.  If the Examiner’s rate of allowance and/or re-opening of prosecution after appeal is high, it may be worth appealing rather than filing an RCE and avoid narrowing claims unnecessarily.

If the Examiner’s board decision success rate is high, it may be an indication that the Examiner goes to the Board only when he/she believes that an examiner’s answer would be particularly strong.  If you receive a compelling examiner’s answer from these types of Examiners, consider filing an RCE rather than going to the Board.

Conclusion

Just like how data analytics has improved efficiency in other industries, using examiner analytics can improve the efficiency of patent practitioners and the patent prosecution process.

Patent 300 Harrity Analytics

Harrity Patent Analytics Releases Patent 300™ Report

HARRITY PATENT ANALYTICS RELEASES PATENT 300™ REPORT

Report ranks and analyzes top 300 companies, organizations, and universities in the patent field

WASHINGTON (May 6, 2019) – Harrity Patent Analytics today released the publication of its inaugural Patent 300™ Report, the intellectual property industry’s premier resource for patent insights and competitive intelligence on the world’s leaders in technology. The report ranks and analyzes the top 300 companies, organizations and universities in the patent field, and contains more than 1,200 pages of patent portfolio analyses, detailed patent prosecution insights, technology area breakdowns, and portfolio cost and budget analytics.

The Patent 300™ Report provides in-house counsel, law firm partners, and c-suite executives with a detailed analysis of the world’s technology leaders, ranging from technology giants such as IBM (ranked #1) and Samsung (ranked #2), to leading universities such as MIT (ranked #114) and Johns Hopkins University (ranked #254), to newcomers including Uber (ranked #300) and GoPro (ranked #300).  The list represents 54 percent of the more than 300,000 U.S. patents issued in 2018.

“The Patent 300™ Report provides a wealth of information about the technology leaders obtaining patents in the United States,” said John Harrity, managing partner for Harrity & Harrity, the parent law firm of Harrity Patent Analytics. “The data contained in this report is invaluable information to companies, in-house counsel and law firms because it identifies the key players and summarizes what is happening today in the patent world.”

Key findings and trends from the Patent 300™ Report include:

  • 68.5 percent of Patent 300™ patents were in the electrical, software, and computer-related technologies, with 19 percent in mechanical, 9.1 percent in chemical, and 3.4 percent in biological technologies.
  • 122 of the Patent 300™ obtained patents in the semiconductor/memory technology area, making it the largest technology area at 8.8 percent of the Patent 300™.
  • Four of the top five companies had a decrease in the number of patents obtained in 2018 as compared to 2017.

A ranking of the top 300 companies, organizations and universities can be found here.

The full report is available to media upon request.

About Harrity Patent Analytics

Harrity Patent Analytics, an analytical team within the boutique IP law firm of Harrity & Harrity, LLP, uses cutting-edge capabilities to analyze patent data and extract insights for clients to use when making strategic decisions regarding patent portfolios. Patent 300™ companies rely on Harrity Patent Analytics services to understand their patent portfolios, the patent portfolios of their competitors, and patent office trends around the world. For more information, visit harrityllp.com/services/patent-analytics/.

 

Eli Mazour Harrity Team

Why the Revised 101 Guidance Continues to be Important After Cleveland Clinic

By Eli Mazour

After the 2014 Supreme Court Alice decision, the judges of the Federal Circuit failed to reach a meaningful consensus regarding how the subject matter eligibility test set out in Alice should be applied.  As a result, new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu recognized that there was no practical way for examiners to navigate all of the patent eligibility decisions for each individual patent application.  To address this problem, the USPTO released the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.”

In the recent Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics decision, a panel of the Federal Circuit invalidated claims related to cardiovascular testing under § 101 and stated that “[w]hile we greatly respect the PTO’s expertise on all matters relating to patentability, including patent eligibility, we are not bound by its guidance” (Fed. Cir. 2019).  The decision caused consternation among some practitioners regarding the value of relying on USPTO guidance.

Director Iancu’s comments regarding Cleveland Clinic

This past Thursday, at the ABA’s annual IP conference, Iancu addressed those concerns.  First, he pointed out that Cleveland Clinic did not even mention the 2019 revised guidance.  Instead, Cleveland Clinic discussed Example 29 from guidance that was published by the PTO on May 4, 2016, which is almost two years before Iancu became the director.  Second, Iancu noted that Cleveland Clinic just stated that to the extent that Example 29 contradicts a court decision, the court decision controls.  In other words, Cleveland Clinic pointed out facts that were clear before the 2019 revised guidance was even released: 1) courts are not bound by guidance released by the USPTO and 2) incorrect guidance released by the USPTO would not override previous court decisions.  Cleveland Clinic did not in any way directly undermine the 2019 revised guidance.

Moreover, Iancu indicated a change in approach by the USPTO: instead of reacting to each new Federal Circuit decision that deals with § 101, the USPTO is now taking a look at the § 101 issue holistically.  And, Iancu argued that the Federal Circuit should address the § 101 problem through en banc decisions by the full Federal Circuit.  In totality, this suggests that a single Federal Circuit decision by a panel of three judges is unlikely to significantly change the USPTO’s approach set out by the 2019 revised guidance.

Practical tips for drafting & prosecution

As it stands now, USPTO examiners and PTAB judges are expected to apply the 2019 revised guidance for § 101 analysis.  In fact, ex parte appeal decisions that deal with § 101 are currently being reviewed at the PTAB to make sure that the 2019 revised guidance is being applied by PTAB judges.  Therefore, in order to ensure efficient prosecution and positive appeal results, practitioners should primarily rely on the 2019 revised guidance to overcome § 101 rejections.

However, when drafting new patent applications, practitioners should plan for the possibility of the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court, or even possibly Congress taking a narrower view of patent eligibility.  Therefore, to the extent possible, patent applications should be drafted with all of the relevant court decisions in mind.  The goal should be for an eventual patent to be able to withstand – or even better yet avoid – the most stringent § 101 scrutiny during litigation.

Harrity & Harrity Hosts Second Annual Women’s Workshop

WASHINGTON (April 9, 2019) – Harrity & Harrity, LLP will host its 2nd Annual Women’s Workshop, a professional development program designed to introduce more female law students and recent graduates to the practice of patent law.

The three-day program will take place May 20-22, 2019 and is open to science and engineering students, law school students, and recent graduates.

Topics covered during the program will include:

  • Prominent Guest Speakers (as outlined below)
  • Patent Law Introductory Training
  • Patent Preparation and Patent Prosecution Skills Training
  • Resume and Interview Preparation Workshops
  • Law School Career Mentoring
  • Attorney Career Mentoring
  • Patent Bar Preparation

“We are proud to offer this program to women interested in patent law,” said Harrity & Harrity Counsel Elaine Spector. “The event last year was so successful, thanks in large part to our amazing female speakers and mentors, that we knew we needed to offer it again. Hopefully initiatives like this will encourage more women to seek out intellectual property law as their area of practice.”

Those interested in participating in the program are invited to submit an application by April 30, 2019. Applications can be found here and should be supplemented with a personal statement expressing interest in pursuing a career in the patent field and a resume.

Guest Speakers:

Barbara A. Fisher is Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property and Technology Law for Lockheed Martin Corporation in Manassas, Virginia. Prior to joining Lockheed Martin, Fisher was Senior Intellectual Property Counsel at an international oil and gas corporation in Houston, Texas. Prior to her in-house experience, Fisher was a Partner in a mid-sized Virginia law firm where she was Manager of Client Development and chaired the Best Practices Committee.

Courtney Holohan is Accenture’s Chief Intellectual Property Counsel. Prior to beginning at Accenture in January 2012, Holohan litigated all types of high stakes intellectual property cases at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, where she was a partner.

Sophia M. Piliouras is President of MCCA’s Advisory Practice (“MAP”) at the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) and partners closely with MCCA’s members in increasing the impact, effectiveness and sustainability of their organization’s D&I initiatives. Prior to joining MCCA, she was Vice President, Assistant General Counsel at JP Morgan Chase.

Cynthia Raposo has more than 30 years of legal experience working both as in-house and outside counsel. Her most recent position was Senior Vice President, Legal of Under Armour, Inc., in Baltimore, Maryland, where she built and lead the legal team from 2006 until her retirement in 2015.

Terry Rea is a partner and vice-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Intellectual Property Group and a director with C&M International (CMI), the international trade and investment consulting firm affiliated with Crowell & Moring. Rea is the former acting and deputy director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as well as acting and deputy under secretary of commerce for intellectual property.

Ellen Smith started her legal career with Sughrue in 1997, and she provides extensive patent counseling for clients ranging from large multi-national corporations to small business ventures. Her counseling includes freedom-to-operate, infringement, and validity opinions. Ms. Smith’s dedicated experience in the patent space for over 15 years has provided her clients with respected strategic advice for developing and protecting their intellectual property portfolios, including developing strategies for establishing, protecting, preserving and enforcing those patent rights in the U.S. and abroad.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is the nation’s leading patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com/.

  • John Harrity Great Day Washington
  • John Harrity National Walking Day
  • Harrity 4 Charity National Walking Day

John Harrity appears on WUSA 9 “Great Day Washington” for National Walking Day

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019, Harrity & Harrity’s Managing Partner, John Harrity, joined the American Heart Association (AHA) of the Greater Washington Region for an appearance on WUSA 9 to talk about the importance of heart healthy activity in celebration of National Walking Day.  As a survivor of a recent “widow maker” heart attack in 2016, John’s personal story helps underscore the importance of including heart healthy activity in our every day lives, which is why the AHA Greater Washington Region invited him to join them for the National Walking Day event at Springfield Town Center and share his story.

We chose to include the AHA in our Harrity4Charity philanthropic initiative because of the impact that heart disease has on families across the globe. The AHA is the oldest and largest organization dedicated to fighting heart disease in the United States. Since 1924, the AHA has worked to educate policy makers, health care professionals, and the public to one day put an end to heart disease.

This year, we are proud to participate as the Presenting Sponsor of Lawyers Have Heart, a 5K run, 10K race, and fun walk that benefits the AHA. Now in its 28th year, Lawyers Have Heart has raised over $13 million for AHA and each year is one of the largest 10K races in the Washington, D.C. area. We’ll be running at the Washington Harbour on Saturday, June 8th, alongside John Harrity and hope you can join us and/or make a donation so we can meet our $40,000 fundraising goal for 2019.

 

Robin O Harrity Associate

Patent Lawyer Robin O Joins Harrity & Harrity

CHICAGO (March 27, 2019) – Harrity & Harrity, LLP is pleased to welcome Robin O to the firm as an associate. O is a patent lawyer who focuses on electrical and computer technologies, including telecommunications, computer hardware and software, telematics, data analytics, networking devices, medical devices, and business methods.

“Robin has the unique experience of having worked both in law firms and in-house,” said Harrity & Harrity Managing Partner John Harrity. “Having been involved in software and business method related inventions for much of his career, I am certain that our clients will benefit from Robin’s experience.”

Prior to joining Harrity & Harrity, O practiced in-house at Allstate Insurance Company. He started his legal career as a patent agent at Miller, Matthias & Hull. He earned his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and his J.D. from the Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is the nation’s leading patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com/.

https://soundcloud.com/clause-8/episode-10-makan-delrahim

Makan Delrahim – Clause 8 – Episode 10

DOJ’s Antitrust Chief, Makan Delrahim, shares insight and tips for companies on FTC divide and more in Latest Clause 8 Podcast from Eli Mazour.

The podcast was originally published by Corporate Counsel here.

Following this podcast, Law360 published an article explaining the debate between DoJ and USPTO regarding the DoJ’s correction on the Standard Essential Patent (SEP) policy. For more information, read the article here (subscription required).

  • Sandy Maxey Zero Cancer Summit 2019
  • Sandra Maxey at Zero Cancer Summit

Harrity 4 Charity Supports the ZERO Prostate Cancer Summit

Harrity & Harrity Controller Sandra Maxey attended the ZERO Prostate Cancer Summit, which was held February 24-26. ZERO, an organization focused on securing federal funding for prostate cancer research, hosted the three-day event for attendees to meet with survivors, patients, caregivers and family members who are committed to fighting prostate cancer.

By advocating for federal funding, ZERO hopes to help the hundreds of men and families impacted by this disease. Now more than ever, it is critical to preserve and advance cancer research, patient care and access to affordable health care.

The stories from survivors at ZERO made an impact. “Hearing from people who have fought and won the battle against this disease inspires us to keep pushing forward by raising awareness, speaking out, and finding a cure,” said Ms. Maxey. “We need to keep pressure on Capitol Hill to provide the much-needed funding and policies that will eliminate prostate cancer.”

For more information on the ZERO Prostate Cancer Summit, please visit their website here.

To learn more about Harrity 4 Charity, please visit our page here.

Harrity Diversity Hands

Harrity & Harrity Releases 2018/2019 Annual Diversity Report

WASHINGTON (February 27, 2019) – Harrity & Harrity, LLP is pleased to announce the publication of its annual diversity report. The 2018/2019 report highlights the firm’s successes in the past year with regards to diversity in the patent law field.

“2018 was a banner year for hiring at our firm,” said John Harrity, the managing partner at Harrity and head of the diversity committee. “Our diversity committee oversaw the hiring and training of our third annual diversity fellow, So Ra Ko, who I am pleased to announce will be joining our firm full time after she finishes law school this coming Spring. To supplement our efforts at recruiting the next generation of diverse attorneys, we have implemented what we like to call, ‘The Rooney Rule 2.0,’ a hiring policy where we are committed to interviewing a female or minority candidate for every male, non-minority candidate we interview for any position at our firm.”

Harrity’s commitment to diversity is evidenced by their one-of-a-kind “Rooney Rule 2.0”, and the upcoming Harrity Minority Firm Incubator.  For more information about Harrity’s diversity commitment, visit harrityllp.com/diversity

The 2018/2019 report is available here https://harrityllp.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2018-2019-Harrity-Annual-Diversity-Report.pdf.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is the nation’s leading patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas, and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™.  Their clients trust in their high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com/.

Download full press release HERE.

Harrity Patent Analytics Releases 2018 Top Patent Firms List

WASHINGTON (February 21, 2019) – Harrity Patent Analytics is pleased to announce the publication of its annual list of top patent law firms. The 2018 edition of “Top Patent Firms” ranks the top patent law firms based on the total number of U.S. utility patents issued in 2018.

“In 2018, more than 300,000 patents were obtained by over 2,000 different law firms,” said Paul Harrity, a partner at Harrity & Harrity, the parent law firm of Harrity Patent Analytics. “Our goal is to raise awareness of the top law firms handling patent work in the U.S., and recognize the professionals that play a vital role in protecting intellectual property.”

Top Patent Firms only names patent firms that have obtained at least 50 utility patents where the patent firms are listed on the front of the utility patents. Company legal departments are not eliminated during data analysis.

The 2018 list is comprised of 722 total law firms. The full list is available here  https://harrityllp.com/services/patent-analytics/top-patent-firms-2018/.

About Harrity Patent Analytics

Harrity Patent Analytics, an analytical team within the boutique IP law firm of Harrity & Harrity, LLP, uses cutting-edge capabilities to analyze patent data and extract insights for clients to use when making strategic decisions regarding patent portfolios. Patent 300™ companies rely on Harrity Patent Analytics services to understand their patent portfolios, the patent portfolios of their competitors, and patent office trends around the world. For more information, visit harrityllp.com/services/patent-analytics/.

Download full press release HERE.

https://soundcloud.com/clause-8/episode-8-aaron-cooper

Aaron Cooper – Clause 8 – Episode 8

Check out the new Clause 8 interview about the passage of the American Invents Act (AIA) and how to effectively influence IP policy. Eli Mazour talks to Aaron Cooper, who served as Chief IP Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee and is now head of global policy at BSA | The Software Alliance.

Full Clause 8 interview available here https://www.clause8.tv/ or via your favorite podcast app.

Harrity Blog

In-depth Summary of USPTO Revised Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility

By Tim Hirzel

The PTO released their highly anticipated revised guidance on subject matter eligibility that take effect on January 7, 2019.[1]  Below, we discuss the changes to the subject matter eligibility analysis made by the revised guidance and how Applicants may address these changes in practice.

Summary of Revised Guidance

The revised guidance maintains the two step Alice/Mayo Test but revises the procedure for determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) under Step 2A.  Previously, the PTO guidelines (wrongly) equated a claim merely “reciting” an abstract idea with a claim being “directed to” the abstract idea under Step 2A.  The PTO has replaced this approach with a new two prong analysis.

In the first prong of Step 2A, Examiners evaluate whether a claim recites an abstract idea.  The first prong is similar to the previous approach with one important change.  Previously, Examiners were to describe the subject matter claimed and identify whether the subject matter had previously been found to be directed to an abstract idea by the courts.  The PTO found this approach impractical due to the ever-increasing number of court decisions and rightly noted that it has been difficult for Examiners to apply this approach in a predictable manner, especially between different technology centers.

Instead of this case law specific approach, the PTO newly identified three groups of abstract ideas: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.  Examiners must now a) identify specific limitations in the claims believed to be an abstract idea, and b) determine whether the identified limitations fall within any of the three newly identified groups.  If the identified limitations fall within the three groups of abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to the second prong of Step 2A.

In the second prong of Step 2A, Examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.  The million-dollar question then becomes what is a practical application?  The PTO broadly answers this question by stating “[a] claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.”  The PTO also gives several examples based on case law that indicate an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated an exception into a practical application, such as: improving the functioning of a computer or a technical field, effecting a treatment for a medical condition, using the judicial exception with a particular machine, or transforming or reducing a particular article to a different state or thing.

The PTO acknowledges that these examples and the second prong of step 2A overlap considerations that the courts and the PTO’s guidance consider under Step 2B but feels that this new approach will increase certainty and reliability.  For clarity, the PTO reiterated that merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the abstract idea to a technical field will still not be enough to establish a practical application and patent eligibility.  If the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, then the claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.

Step 2B has not been changed under the revised guidance and Examiners are still to evaluate whether the claims provide an inventive concept by reciting significantly more than the abstract idea.  However, the incorporation of several Step 2B considerations into the second prong of Step 2A limits how much additional analysis the Examiner needs to apply in Step 2B.  Importantly, whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is not evaluated under the second prong of Step 2A and is unrelated to whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.  This evaluation is still done in Step 2B pursuant to the Berkheimer memo[2] to determine whether the additional element or combination of elements adds limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.

Our Impressions

The new two prong approach to Step 2A should make it easier to work with Examiners, especially during interviews, to overcome 101 rejections.  Under the prior guidance, Examiners would often dismiss any Step 2A arguments because their guidelines simply said a claim was directed to an abstract idea if any part of the claim recited an abstract idea.  This made it very easy for Examiners to establish the claims were directed to an abstract idea without much analysis.  The revised guidelines will make it much more difficult for the Examiner to simply dismiss an Applicant’s Step 2A arguments.

Equally as frustrating was Examiners misapplying case law when attempting to identify a decision that found subject matter, similar to the claims, to be directed to an abstract idea.  Applicants should be able to avoid the necessity of debating case law cited by Examiners (which was rarely an effective manner of overcoming a 101 rejection anyway) because the Examiners are not required to cite specific decisions in their rejections anymore and merely must identify one of the three newly defined groups of abstract ideas.

Instead, Applicants can now focus on the newly articulated “practical application” consideration in the second prong of Step 2A.  While the examples of practical applications given in the revised guidelines are nothing new and come straight from case law Applicants should have already been using to overcome 101 rejections, the examples were not always given much weight by the Examiners or simply dismissed nominally in Step 2B.  The revised guidelines’ focus on the “practical application” consideration and the given examples may make it easier to use these examples to effectively overcome the 101 rejections (without necessarily having to argue the case law behind the examples).

Moreover, the PTO broadly describing the case law as establishing a “practical application” consideration gives Applicants more leeway than relying on specific court decisions as done in the past.  For example, it may be easier to convince an Examiner on a technical level that claims “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception” in a meaningful manner than to convince the Examiner that claims are similar to subject matter previously held by the courts to be directed to statutory subject matter.  However, Applicants must be mindful that the goal is not simply to get patent applications allowed by satisfying the PTO’s revised guidelines, but to have claims that are statutory as supported by case law and that can withstand the 101 analysis performed by the courts.

Any noticeable change in examination will depend heavily on how Examiners are trained to implement the new guidance.  Accordingly, it may be months before we fully realize how significant the changes will be to 101 rejections in practice.

[1] 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

[2] Revising 101 Eligibility Procedure in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.

For a shorter summary of the above, visit here.

Tim Hirzel Harrity Team

Summary of USPTO Revised Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility

By Tim Hirzel

The PTO released their highly anticipated revised guidance on subject matter eligibility that take effect on January 7, 2019.  A summary of the guidance is provided below.  A more in-depth discussion can be found on our website HERE.

Summary of Revised Guidance

The revised guidance maintains the two step Alice/Mayo Test but revises the procedure for determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) under Step 2A by instituting a two-prong analysis.

  1. First prong of Step 2A – Examiners evaluate whether a claim recites an abstract idea.  Instead of a case law specific approach as previously performed, the PTO newly identified three groups of abstract ideas: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.  If any recited claim limitations fall within the three groups of abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to the second prong of Step 2A.
  2. Second prong of Step 2A – Examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. A practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.  The PTO gives examples based on case law that indicate practical applications, such as: improving the functioning of a computer or a technical field, effecting a treatment for a medical condition, using the judicial exception with a particular machine, or transforming or reducing a particular article to a different state or thing.  If the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, then the claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.

Step 2B has not changed under the revised guidance and is still performed pursuant to the Berkheimer memo.

Our Impressions

  1. Under the prior guidance, Examiners would often dismiss any Step 2A arguments because their guidelines simply said a claim was directed to an abstract idea if any part of the claim recited an abstract idea.  The two-prong approach will make it much more difficult for Examiners to simply dismiss an Applicant’s Step 2A arguments.
  2. Applicants should now be able to avoid the necessity of debating case law with Examiners because the Examiners are not required to cite specific decisions in their rejections and only have to identify one of the three newly defined groups of abstract ideas. Instead, Applicants can now focus on the newly articulated “practical application” consideration in the second prong of Step 2A.
  3. While the examples of practical applications given in the revised guidelines are nothing new, the revised guidelines’ focus on the “practical application” consideration may make it easier to use these examples to effectively overcome the 101 rejections (without necessarily having to argue the case law behind the examples).
  4. The PTO broadly describing the case law as establishing a “practical application” consideration gives Applicants more leeway than relying on specific court decisions as done in the past.  For example, it may be easier to convince an Examiner on a technical level that claims “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception” in a meaningful manner than to convince the Examiner that claims are similar to subject matter previously held by the courts to be directed to statutory subject matter.
  5. Any noticeable change in examination will depend heavily on how Examiners are trained to implement the new guidance.  Accordingly, it may be months before we fully realize how significant the changes will be to 101 rejections in practice.