AI Titans: Who’s Dominating the Patent Universe

By Ayana Marshall, Patent Data Analyst

In the rapidly advancing field of technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a notable area of focus.  This field, where machines are designed to simulate human intelligence, is a center of both innovation and patent competition.  Key players in this arena are major companies that are not only involved in developing AI but also in securing their developments through patents.  These leading companies are actively engaging in AI research and development, and through their patent filings, they are protecting their innovations.  This activity plays a significant role in the ongoing evolution of AI technology and its integration into various industries. 

Global Players: Patent Powerhouses Shaping the Future 

The Top Companies bar chart above illustrates the total patents and total pending applications in AI held by various global corporations.  The following are some highlights: 

  • Leading Patent Holder: Alphabet Inc. holds the highest number of total patents, indicating significant investment in AI. 
  • IBM & Baidu Presence: International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) and Baidu, Inc. follow closely in patent counts, highlighting their roles as major players in AI development. 
  • Samsung’s Pending Applications: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has a notably higher number of pending applications than granted patents. 
  • Varied Company Involvement: Microsoft Corporation, Tencent Holdings Ltd, Toyota Motor Corporation, and Amazon.com, Inc. are also key contenders with substantial patent portfolios. 
  • Ping An Insurance’s AI Focus: Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. is recognized for its considerable AI patent portfolio. 
  • Manufacturing Companies + AI: Robert Bosch GmbH and Siemens AG, known for manufacturing, have significant AI patent activities, underlining AI’s cross-sector impact. 
  • Technology & Automotive Dominance: The chart emphasizes the strong involvement of technology and automotive companies in AI patent holdings. 

Tracing the Trajectory of AI Patent Publications 

Expanding on the context of patent holdings, the line graph above spans from 2014 to 2023.  The following are the highlights: 

  • Upward Trend:  The Publication Trend shows a fluctuating but overall increasing trend in AI patent publications from 2014 to 2023. 
  • Growth in Publications:  There’s a 7.6% annual increase in AI patent publications in the three years up to 2023. 
  • 2019 as a Milestone Year:  The year 2019 is highlighted as a significant year, marking the start of a noticeable rise in the number of AI patent publications. 

This overview introduces the major industry players and the publication trajectory in AI innovation, offering insights for understanding AI development and patenting.  This data is sourced from the Harrity Analytics Patent Pulse™ Report on Artificial Intelligence. 

For more information about the Patent Pulse™ Report visit our website HERE, download a complimentary Patent Pulse Report HERE, or contact Harrity Analytics HERE.

102 Blocking Patents as an Indication of High-Quality AI Patent Portfolios

By Ayana Marshall, Patent Data Analyst

The hottest area for patenting globally is in Artificial Intelligence (AI) innovation, and one indicator of the quality of patent portfolios in the AI space is the number of 102 blocking patents.  102 blocking patents are patents cited by an examiner as a 102 reference in an office action at the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office).  These Gate Keepers are building high quality patent portfolios that protect their innovation and keep other competitors from patenting similar inventions in AI. 

The table above shows a list of major technology companies, referred to here as “Gate Keepers,” that have obtained the most blocking patents related to Artificial Intelligence (AI).  The following are the highlights from this table: 

  • Alphabet Inc. holds the highest number of blocking patents, totaling 1,145. 
  • Microsoft Corporation follows with 1,068 blocking patents. 
  • Amazon.com, Inc. has 671 blocking patents. 
  • The list includes a mix of technology, automotive, and industrial companies. 
  • Notable entries include Samsung Electronics with 663 patents and IBM with 670 patents. 
  • Companies such as Meta Platforms, Inc. and Ford Motor Company also feature on the list with 200 and 190 patents, respectively. 

Now that we know which companies have the most blocking patents, we can now look at who is being hindered the most by 102 blocking patents.  The table below shows the list of major technology companies, referred to here as the “Hindered,” that have had the most AI patents cited against them in a 102 rejection. 

The following are the highlights from this list of companies: 

  • IBM at the Forefront: International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) leads with 994 patents impacted by 102 blockages. 
  • Samsung & Microsoft Affected: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Microsoft Corporation also faced significant numbers of blocked patents, with 677 and 618, respectively. 
  • Notable Tech Giants: Alphabet Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation are among other technology giants, with 508 and 462 blocked AI patents, hinting at the competitive landscape they navigate. 
  • Intellectual Property Challenges: Companies like Intel Corporation and Baidu, Inc. also experienced several patent blockages. 
  • Broad Industry Impact: The list includes a diverse range of companies from different industries, showing that patent blockages in AI are a common challenge across the technology sector. 

This data highlights that the AI technology landscape includes companies that, while pushing the boundaries of AI, encounter significant hurdles in the form of 102 blocked patents.  The challenges faced by these companies underscore the importance of strategic patent management and the potential for collaboration or negotiation in advancing the field of AI.  Despite these obstacles, the continued efforts and resilience of these companies fuel the progress and expansion of AI technologies globally. 

This data is sourced from the Harrity Analytics Patent Pulse™ Report on Artificial Intelligence. For more information about the Patent Pulse™ Report visit our website HERE, download a complimentary Patent Pulse Report HERE, or contact Harrity Analytics HERE.

Trends and Implications of Decreasing Average Office Actions Per Patent at the USPTO

By Rocky Berndsen, Head of Analytics

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been observing a notable trend over the past six years that could have significant implications for patent applicants and the patenting process at large. Data from 2018 through 2023 shows that the average number of office actions per patent—a metric that indicates the average number of communications between the patent examiner and the applicant before a patent is either granted or the application is abandoned—has been consistently decreasing across various technology centers (TCs).

Analyzing the Numbers

In 2018, the USPTO’s overall average stood at 1.631 office actions per patent. As of 2023, this number has dipped to 1.371, marking a significant reduction. This decrease is not isolated to a specific sector but is across the board, including high-volume TCs such as 2100 (covering Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), which saw a drop from 2.088 to 1.580, and 3700 (covering Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products), which went from 1.901 to 1.551.

Shorter Time to Obtain Patents

A primary implication of this trend is a likely acceleration in the patent granting process. With fewer office actions required, the back-and-forth between the USPTO and patent applicants is reduced, potentially leading to a more streamlined examination process. For inventors and companies, this means a faster path to securing patent rights, which can be crucial for maintaining competitive edges in fast-moving industries.

Lower Costs for Applicants

Each office action typically incurs additional costs for applicants, including attorney fees and potential amendment requirements. A reduction in the average number of office actions can thus translate into lower overall costs for obtaining a patent. This could be particularly beneficial for individual inventors and small businesses for whom cost is a major barrier to securing patent protection.

Implications for Patent Quality

However, while fewer office actions suggest a more efficient process, there could be concerns about the thoroughness of patent examinations and the potential impact on patent quality. The USPTO must balance the efficiency of the examination process with the need to maintain high standards for patentability, ensuring that only novel, non-obvious, and useful inventions are granted patent rights.

Impact on Patent Litigation

A decrease in office actions might also influence patent litigation. Patents that undergo fewer office actions could be perceived as less scrutinized, potentially affecting their defensibility in court. Conversely, this trend might result in patents that are more solid due to a more focused examination process, leading to less ambiguity and fewer grounds for litigation.

Enhanced Predictability for Planning

For businesses and investors, a predictable patent examination timeline facilitates better strategic planning and resource allocation. If the trend of decreasing office actions continues, it may enable more precise forecasting of patent portfolios and related business activities.

In conclusion, the downward trend in the average number of office actions per patent at the USPTO is a positive signal for applicants looking for a quicker and less costly patenting process. However, it’s imperative that this efficiency does not compromise the quality of granted patents—a balance the USPTO is undoubtedly striving to achieve. As we watch this trend continue, the patent ecosystem may need to adapt to the evolving dynamics of patent prosecution and enforcement.

Get in Touch for Insights on USPTO Data

If the information above has sparked your curiosity or if you have specific queries about USPTO data and trends, we invite you to reach out. Understanding the intricacies of patent data can provide valuable insights for your patent strategy and decision-making process. By filling out our contact form, you’ll connect with experts who can delve deeper into the data, provide personalized analysis, and help you gain insight from USPTO data.

Harrity Analytics - Contact Us
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Step 1 of 2
Name

Inside the European Patent Revolution: An Analysis of Emerging Unitary Patent Data

Inside the European Patent Revolution: An Analysis of Emerging Unitary Patent Data

By Ayana Marshall, Patent Data Analyst

Brief Introduction to the Unitary Patent System

Launched on June 1, 2023, the Unitary Patent System, managed by the European Patent Office (EPO), simplifies patent protection across participating European Union (EU) member states.  Replacing the need for separate validations in each state, it allows a single application and fee for protection in all participating countries.  Based on the European Patent Convention (EPC), the system enables patent holders to seek uniform protection post-grant in 17 initial EU member states.  The Unitary Patent is described as a “European patent with unitary effect”.  The system includes the Unified Patent Court (UPC), comprising judges from participating states, adjudicating on Unitary and European patent infringements and validity.  This system signifies a streamlined approach for patent protection in the EU.1-5

Trends in Unitary Patent Registrations

The European Patent Office (EPO) has compiled and shared data from the launch of the Unitary Patent System up to January 15, 2024.  This includes various statistics and insights into how the system has been utilized.  The following discussion will delve into the key elements and findings from this data set.

Requests for Unitary Effect

The data above reveals that the Unitary Patent System received 18,273 requests for unitary effect, with 17,733 successfully registered as patents.  Additionally, the uptake rate for the system in 2024 stands at 17.3%.  This statistic represents the proportion of total requests that resulted in registered patents within the specified timeframe.6

The chart above tracks unitary patent request trends from December 2022 to December 2023.  Monthly request volumes, shown via bars, are aligned with the left vertical axis.  The right axis and line graph represent the cumulative total of requests.

From December 2022 to June 2023, the chart shows a rise in monthly requests for unitary patents, starting below 1,000 and reaching around 2,000 by May with a peak of almost 3,000 in June 2023.  July 2023 through September 2023 saw a decline in requests for unitary effect followed by a slight increase of just over 2,000 in October 2023.  There was a subsequent decline to approximately 4,000 by December 2023.  This illustrates the evolving interest and engagement with the Unitary Patent system over the year.  The cumulative line shows a consistent and steady upward trajectory throughout the year, reflecting the addition of each month’s new requests to the total count.  Starting at almost zero in December 2022, the cumulative count surpasses 20,000 by December 2023.  This upward trend suggests growing interest in and engagement with the Unitary Patent system over the year.

Top 25 Companies (Proprietors)

The chart above displays the number of unitary patent requests filed by the top 25 companies.  The bars are color-coded to represent different regions: EPO states, the US, Japan, China, Korea, and Others.  Johnson & Johnson holds the top position in terms of requests with the highest tally, followed by Siemens AG trailing by a narrow margin.  Both corporations submitted requests in the mid-two-hundreds.  Similarly, Qualcomm, Inc.  and Samsung Group exhibit parallel levels of requests, showcasing comparable engagement in the unitary patent application process.  The chart demonstrates a diversity of companies across different regions, with several companies from EPO states and the US occupying the top spots, while companies from Japan, China, and Korea also feature prominently, although with fewer requests.

Origin of Proprietors

The map above illustrates the geographic distribution of patent proprietors, with Europe and North America exhibiting higher volumes of requests.  Europe is particularly prominent, with requests ranging between 3,000 to 4,000, while the United States shows a lower range of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 requests.

WIPO’s Technology Fields (IPC)

Medical technology and electrical machinery are the most represented technology fields, suggesting robust activity and interest in these areas.  The technology fields are classified by the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, detailing the distribution of unitary patent requests across various sectors.  The size of each block in the image corresponds to the number of requests in that technology field, with larger blocks indicating more requests.  The technology fields include Medical technology, Computer technology, Pharmaceuticals, Civil engineering, Transport, Measurement, ‘Machine tools, Handling, and Other special machines.

Each technology field in the image above is quantified with a count and percentage, indicating its share of unitary patent requests.  Medical technology leads with 2,135 requests, accounting for 11.7% of the total.  Civil engineering, Transport, and Other special machines,  also feature significantly with 1080 (5.9%), 1,000 (5.5%), and 971 (5.3%) requests respectively.  Other fields like Computer Technology and Handling show smaller proportions, with 792 (4.3%) and 756 (4.1%) requests.  The distribution of requests across these fields suggests a varied interest in unitary patent protection across different technology sectors.

Status of Registration

The status of registration represents the proportions of unitary patent applications in each stage of the registration process.  The chart above quantifies and categorizes unitary patents according to their registration status of registered, pending, and rejection.  Dominating the chart is the registered category with 17,733 cases, accounting for 97.0% of the total, while pending applications comprise 2.8% with 509 cases followed by the 23 (0.1%) cases that were withdrawn.  The rejected category, representing the smallest segment, includes only 8 cases, making up a 0.04% of the total.  This chart highlights the number of successful registrations in the unitary patent system.

Translation and Procedural Languages

Data on translation and procedural languages used reveals that English is commonly used for both, with German and French also being used.  English is used in 73.3% of procedural languages, a significant lead over German and French.  Spanish is the mostly commonly used translation language outpacing English by a narrow margin.

In summary, the consolidated data provides insight into the unitary patent system as it currently stands.  It appears to indicate active participation across various technological sectors, a high rate of patent registrations, and a wide geographic distribution of proprietors.  The diverse origins of the applicants appear to highlight the system’s potential global appeal, and the significant majority of finalized registrations appear to suggest its efficiency.  These details offer an understanding of how the system is being used, positioning it as a potentially key mechanism for safeguarding modern innovations.  The detailed breakdown of request origins, technology fields, and registration statuses offers stakeholders an understanding of the system’s current scope and functionality.

For those interested in accessing customized analytics, contact Harrity Analytics today!

Stay tuned for more insights and analyses from Harrity Analytics, as we continue to explore the ever-evolving world of patents and innovation.

  1. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent
  2. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guide-up/2022/uppg_a_v.html#:~:text=32The%20primary%20aim%20of,obtaining%2C%20maintaining%20and%20managing%20them.
  3. https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en
  4. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guide-up/2022/uppg_a_iii_1.html
  5. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary
  6. https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/statistics-centre#/unitary-patent
  7. All images were obtained from https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/statistics-centre#/unitary-patent

 

 

Analyzing Technology Trends from the 2024 Patent 300® List

Harrity Analytics is proud to announce the release of the 2024 Patent 300® List, an exclusive ranking of the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining US utility patents. This year’s list offers a comprehensive view of the intellectual property landscape and highlights the innovative strides made by leading technology firms.

The Top 15 Innovators of 2023 have showcased their commitment to innovation, collectively accounting for 16% of the 312,563 total utility patents issued. Despite a 3% drop from the previous year, these organizations have continued to push the boundaries of technology and innovation. Take a look at the top technology areas obtaining patents over the last 12 months.

Electronics and Semiconductors: The Front Runners
Samsung leads the pack with a staggering 9,036 patents, doubling the amount secured by the second-place LG. This indicates a strong focus on advancing consumer electronics, mobile communication technologies, and the underlying semiconductor technology. The emphasis on semiconductors is further highlighted by the presence of TSMC and Qualcomm in the top ranks, underlining the critical importance of these components in a multitude of devices.

Cloud, Software, and AI: The Digital Backbone
IBM, ranking third, along with Alphabet and Apple, emphasize the growing significance of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and software innovation. These patents reflect not only their prowess in hardware but also their forward-thinking in the realms of software and services.

Optics, Imaging, and Automotive: Enhancing Vision and Mobility
Canon’s strong showing indicates a continued excellence in optics and imaging, a field that’s increasingly intersecting with automotive technologies, as seen with the presence of companies like Alphabet and Huawei. Such innovations are crucial for advancements in autonomous vehicles and connected mobility solutions.

Aerospace and Defense: Protecting and Exploring New Frontiers
Raytheon Technologies, known for its expertise in aerospace and defense, has maintained its position, signaling ongoing advancements in technologies critical for national security and exploration.

The Global Technology Landscape
The geographical diversity among the top 15 innovators, with companies from the United States, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, underscores the global nature of technological advancement and the interplay of different markets in driving innovation.

The 2024 Patent 300® List by Harrity Analytics not only celebrates the achievements of these innovators but also provides insights into the technology trends shaping our future. We invite industry professionals, analysts, and technology enthusiasts to delve deeper into our findings to understand the direction of innovation and its implications for the global market.

For a detailed exploration of the Patent 300® List and to gain more insights into these trends, visit our interactive Patent 300® Dashboard here.

For those interested in accessing customized analytics, contact Harrity Analytics today!

Stay tuned for more insights and analyses from Harrity Analytics, as we continue to explore the ever-evolving world of patents and innovation.

 

Harrity Analytics Presents: 2023 U.S. Patent Office Superlatives

In the dynamic world of patents, it can be difficult to stay informed about the latest trends and statistics. Harrity Analytics has compiled a fascinating series of USPTO Superlatives for 2023, highlighting key players based off of statistics from the United States Patent Office. Let’s dive into these insightful findings:

1. US City with Most Inventors on Granted US Patents (2023):
-San Diego, CA stands out this year with the most inventors! Inventors from this vibrant city have been listed on 18,429 patents granted in 2023. This is an impressive figure, showcasing the city’s thriving innovation ecosystem.
– Historical Leader (Since 1999): San Jose, CA holds the long-term crown. With its deep-rooted connection to Silicon Valley, inventors from San Jose have been listed on US granted patents a staggering 206,363 times since 1999.

2. World City with Most Inventors on Granted US Patents (2023): – Tokyo takes the global lead! This year, inventors from Tokyo have been listed on 25,317 US granted patents. Since 1999, the total reaches an impressive 403,818.
– Runners-up: Beijing and Seoul follow closely, with 22,585 and 22,205 listings respectively, demonstrating the global spread of innovation.

3. US State with the Most Patents Granted (2023):
– California (CA) leads the race in the United States, with CA inventors being listed on 153,141 granted patents in 2023. This reinforces California’s position as a hub of innovation and technological advancements.
– Following CA are Texas (TX) and Massachusetts (MA), with 31,757 and 25,214 patent listings in 2023 respectively, highlighting the diverse geographic distribution of innovation in the US.

4. Country with Most US Patents Listing Foreign Priority (2023):
– Japan is at the forefront in this category. Out of 329,056 US patents granted so far in 2023, 39,919 claim foreign priority in Japan. This is a testament to the strong innovation links between Japan and the US.
– China and Korea are not far behind, with 25,598 and 25,567 patents claiming priority respectively, showing a significant Asian influence in US patent filings.

These superlatives not only reflect the current landscape of patent filings but also highlight the global interconnectivity in the field of innovation and intellectual property. For those interested in diving deeper into these trends and accessing more analytics, visit Harrity Analytics.

Stay tuned for more insights and analyses from Harrity Analytics, as we continue to explore the ever-evolving world of patents and innovation.

 

The Evolving Landscape of Automotive Patents Among German Automakers

The patent landscape in the automotive industry has been a topic of interest for stakeholders seeking to navigate the technological advancements and innovations shaping the market. A recent analysis by Harrity Analytics illuminates how the tides have turned in patent acquisition among Germany’s top three automakers—Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche—over the last two decades.

In the early 2000s, Mercedes led the pack in annual patent acquisitions. This period can be characterized as one where Mercedes aggressively sought to protect its intellectual property, a strategy that aligned well with the company’s pursuit of technological leadership in the industry.

However, a noticeable shift occurred around 2010. At this juncture, Mercedes began acquiring fewer patents annually, leveling the playing field for BMW and Porsche. Both companies seized this opportunity and started acquiring patents at a rate that put them in line with Mercedes. The trend suggests a strategic repositioning by BMW and Porsche, possibly driven by a need to catch up with Mercedes’ early lead and to solidify their own footing in rapidly evolving areas like electric vehicles, autonomous driving, and connected services.

The most significant transformation has been observed in the past five to seven years. During this phase, BMW and Porsche have not only caught up but have surpassed Mercedes in annual patent acquisitions. This shift signals a substantial realignment in the industry’s innovation focus, with BMW and Porsche ramping up their efforts to secure technological advancements through intellectual property. Conversely, Mercedes has fallen well behind, prompting questions about its long-term strategy in a landscape increasingly defined by disruptive innovations.

Understanding these shifts is crucial for industry players, investors, and policymakers as it provides insights into the competitive dynamics and innovation strategies of these automakers. The data suggests that while Mercedes may have been an early pioneer, BMW and Porsche have been more agile in adapting to new technological paradigms, as evidenced by their more robust patent portfolios in recent years. It will be interesting to observe how technological advances continue to disrupt the automotive industry and whether these three big players will adjust their patent strategies.

Keep an eye on the Patent 300® Dashboard to see how these trends play out!

Check out our other Patent Analytics services HERE.

Monitoring U.S. Patent Maintenance Fee Data: A Look at Strategy Shifts

Monitoring U.S. patent maintenance fee data provides valuable insights into the behavior and strategies of patent owners. At Harrity & Harrity, we have been actively tracking this information since 2015. Our analysis reveals a consistent pattern in maintenance fee payments, with data generally falling within a single standard deviation. However, 2020 stands as an exception, with activity moving outside this range for the first time. This anomaly could be attributed to various factors, such as the economic uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic or shifts in specific technology sectors.

As we look toward 2024, it becomes increasingly important to observe whether this data will experience further deviations. These trends could indicate either a return to previous payment behaviors or the emergence of new strategic approaches by patent owners. Factors like innovation cycles, market demands, and global crises could all contribute to shifts in data.

For patent owners, the implications of this analysis are significant. A consistent reevaluation of patent maintenance strategies is advisable to ensure alignment with long-term organizational goals and current market conditions. Harrity & Harrity’s commitment to patent analytics and consultative services aims to provide clients with the necessary insights to navigate the complex landscape of intellectual property rights effectively. As we approach 2024, we will continue to monitor these trends closely, offering valuable data to help patent owners stay informed and agile in their maintenance fee strategies.

Check out our Patent Analytics services HERE.

Leveraging AI in Gap Analysis Reports

Gap Analysis Reports are instrumental for companies to understand the comparative strengths and weaknesses in their patent portfolios. At Harrity & Harrity, we have begun to incorporate generative AI technology like ChatGPT to rapidly identify and summarize these crucial differences between portfolios, based on data provided by the Harrity Analytics Team. The use of AI in this context is not just an experimental venture; it presents a significant opportunity to make the patent analysis process more efficient, quicker, and potentially less costly, particularly in matters of litigation and licensing.

Our Patent 300® Dashboard helps users easily filter between companies and technology areas for easy to view gap analysis, which AI can then quickly delineate. Let’s take a case study that involved comparing the patent portfolios of NVIDIA and Intel Corporation. This analysis highlighted several interesting differences and competitive focuses between the two tech giants. For example, NVIDIA has a noticeable lead in ray-tracing technology with 33 patents, while Intel trails with only 13. When it comes to learning methods, a domain essential for artificial intelligence, Intel surprisingly leads with 31 patents as opposed to Nvidia’s 14. In the areas of texture mapping and processor architectures, both companies appear neck-and-neck, each holding five patents, suggesting a mutual recognition of the importance of these technologies. Furthermore, while NVIDIA has made some headway in cooling technologies with four patents, Intel has none. On the flip side, Intel dominates in the domain of remote windowing with eight patents, dwarfing Nvidia’s single patent. Lastly, in terms of the organizational structure of processors, Intel holds twice the number of patents that Nvidia does, with six against three.

The potential implications of this rapid, AI-driven comparative analysis are significant. Firstly, by providing quick and accurate insights into patent portfolios, the AI can significantly reduce the time and financial resources usually required for litigation and licensing processes. Secondly, these insights can also be instrumental for a company’s strategic planning, particularly for directing R&D investments and identifying areas for competitive positioning. Finally, when aggregated across multiple analyses, this data may also serve as an industry barometer, signaling where innovation is heating up and where it is cooling down.

Overall, the integration of generative AI technology like ChatGPT in the patent analysis process offers promising advantages. By parsing large sets of complex data with both speed and accuracy, we are poised to provide our clients with more cost-effective and timely solutions without compromising the quality of insights crucial for strategic decision-making. The challenge now lies in considering how to further harness this technology.

Could there be other facets of the patent field where the capabilities of generative AI could be further explored for better efficiency and cost-effectiveness? Let us know your thoughts!

Check out our Patent Analytics services HERE.

Leveraging the Patent 300® Dashboard for Competitive Intelligence

The Patent 300® Dashboard, created by Harrity Patent Analytics, is a powerful patent analytics tool that provides valuable insights into competitive intelligence. It offers a comprehensive view of patent portfolios, prosecution metrics, and technology areas, enabling companies and law firms to make informed decisions and strategic adjustments.

One of the key features of the Patent 300® Dashboard is its ability to provide a high-level view of a company’s patent portfolio. For example, by examining IBM’s portfolio, we can see the overall rank, the percentage of patents obtained, the overall pendency, and the total number of patents. The dashboard also provides a breakdown of the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) subclasses, giving a clear picture of the technology areas where the company is patenting.

The dashboard also allows for competitive analysis. By selecting a specific technology area, such as transmission of digital information, we can see who the company is competing against from a patent perspective. This feature allows companies to benchmark their statistics against those of the technology field, providing insights into their performance from a patent prosecution perspective.

Another powerful feature of the Patent 300® Dashboard is the ability to analyze law firm performance. Companies can benchmark the performance of law firms working for them, identifying areas of practice where some firms’ stats are higher than others. This can help companies decide who should handle the next case and understand how law firms are practicing.

The Patent 300® Dashboard also provides insights into costs. By customizing costs based on what a company pays for various patent prosecution activities, the dashboard can calculate the actual prosecution history of patents and determine where the costs are. This can help companies benchmark the relative costs of their firms and decide where to allocate their budget more effectively.

The dashboard also offers a portfolio gap analysis feature. This allows companies to compare their patent portfolios side by side from a CPC perspective. This feature can be used for licensing purposes, pre-litigation analysis, and mergers and acquisitions analysis.

The Patent 300® Dashboard additionally provides examiner and art unit statistics, giving a high-level view of examiner and art unit statistics in all prosecution areas. This can be particularly useful for law firms wanting to understand how they are performing in specific technology areas.

Another useful feature of the dashboard is that it provides insights into maintenance fees. Companies can see where the costs are in their patent portfolio and compare their maintenance fee strategies with competitors. This can help companies adjust their maintenance fee strategies and manage their patent portfolio more effectively.

Overall, the Patent 300® Dashboard is a powerful tool for gaining competitive intelligence. It provides a wealth of information that can help companies and law firms make informed decisions and strategic adjustments. Whether you’re looking to understand your patent portfolio, benchmark your performance against the field, analyze law firm performance, manage costs, or gain insights into maintenance fees, the Patent 300® Dashboard has you covered. Check it out now at https://harrityllp.com/patent300!

See a detailed tutorial on using the Patent 300® Dashboard for Competitive Intelligence in the video below:


An infographic image depicting the top 15 companies that obtained patents in 2022

Infographic of the Top 15 Companies Obtaining Patents in 2022

Each year, Harrity Analytics releases the annual Patent 300® List, a ranking of the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining US utility patents.  Patents reflect a company’s investment in innovation and their commitment to protecting their intellectual property.

This ranking is based on a count of the total number of US utility patent obtained in 2022.

The Top 15 Companies represent 15% of the 323,018 total utility patents issued in 2022.  The total patents issued in 2022 dropped 1% from the prior year.

Click HERE for a larger version of the infographic.

 

Celebrating Black History Month – MFI 2.0 Spotlight – James Bennin

To celebrate Black History Month, Harrity is highlighting the black-owned law firms that participated in the inaugural Minority Firm Incubator program and the 2022 Minority Firm Incubator 2.0 program!

This week, we sat down with James Bennin, Founder & Owner of Onyx IP Group, a black-owned patent law firm. 

James got candid about his accomplishments as a new firm owner, the driving force behind Onyx IP Group, and his advice to those wanting to join the #patent field.

Watch his entire interview here:

 

ABOUT MFI 2.0:

The Minority Firm Incubator 2.0 Program is Harrity’s 42-week program that provides the training and tools needed to propel female and minority-owned patent law firms, existing or yet to be launched, to the next level of success. The program includes free training & strategy classes, concluding with a pitch session with a panel of in-house IP attorneys. The MFI 2.0 is an integral part of Harrity’s ongoing diversity initiative to recruit, retain, and advance attorneys who will contribute to the diversity of the patent field.

In November 2022, 7 minority-owned law firms graduated from the first iteration of this program after intensive law firm operations trainings from Harrity partners and pitches to a panel of in-house attorneys. You can learn more and apply to the 2024 program here.

 

Celebrating Black History Month – MFI 2.0 Spotlight – Arlene Neal

To celebrate Black History Month, Harrity is highlighting the black-owned law firms that participated in the 2022 Minority Firm Incubator 2.0 program!

This week, we sat down with Arlene Neal, Founder & Managing Attorney at Neal Blibo, a black-owned, woman-owned law firm. 

When asked about being a black-owned, woman-owned law firm, Arlene said, “I see a lot of black-owned firms and I see a lot of women-owned firms, but I don’t see a lot of the combination- black and woman-owned. And I’m thinking to myself, “Well, I gotta be proud!”

Watch her entire interview here:

 

ABOUT MFI 2.0:

The Minority Firm Incubator 2.0 Program is Harrity’s 42-week program that provides the training and tools needed to propel female and minority-owned patent law firms, existing or yet to be launched, to the next level of success. The program includes free training & strategy classes, concluding with a pitch session with a panel of in-house IP attorneys. The MFI 2.0 is an integral part of Harrity’s ongoing diversity initiative to recruit, retain, and advance attorneys who will contribute to the diversity of the patent field.

When speaking on this program, Arlene says, “As a Managing Attorney, I am always seeking out the best practices in running my firm. The MFI program exposed me to new processes for managing my firm and also helped me to refine current processes.”

In November 2022, 7 minority-owned law firms graduated from the first iteration of this program after intensive law firm operations trainings from Harrity partners and pitches to a panel of in-house attorneys. You can learn more and apply to the 2024 program here.

 

Clause 8 Season 3, Episode 6: Ray Millien, a Renaissance Man of IP

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 3, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

LISTEN TO EPISODE 6 HERE!

 


 

Raymond Millien likes to compare himself to Forrest Gump. 

As someone who pivoted from a programming job at GE Aerospace to a career in intellectual property law, bounced between inside and outside counsel roles within that space, and even briefly dabbled in public policy, he’s definitely a renaissance man. And he’s fallen into many of those jobs by accident.

He credits his adventurous and successful career — working as Chief IP Counsel for big-name companies like Volvo, founding his own IP boutique, and now serving as the CEO of Harness IP — to intellectual curiosity and openness. 

Appreciating every aspect of the game, Millien says, means you’ll play smarter.

“I never want to take one camp or the other because your client may be a patent troll today, it may be an operating company tomorrow. And all of them are necessary in the ecosystem,” he says.

On this episode of Clause 8, Millien sits down with us to tell all about what it means to have a “renaissance” career in IP law and what it takes to be an inside IP lawyer for major corporations. He even reveals some industry secrets about startup patents along the way.

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

Clause 8 Season 3, Episode 5: Professor Tim Hsieh Explains the Benefits of Judge Shopping

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 3, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

LISTEN TO EPISODE 5 HERE!

 


Clause 8 - Professor Tim Hsieh

The 2017 TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Supreme Court decision led to a major shift in where patent litigation cases are filed in the United States. Before TC Heartland, a patent owner could bring a case in almost any district where an alleged infringer conducted business. Because of its predictable rules and streamlined procedures, the Eastern District of Texas became the most popular forum for such cases; nearly 40% of patent infringement actions were filed there in 2016.

When Professor Timothy Hsieh clerked in the Eastern District of Texas, he saw firsthand the benefits – for patent owners and defendants – of experienced judges handling patent cases. TC Heartland changed that by changing the rules regarding where companies can be sued for patent infringement. By 2017, only 15% of patent infringement cases were tried in the Eastern District of Texas. Instead, patent cases became concentrated in Delaware and California.

“If you’re not solving that forum shopping issue and you’re just changing the forum, then you might have a new problem that’s created […] wherever you shift the cases to,” Hsieh says.

But Hsieh’s key point is that forum shopping — or even judge shopping — is not a problem at all. In fact, it’s a good thing. “If anything, the defense are also getting a much fairer, much more balanced adjudication because you have someone who’s very knowledgeable about patent law,” Hsieh says.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seemed to recognize these benefits of district court judges who have relevant patent expertise and experience when he included the Patent Pilot Program in the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act. The program allowed federal district court judges in select districts to volunteer to handle patent cases. The goal was for certain judges to have increased expertise – and as a result – do a better job.

However, after the program expired and Judge Alan Albright started attracting patent cases to his Waco court room in the Western District of Texas, Leahy had a change of heart. In an unprecedented letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Leahy pressured Roberts to do what he could to stop Waco from being a go-to patent venue by suggesting there was something untoward about Albright’s interest in patent cases. The pressure campaign seems to have worked. In his end-of-year report, Roberts highlighted the issue and stressed “the role of district judges as generalists.”

Since Hsieh has become known as an expert on the subject of patent venues, I knew he was the perfect person to talk to about this recent controversy.

I also spoke with Professor Hsieh about whether how courts think about venue is outdated and his fascinating career trajectory of patent litigator turned patent examiner turned law school professor.

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

Clause 8 Season 3, Episode 4: Phil Warrick on Working with Senator Coons to Fix the Section 101 Mess

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 3, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

LISTEN TO EPISODE 3 HERE!

 


Clause 8 - Warrick

Before Phil Warrick began working for Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), Capitol Hill wasn’t in his career plans.

But when an opportunity to work with Coons emerged, he decided to take the leap. For two years, he served as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) IP counsel detailee to Coons after Coons helped to restart the Senate’s IP Subcommittee, working on bipartisan initiatives like the IDEA Act and legislation to fix the Section 101 patent eligibility mess. Those efforts were a dramatic departure from Congress’s previous fixation on the “patent troll” narrative.

“And for me, as a detailee, it was just a great opportunity to learn more about all these issues that were at play with intellectual property, and having really interesting conversations with folks on and off the hill, who said, I understand why this is your perspective, why you might have this view as a patent litigator, but let me give you this view from a completely different perspective,” Warrick says. “And it really opened my eyes.”

After Coons friend and fellow Delawarean, Joe Biden, was elected as president, the innovation community was hopeful that Coons would use his top role on the Subcommittee to prioritize patent issues within the Biden administration and Congress.

However, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) had other ideas, and took over as the top Democrat on the Subcommittee.  Since that time, the Subcommittee has moved in a very different, arguably anti-patent direction, and Leahy’s views have won out in seemingly every major administration decision related to patents.

But in yet another twist, Leahy has announced that he is retiring and won’t seek re-election in 2022.  So, Coons is likely to return to his role as the top Democrat on the IP Subcommittee. Warrick’s insights from working for Coons are critical for anyone who wants to impact patent policy in the future.

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

Clause 8 Season 3, Episode 3: Louis Carbonneau on Brokering Patents After the Patent Gold Rush

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 3, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

LISTEN TO EPISODE 3 HERE!

 


 

 

The golden age for patent brokers has come and gone, but that doesn’t stop Louis Carbonneau.

“There are very, very few patent brokers nowadays,” Carbonneau says. “We’re just one of a handful left. And frankly, we get about four or five portfolios every single day that people want us to broker. We only say yes 1% or 2% of the time.”

As one of the world’s leading patent brokers, the CEO and Founder of Tangible IP has brokered over 4,500 patents and boasts close to 30 years in the intellectual property industry.

With experience as Microsoft’s former General Manager of International IP & Licensing, Carbonneau has sat on many sides of the intellectual property table. He shares his adventures in the industry and lessons learned with Eli Mazour, host of the Clause 8 podcast, including behind-the-scenes stories from his time at Microsoft, the common pitfalls of patent licensing, and why price isn’t always an essential part of the conversation when buying and selling intellectual property.

“Some people will not even want to acquire patents for free if they don’t like the patents because then they have to start paying for maintenance fees and prosecution fees. It’s like a free puppy. It’s only free for a few hours, and after that, you start paying,” Carbonneau explains.

Those that are interested in selling their patents need to understand what brokers — and buyers — are looking for in a deal.

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

Clause 8 Season 3, Episode 2: Ryan Abbott on Why Patent Law Should Recognize AI Inventors

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 3, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

LISTEN TO EPISODE 2 HERE!

 


 

 

 

Good lawyers effectively deal with the present. Very few have what it takes to create the future. Professor Ryan Abbott is doing just that.

He leads the DABUS project: the first time ever an AI machine has been named as an inventor on a patent application. Most thought that the project was an interesting academic exercise that was unlikely to go anywhere. Some – uncharitably – dismissed it as “a publicity stunt.”

Yet, the DABUS project did get a patent in South Africa. And, an Australian judge ruled that AI machine can be recognized as an inventor. Even more significantly, the DABUS project successfully raised awareness about the issue of AI inventorship among policy makers all over the world.

But what does it mean for an AI system to be named as an inventor in the real world?

In this episode, Abbott makes his case for the skeptics: Identifying AI as the inventor on patents is morally and commercially important. He also explains how to judge whether the human pushing the buttons is as much an inventor as the AI they’re programming.

On this episode, Eli and Prof. Abbott talk about the Artificial Inventor Project, whether everything will be “obvious” in the future, and Prof. Abbott’s fascinating new book “The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law.”

 

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

Harrity Referenced in Bloomberg Article: Diversity Woes in Patent Field Lead Lawyers to Try New Ideas

Diversity Woes in Patent Field Lead Lawyers to Try New Ideas

Harrity & Harrity, LLP’s research and innovative diversity initiatives are featured in a recent Bloomberg article on diversity in the patent field.

The article references research found in Elaine Spector and LaTia Brand‘s “Diversity in Patent Law: A Data Analysis of Diversity in the Patent Practice by Technology Background and Region” piece for ABA’s Landslide Magazine, including the following excerpt:

More ‘Michaels’ Than Racially Diverse Women

Fewer than 22% of patent attorneys and agents registered with the Patent and Trademark Office are women, a 2020 study led by the Virginia patent law firm Harrity & Harrity LLP found. Patent agents aren’t attorneys but can work on inventors’ patent applications.

The average number of PTO registrants who are racial minorities has been around 6.5% over the past two decades, according to the study.

“Among racially diverse women, the numbers are significantly worse,” the authors wrote in a September 2020 article for Landslide, a magazine published by the ABA’s Section of Intellectual Property Law.

“In fact, there are more patent attorneys and agents named ‘Michael’ in the United States than there are racially diverse women,” the authors wrote.

Managing Partner Paul Harrity is also quoted in the Bloomberg article, specifically with regard to Harrity’s upcoming Patent Pathways program.

“The Harrity & Harrity law firm has plans for a ‘Patent Pathways’ program this summer. It’s a free, 42-week virtual course, with the aim to register 20 underrepresented minorities with the patent bar in the first year.

The program will target engineering and science students, or individuals in those fields looking to change careers. Paul Harrity, a founding partner at the firm, said they’re looking to connect with candidates with presentations at universities and through groups like the National Society of Black Engineers.

Harrity said he stumbled into the patent field after seeing a job advertisement for a patent examiner position at the PTO. It’s not an uncommon experience.

‘A lot of people have the same story—somebody just mentioned it to them,’ Harrity said. ‘We want to be the people to mention it.'”

You can find the full article by Bloomberg Law HERE.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a leading patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas, with a focus on giving back through its Harrity 4 Charity program and many diversity initiatives. Harrity is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™ and their clients trust in their high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service.

For more information on Harrity’s analytics, automation, and patent services, firm culture, and current openings, please visit harrityllp.com.

Track One Filings on Faster Track?

Are Track One Filings on a Faster Track?

By Neil Kardos, Partner

Does filing a Track One prioritized examination request increase the chances of getting a patent? I discussed this idea in a recent Practical Patents video, and below is a chart of the data broken down by USPTO technology center.

Track One applications have a higher allowance rate compared to non-Track One applications across all technology centers, ranging from a 7% boost to a 21% boost.

The boost from Track One is particularly significant (16%-21%) in technology areas with lower allowance rates, like chemical, biotech, and business methods.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Does filing a Track One request boost the chances of getting a patent, or are patent applications that already have a higher chance of success being filed with Track One requests?

My guess: it’s a bit of both.

What do you think?

Learn more about our patent analytics capabilities by visiting the Harrity Analytics site HERE.

Clause 8 Season 3, Episode 1: Professor Dan Brown and Dan Brown Jr.’s Patent Battle Against a Retail Giant

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 3, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

LISTEN TO EPISODE 1 HERE!

 


 

 

 

Professor Dan Brown and his son, Dan Brown Jr., are straight out of central casting.  Prof. Brown, the father, grew up in a working-class Irish family on Chicago’s South Side before eventually becoming a professor of engineering at Northwestern University. Dan Jr. is a moppy-haired marketing genius who is now President of LoggerHead Tools.

As a result of a father-son argument, Prof. Brown invented an award-winning tool called the Bionic Wrench and pursued the audacious idea of manufacturing it in entirely in America. Sears positioned itself to become their exclusive retailer when the initial order of 300,000 units sold out between Black Friday and Christmas. Unfortunately, not long after, Sears started pressuring them to manufacture it in China to lower the price of the bionic wrench.

“It was pure greed. And we said no,” Prof. Brown said.

When Prof. Brown refused, Sears got another company, Apex, to make a knockoff of the bionic wrench in China. So, LoggerHead Tools, represented by Skiermont Derby, took them to court. They were on their way to being vindicated when the death of the original federal judge, assigned to the case, put that into doubt.

Today, they continue to tell the story of their “David and Goliath” battle in hopes that the patent law can be improved to support America’s innovators.

 

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

Harrity Names Ryan Thelen as Newest Partner

Congratulations to Harrity’s newest Partner, Ryan Thelen!

(WASHINGTON, DC)  Harrity & Harrity, LLP, a leading patent law firm based in Fairfax, VA, is pleased to announce the promotion of Ryan Thelen to the position of Partner with the firm. Harrity & Harrity operates nationwide, with 37 total patent attorneys and agents across 26 states. Ryan is Harrity’s 8th Partner and first promotion of 2022.

Ryan has been with Harrity since 2018. His practice focuses on the preparation and prosecution of patent applications in various fields, such as telecommunications, networking, software, semiconductors, cloud computing, automation, data analytics, and security. He has been instrumental in landing, onboarding, and managing one of the firm’s largest clients and is regularly involved in firm innovation and best practice implementation. Ryan is an active member of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and PTAB Bar Association.

“It is an honor to be a part of the leadership of such an amazing firm with such a bright future. I could tell right away when I first joined Harrity that this firm was going to be very different from other firms because how amazing the support staff is and the level of training that was provided. Everyone here really cares about the success of others and the firm as a whole. I am really grateful to be given the opportunity to pay it forward and to help the firm continue to grow,” said Ryan of his new position.

Prior to joining Harrity & Harrity, Ryan practiced in-house at Panduit Corp. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. While in-house, Ryan gained extensive experience in patent portfolio management, product clearance, invention disclosure mining, infringement analysis, and post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Prior to his work in-house, Ryan worked at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner as well as Arent Fox while attending law school in the evenings.

Ryan received his Juris Doctor with honors from The George Washington University Law School (2016) and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Kettering University (2008).  Prior to starting his legal career, Ryan was a project engineer for United Technologies in the UTC Aerospace Systems business unit, where he led teams of engineers in the development of commercial and military aircraft engines.

Ryan works remotely out of Flushing, MI, where he lives with his wife and three young daughters.

 

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a leading patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas, with a focus on giving back through its Harrity 4 Charity program and many diversity initiatives. Harrity is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™ and their clients trust in their high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service.

For more information on Harrity’s analytics, automation, and patent services, firm culture, and current openings, please visit harrityllp.com.

Harrity Welcomes Four Outstanding Patent Professionals

Harrity & Harrity, LLP, a leading patent preparation and prosecution firm in the electrical and mechanical space, is excited to announce the addition of four experienced patent professionals. Over the last six months, Harrity has welcomed Jim Nuxoll, Thomas Hartin, Christopher Wen, and Christopher Dawson to the firm. With over five decades of combined experience across a variety of complex technologies, including semiconductors and 5G networks, each hire is a valuable addition to the team. “At Harrity, we handpick every single individual to join our firm. To say that we are excited to have these four superstars on our team is an understatement,” Managing Partner Paul Harrity says of the firm’s recent growth. 

Learn more about the new Harrity team members below.  

 

Jim Nuxoll | Working remotely from Idaho (Joined June 7, 2021) 

Jim Nuxoll is a registered patent agent has over twenty-five years of experience in the semiconductor industry, including having served on Micron Technology’s patent committee. He is a listed inventor on nine U.S. patents and has extensive experience in drafting and preparing patent applications covering various aspects in the field of semiconductors, as well as prosecuting patent applications in the U.S. as well as non-U.S. jurisdictions.   

Learn more about Jim Nuxoll here. 

 

Thomas Hartin | Working remotely from New York (Joined August 9, 2021) 

Thomas Hartin is a registered patent attorney and a member of the firm’s patent prosecution team with a focus on helping large technology companies build valuable, high-quality patent portfolios in an efficient manner. In this role, he develops and implements best practices for managing workflow and innovative, data-driven patent prosecution strategies for reaching favorable results at the USPTO. Thomas has 7 years of experience in the patent field, with experience in patent litigation, as well as preparing and prosecuting hundreds of patent applications related to telecommunications, computer software, consumer cable products and technologies, networking devices, data privacy, and the Internet of Things. 

Learn more about Thomas Hartin here. 

 

Christopher Wen | Working remotely from Michigan (Joined September 27, 2021) 

Chris Wen is a registered patent attorney with nearly a decade of experience whose practice includes assisting clients obtain patent rights in the U.S. and abroad.  His experience covers a variety of technologies, including various types of mechanical and electro-mechanical devices, among others. Prior to joining Harrity & Harrity, Chris was a partner at an intellectual property boutique firm in the metro-Detroit area where he worked on a wide array of patent and other intellectual property matters. 

Learn more about Chris Wen here. 

 

Christopher Dawson | Working remotely from Kansas (Joined October 11, 2021) 

Chris Dawson is a registered patent attorney with over a decade of experience in patent preparation and prosecution, intellectual property litigation, and technology transactions. He has extensive experience drafting patent applications directed to computer software, telecommunications, power generation and alternative energy, aerospace, LED and lighting, consumer electronics, and many other technologies. 

Prior to joining Harrity & Harrity, Chris was a partner in a Midwest-based intellectual property boutique firm, where he represented clients through all phases of intellectual property procurement and enforcement. 

Learn more about Chris Dawson here. 

 

Ask A Mentor: How Do I Negotiate Long-Term Flex Work?

 Ask A Mentor: How Do I Negotiate Long-Term Flex Work? 

By Elaine Spector (September 16, 2021) 

Experts answer questions on career and workplace conundrums in this Law360 Pulse guest column series. Have a question you’re afraid to ask your law firm chair, practice area leader or mentor? Submit it anonymously here. 

In this installment, Harrity & Harrity LLP’s Elaine Spector offers advice on how attorneys can negotiate a flexible work arrangement that preserves their opportunity to advance professionally at a firm and safeguards their partnership prospects.

Q: As a parent who has enjoyed better work-life balance when working from home, how can I negotiate a flexible work arrangement with my law firm, and ensure the arrangement doesn’t hinder my career advancement, as we plan returning to the office? —Associate at midsize firm 

Women have been advocating for change with regard to work-life flexibility for years. Prior to the pandemic, many law firms were reluctant to allow remote work. Often, law firms equate lawyers who want to work remotely with a lack of commitment. As such, if a law firm actually agreed to a remote work arrangement, the lawyer working remotely would often be taken off the partnership track. And then the pandemic hit. Employers, including law firms, were forced to allow their lawyers to work from home. And what did they discover? That lawyers, as professionals, were able to be just as efficient and effective at home. In fact, many firms discovered that billable hours actually increased, as the pandemic eliminated commuting time and other commitments. However, many law firms are still reluctant to embrace the flexibility that would allow working parents, especially women, to thrive both at home and in the office. As offices begin opening back up, here are five tips for negotiating a flexible work arrangement that does not hinder your career advancement.

1. Determine your firm’s revised COVID-19 remote work policy. Before you begin your negotiations, determine your firm’s current remote work policy. Some law firms have taken the initiative to revise these policies prior to opening offices back up. It could be that your law firm has a modified policy that allows for remote work due to health and safety reasons born out of the pandemic, particularly one that does not take you off the partnership track, that you are unaware of. If your firm has not revised its policy or does not formally allow a remote work option, that fact alone doesn’t mean you can’t negotiate one. I was able to negotiate a remote work schedule when my children were very young. It happened during a job transition. A partner that I worked for in the past wanted me to join his new firm. At our first discussion, I asked him if they allowed for a remote work schedule. I was living in Baltimore, and knew that commuting to the District of Columbia five days a week was a deal breaker for me. He said he didn’t know, but that he would find out. The next day he got back to me and indicated that they could accommodate a remote work schedule for my situation. However, if I had not asked, I would not have been offered the option to work from home. So, don’t be afraid to ask about a remote work schedule when it is not clearly offered. You won’t know what options you can negotiate if you do not try.

2. Do exceptional work — become indispensable. It might go without saying that doing exceptional work provides you with a negotiation advantage. Your negotiating power increases dramatically when you do exceptional work and become indispensable to your firm. Not only should your legal work be exceptional, but it is also important to spend time thinking about how you can be a contributor at your firm. Look for high-value, low-commitment opportunities to get involved. This might mean taking on a mentoring role, joining firm committees, planning firm activities, representing your firm in the legal community, participating in external events and more. Designating just 30 minutes per week, whenever possible, to contribute to your firm’s initiatives allows you to maintain work-life balance while making yourself more valuable. Firms are more willing to negotiate with lawyers that they want to keep.

3. Be clear with your intentions. It is imperative to make clear your intentions to stay on the partnership track despite wanting flexibility to work from home after offices reopen. Although I was able to negotiate a remote work schedule, I was not clear with my intention to stay on the partnership track at my previous firm. This led to challenges in my ability to climb the ladder, like many women on flexible schedules face. When I interviewed for my current firm, I explicitly asked how working a remote and reduced-hour schedule would affect my ability to become partner. This outlined my intentions for the interviewer and compelled them to provide a clear answer about whether I would be treated differently based on my flexible status, rather than on my skills. Fortunately, I was told that it would not affect my partnership track whatsoever — a response that held up when I made partner just two years later. Do make it clear in your negotiation that working remotely does not equal a lack of commitment or a desire to abandon the partnership track, or whichever other career goals you are working toward.

4. Stay connected virtually. Relationship-building is the core of culture, inclusion and, ultimately, success at your firm. It is critical to continue to build relationships in the remote work environment. If you plan to work remotely either a few days a week or full time, I recommend having weekly virtual video meetings with the members at your firm you would typically interact with in an office setting. This type of face-to-face interaction is so much more engaging than a telephone call, as we have all experienced during the pandemic, and can allow for better communication through gesture and expression. When holding the video call, put an emphasis on personal connection. You can talk about your life to whatever extent you feel comfortable sharing, whether it be your weekend, your family or a new TV show, just as you would in the office. This watercooler talk, untied to any pressing work matters, will transform your internal relationships.

5. Find a firm that supports your family values and career goals. I began working remotely a few years before the pandemic hit. My firm allows for any lawyer at the firm, regardless of the numbers of hours they work or whether they show the requisite face time in the office, to make partner. And I did — remotely. Many of my female colleagues at other firms have reached out to me to ask: How can we keep the remote work going? How do we continue to develop relationships and culture within our firm? And how can someone make partner while working remotely? It is wonderful to be at a firm that unequivocally supports remote, flexible work. If your firm does not support a remote work schedule and is unwilling to compromise after you have a candid conversation, it may be time to consider switching employers. Regardless of your stature at your current firm, if they do not respect your need for flexibility, it will be hard to be fulfilled. 

Be open about finding a law firm that supports you where you are and what you need to be happy. After all, happy workers are more productive workers. As a mom who just dropped off her first child at college, I know that the time you have with your children is limited. Don’t ever sacrifice that time for a rigid policy of your employer. So many law firms are embracing this new way of working. Why be stuck at firm that is living in the dark ages?

Conclusion It is far past time to shift perspectives from the old, rigid mindset of the traditional firm, to one that embraces a more diverse and flexible workforce — one where we, as parents, don’t have to give up the important job of raising our children, while also providing top-quality service to our clients. Lawyers should not be excluded from partnership because they work remotely or are on flexible schedules. An attorney can contribute just as much to the success and advancement of the firm, its culture and its future without physically being in the office. In fact, the benefits of working a flexible schedule may contribute to more growth and innovation in the firm. Flexibility is essential for advancing talented women and other lawyers seeking balance in their life and careers. Good luck with your negotiations! 

Read more at Law360.com.

 

 

Law360 Analysis: Retiring Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley ft. Eli Mazour

In Praising O’Malley, Attys Call For District Judge To Fill Seat

By Ryan Davis

Harrity Partner Eli Mazour is featured in Law360’s recent analysis regarding retiring Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley as an IP expert..

Law360 (July 28, 2021, 9:43 PM EDT) — Retiring Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley is the only member of the court who has served as a district judge, a background that attorneys say provided a necessary perspective that informed her incisive decisions and that they hope to see in her eventual replacement…

“Judge O’Malley’s departure will likely be cause for concern among patent owners, said Eli Mazour of Harrity & Harrity LLP, because she was viewed as more pro-patent than other Federal Circuit judges, particularly on the issue of patent eligibility.”

Read more on what Eli and the other experts have to say at Law360.com.

 

 

New Clause 8 Episode: Josh Landau – On Lobbying for Weaker Patent Rights and ‘Making a PB&J Sandwich’

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 2, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

 


 

 

The first episode of this season of Clause 8 featured the most recent USPTO Director – Andrei Iancu – discussing his efforts to strengthen America’s patent system over the last three years. One of the most publicly vocal opponents of those efforts was Josh Landau, patent counsel at the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA). Now that those views are in ascendancy in the Biden administration and Congress, it made sense to finish this season by talking to Josh.

This is an incredibly insightful episode exploring first hand how the patent process helps innovative individuals and small companies bring their ideas to fruition. Listen here!


On today’s podcast:

  • The role of the CCIA in the patent debate
  • The failure of Section 101 legislation in the last Congress
  • The “patent quality” problem
  • How the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) operates
  • Patent policy advocacy on Capitol Hill
  • Patent policy in Trump v Biden administration
  • Is the patent system unfair to patent owners in any way?
  • Why do different patent attorneys have such different views of the patent system?
  • US inventors
  • The “peanut butter and jelly sandwich” patent

 

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. All Season 2 episodes are available now!

 

New Clause 8 Episode – Mark Han: Applying Lessons from Intellectual Ventures to Helping Innovative Doctors

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 2, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

 


 

 

Don’t miss this latest episode of Clause 8 with President and Chief Legal Officer of IntuitiveX, Mark Han, about the new business model IntuitiveX created to help innovators in the medical field.

Mark cut his teeth working for the largest and most notorious “patent troll” Intellectual Ventures (IV).  During the episode, Mark talks about what he learned from that experience and why he’s now excited to be in the business of bringing new products to market and building  new companies at IntuitiveX.

This is an incredibly insightful episode exploring first hand how the patent process helps innovative individuals and small companies bring their ideas to fruition. Listen here!


On today’s podcast:

  • Intellectual Ventures
  • How to identify and acquire valuable portfolios
  • The “patent troll” narrative
  • How IntuitiveX is advancing medical innovations
  • What IntuitiveX looks for in innovators and their inventions
  • Taking Amplify Surgical from idea to market

 

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes drop every Tuesday!

 

New Clause 8 Episode: AIPF’s President Chris Agrawal on Growing $1 Billion Portfolio & Succeeding in IP Field

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 2, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

 


 

 

 

Chris Agrawal is President of the Association of Intellectual Property Firms. He’s also the reason Eli got into patent law in the first place. If you’re a startup founder worrying you’re already behind on building a portfolio of patents, or you’re wondering how to scale your patent program, listen here!

 

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes drop every Tuesday!

 

Perfecting Your Prosecution Strategy with Patentprufer

Eli Mazour leads Harrity’s patent prosecution team, developing and implementing best practices for managing workflow and creating innovative, data-driven patent prosecution strategies which allow him to reach favorable results at the USPTO. Eli has been using Patentprufer, the world’s first community-based examiner analytics tool, since its inception to help him reach agreements with USPTO patent examiners for our clients most important applications.

In “Perfecting Your Prosecution Strategy with Patentprufer”, Eli demonstrates some of the most valuable features of this tool and shows how to efficiently use examiner analytics in your patent prosecution strategy.

You can watch the full webinar below.

 

Register for Patentprufer, the world’s first community-based USPTO examiner decision-making tool, for free through the end of the year. Visit patentprufer.com to get started!

New Clause 8 Episode: Judge Alan Albright On Becoming the Go-To Judge for Patent Cases

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 2, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

 


 

 

If you’ve ever wondered how and why Judge Alan D Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas became America’s go-to judge for patent cases, you don’t want to miss this episode of Clause 8.

LISTEN HERE

Judge Albright is as transparent in this episode as he is in the courtroom. So if you’re wondering how to make your case more efficient, how you can clerk for him, or why it’s easier to predict where to be struck by lightning than how to become a district court judge, don’t miss him on this week’s Clause 8.

On this podcast:

  • Judge Albright’s love for patent cases & why it’s not really work for him
  • Plan to handle growing docket of patent cases
  • Getting into patent law as the youngest magistrate judge in history
  • Why many district court judges aren’t interested in handling patent cases and how it impacts their resolution
  • Example set by Judge John Ward and Eastern District of Texas
  • Why patent owners deserve a jury trial
  • Picking effective patent litigation counsel
  • Discovery disputes
  • Approach to attorneys filing transfer motions
  • Advice to trial attorneys for preparing and being effective
  • Navigating Federal Circuit decisions and focusing on being a good trial judge
  • Following press coverage & commitment to transparency
  • Clerking for Judge Alan Albright
  • Why you shouldn’t – or possibly should – wear python boots to the courthouse

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

New Clause 8 Episode: Professor Stephen Yelderman – A Personal View of How the Supreme Court Approaches IP

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 2, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

 


In today’s incredibly candid episode, Prof. Stephen Yelderman shares stories about his journey into patent law, why he chose to become a patent agent, meeting Justice Amy Coney Barrett, clerking at the Supreme Court, and the creative ways companies try to influence the Supreme Court. Listen here!

Prof. Yelderman insights are not to be missed by anyone who is interested in having a better understanding of how the Supreme Court approaches IP issues, how the patent system truly works, and how to succeed in the legal field.

“A piece of advice I have is when an opportunity comes, say yes to it because you oftentimes don’t have good visibility to all the doors that will open down the road.”

On the episode:

  • From engineering at Stanford to patent law to clerking at the Supreme Court
  • Perspective about the patent examination process from working as a patent agent in Silicon Valley
  • Academic consensus that leans into an anti-patent direction
  • Misguided thinking about “patent quality”
  • Different approaches to anticipation and obviousness during USPTO examination, PTAB proceedings, and district court litigation
  • Meeting and working with ACB before she joined the Supreme Court
  • The one patent case ACB decided before joining the Supreme Court that cited one of Prof. Yelderman’s articles
  • How and why the Supreme Court approaches IP cases differently from other case
  • Impact of Breyer and Kennedy
  • Gorsuch’s correct approach to patent cases & the one case he got wrong
  • Why Gorsuch’s concerns regarding the PTAB are likely to be the future consensus
  • Efforts to influence Supreme Court & impact of atmospherics on the justices’ decisions regarding patent cases

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

New Clause 8 Episode: Andrei Iancu – From Communist Romania to USPTO Director

Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast, The Voice of IP, has returned for Season 2, featuring all new exclusive interviews with the intellectual property community’s biggest names.

 


 

If you’re keen to follow in Andrei Iancu’s footsteps, to be a future director of the USPTO, or to find out how to communicate with the new director, check out this latest episode of the Clause 8 podcast.

On the episode:

  • From communist Romania to USPTO
  • How the IP system has dealt with the pandemic
  • How patent policy develops in an administration
  • The two jobs of the PTO director
  • The best way to communicate with a USPTO Director
  • Response to those who think Iancu did too much, too quickly
  • What makes employees successful at the USPTO
  • Andrei’s advice to younger patent attorneys

You can subscribe and listen to the full episode on your favorite podcasting app and learn more at voiceofIP.com. New episodes will drop every Tuesday!

 

Image Rights: Alexandria, VA – January 5, 2018: Portrait of Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). (Photo by Jay Premack/USPTO) 

 

Harrity Thought-Leaders Provide Comments on USPTO’s National Strategy for Expanding American Innovation

Harrity diversity thought-leaders Elaine Spector, Edward Kim, and Ayana Marshall provided comments in response to USPTO‘s National Strategy for Expanding American Innovation alongside other members of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)‘s Women in IP and Diversity & Inclusion committees.

“An important aspect for moving innovation with respect to under-represented groups is to understand the extent of the issue, and then track improvements with regard to innovation and commercialization.”
Read the full response below:

For more information regarding our diversity initiatives, visit harrityllp.com/diversity.  To see more diversity and inclusion resources, visit The Diversity Channel.

 

IPWatchdog on Who Should Head the USPTO, ft. Eli Mazour

The Right Choice: IP Stakeholders Emphasize Practical Experience, Strong IP Advocacy in Next USPTO Head

By Gene Quinn

Harrity Partner Eli Mazour is featured in IPWatchdog’s recent article as an IP expert regarding what the profile of the next USPTO Director should look like.

January 26, 2021 (IPWatchdog) At 12:00pm EST on January 20, 2021, Joe Biden was sworn in as America’s 46th President. Over the next several months he and his staff will be working to fill thousands of positions within the federal government that have become vacant due to resignations. This is normal and expected. At the end of each presidential term all presidential appointees offer their resignation, which can then either be accepted or not at the discretion of the President.

The position of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as well as Deputy, is now vacant. Commissioner for Patents Drew Hirshfeld has been vested with the authority to act with the powers of the Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and Director of the USPTO, although he has not been given the title Acting Director. This is almost certainly due to the fact that no one in the federal government can hold a title of Acting head of an agency for more than 270 days.

In our space, the position of Under Secretary and Director of the USPTO is a front-line, top-level position. In the greater political scheme, it is likely we will not have an appointee for many months. President Obama did not nominate David Kappos until June 18 and President Trump did not nominate Andrei Iancu until August 26.

There are many capable people—all realistic, based on party affiliation—who should be considered by the Biden Administration for nomination as Under Secretary of Commerce for IP, but in my opinion several names stand out above everyone else based on their background, ties with the tech sector, and what appears to be a preference on the part of President Biden (at least so far) to appoint those with close ties to the Obama Administration and longstanding ties to the Democratic party..

See these suggestions, and what Eli and the other experts have to say on IPwatchdog.com.

 

 

Average Claims and Figures

Visualizing Patent Claims and Figures Over Time

How have the number of patent claims and patent figures changed over time?

Let’s let the numbers speak for themselves.  I recommend that you use the full screen mode for this visualization.  Click on the full screen icon on the right.

The interactive visualization above provides a clear indication that at a high level for US utility patents, the average number of claims have gone down over time, while the average number of figures have gone up.  In 2005, the average number of claims per patent was 18.83, while the average number of figures was 12.04.  Compare that to 2019, where the average number of claims per patent was 16.22, and the average number of figures was 14.84.

The reasons for these changes are open to interpretation but the data shows some very interesting outliers to the averages when you slice the data by art unit.  For example, when you look at the business method art units of 3621-3629, the data shows the exact opposite from the entire patent field as a whole.  In 2006, the average number of claims per patent was 24.83, and the average number of figures was 17.00.

The xml data powering the Power BI visualization above is automatically downloaded weekly by our patent analytics system from the USPTO using the Bulk Data Storage System.

To learn more about how you can use patent analytics to inform your practice, visit our Patent Analytics website HERE.

 

In Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak, USPTO Extends Certain Patent Deadlines

By Ted Nissly, Associate

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it has exercised its authority under section 12004 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to make 30-day extensions available to certain patent and trademark-related deadlines.  Prior to the enactment of the CARES Act, the USPTO did not have authority to extend deadlines because most patent and trademark-related deadlines are defined by statute.

Rather than take a uniform approach to extending deadlines for all filings and payments, such as other patent offices have taken across the world, the USPTO has focused on allowing extensions to only certain filings and payments.  Patent application extensions apply to, for example, responses to office actions, issue fee payments, and certain appeal filings that are due between March 27 and April 30, 2020.  Notably, the USPTO has excluded replies to pre-examination notices and maintenance fee payments to most applicants, unless an applicant is a small entity or micro entity.  The USPTO also granted extensions for certain filings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including requests for rehearing of a PTAB decision.  Any qualifying filing or payment due between March 27 and April 30, 2020, will be extended 30 days from the initial date that it was due.

To qualify for an extension, a delayed filing or payment must be accompanied by a statement that the delay in filing or payment was due to a practitioner, applicant, patent owner, petitioner, third party requester, inventor, or other person associated with the filing or payment being personally affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, including through office closures, cash flow interruptions, inaccessibility of files or other materials, travel delays, personal or family illness, or similar circumstances.

The USPTO has clarified, in a frequently asked questions (FAQ) section of its website that the statement that the delay was due to the COVID-19 outbreak should be a separate statement (e.g., not as part of a response to an Office action) but does not need to be verified or provided in an affidavit or declaration form.  However, the COVID-19 outbreak must materially interfere with a filing or payment to qualify as a delay due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The USPTO’s extension of deadlines under the CARES act is just the latest relief that the USPTO has granted due to the COVID-19 outbreak.  Last month, the USPTO waived fees for reviving applications that became abandoned because of failure to meet a deadline for responding to an Office communication due to the COVID-19 outbreak and waived requirements for an original handwritten signature for certain correspondence with the Office of Enrollment and Discipline and certain payments by credit card.

As of the date of this posting, the USPTO’s extension of deadlines under the CARES act applies to deadlines through April 30, 2020, but the USPTO may extend the time window based on the continuing impact of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The USPTO’s Notice of Waiver of Patent-Related Timing Deadlines under the CARES ACT can be found here.

The USPTO’s FAQs concerning the Extension of Deadlines under the CARES ACT can be found here.

 

Elaine Spector Named First Female Partner at Harrity, LLP

WASHINGTON, DC (January 28, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, LLP is pleased to announce Elaine Spector as one of three newly named partners at the firm.  Already a driving force in legal innovation, diversity initiatives, and charity involvement, Elaine’s new role is sure to implement even more progressive ideas at Harrity.

“Truly, something extraordinary is happening here at Harrity; where a woman, or any other lawyer for that matter, can have the opportunity to be a partner, but not at the sacrifice of their family.  I am unaware of any other firms that provide the flexibility that Harrity offers; that can allow a mom like myself (who likes to cook for her family and be involved) an opportunity to work reduced hours, while still caring for my family in a way that feels good to me,” said Elaine.  “I am very excited for the opportunity I’ve been given and for what the future holds for this awesome firm.  The best is yet to come.”

Elaine is a patent attorney with over 20 years of experience in intellectual property law.  Her current practice consists primarily of prosecuting patent applications with a focus on electromechanical technologies. She is Harrity’s first female partner.

Prior to joining Harrity & Harrity, Elaine worked in private practice for over 15 years handling various intellectual property matters, including patent application drafting and prosecution, trademark prosecution and enforcement, as well as litigating complex patent cases in federal courts. Elaine’s extensive litigation experience provides her with a unique perspective in prosecuting patent applications.

Most recently, Elaine worked in-house for 6 years at Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures, where she managed over 500 matters in medical and software related technologies before moving to Harrity, LLP in May, 2017.

Elaine serves as Chair of the Harrity Diversity Committee and Chair of the AIPLA Women in IP Law Committee’s Global Networking Event and Outreach Subcommittees. She is also on the IPO Diversity Committee’s Management Team and is a Board Member at the non-profit No More Stolen Childhoods.

To learn more about Elaine’s background and leadership involvement, please visit her Harrity Bio Page.

 

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.

Clause 8’s Eli Mazour Named Partner

WASHINGTON, DC (January 28, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, LLP is excited to announce that Eli Mazour has been named partner of the firm. Mazour’s expert knowledge of the patent field, creativity and efficiency in patent prosecution, strong business acumen, and large network within the patent community will be crucial factors in the growth and advancement of the firm. He is one of three new partners at Harrity, as announced by the firm last week.

“I’m excited to now be a partner at America’s most innovative patent preparation and prosecution boutique,” commented Mazour.  “This will allow me to continue to provide the greatest possible value to technology companies that are interested in growing high-quality patent portfolios that best fit their business needs.”

Mazour leads the firm’s patent prosecution team with a focus on helping Patent 300® companies build valuable, high-quality patent portfolios in an efficient manner. He has extensive experience in all aspects of patent prosecution, including preparing and prosecuting hundreds of patent applications related to computer software, Internet and e-commerce, telecommunications, networking devices, electronic consumer products, and medical devices.

Mazour has specific expertise in developing and implementing innovative patent prosecution strategies for reaching favorable results at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He assists clients in evaluating existing patent portfolios, identifying strategic areas for patenting, and creating processes for harvesting disclosures of patentable inventions.

Mazour began his patent law career at the law firm of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner and has been with Harrity, LLP since 2010. Throughout his tenure, Mazour has been helping clients resolve complex patent assertion and licensing issues. As a result, he is keenly aware of the pitfalls to avoid and opportunities to grasp during patent prosecution.

In addition to providing outstanding prosecution support, Mazour is the creator and host of the Clause 8 podcast, which was recently picked up by the IP field’s largest online publication, IPWatchdog.com.  Clause 8 features interviews with prominent members of the IP community in which the most interesting and influential topics of today’s patent world are discussed. As a result, Mazour is sought out by clients and professionals for his insight on various patent policy developments, including legislative proposals and changes at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Mazour has also partaken in several speaking engagements focused on patentability and authored a number of articles on patent strategy.

To learn more about Mazour’s background, and to view all of his speaking engagements and publications, please visit his Harrity Bio Page.

 

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.

Senior Associate Neil Kardos Promoted to Partner

WASHINGTON, DC (January 28, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, LLP is pleased to announce that senior associate Neil Kardos has recently been named partner.  As the firm continues to expand, Neil will play a key role in its ability to stay current with new technologies, provide excellent service to the firm’s clients, become increasingly efficient, develop patent automation tools, and drive forward-thinking business development. Neil is one of three new partners at Harrity, as announced by the firm last week.

“I’m excited and thankful to be part of an innovative firm that’s blazing a trail toward what a patent law firm should look like,” Neil said of the announcement.

Neil is a patent attorney specializing in preparing and prosecuting patent applications. His practice focuses on electrical, computer, and mechanical technologies, including telecommunications, 5G, vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems, financial technologies, computer hardware and software systems, computer networking, search engines, optical systems, internet hardware and software systems, machinery, sensors, control systems, e-commerce, and business methods.

Neil is actively involved with the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association (IPO) and has spoken at the IPO annual meeting on several occasions, most recently about diversity and gender disparity among inventors.  He has partaken in several speaking engagements regarding innovation and the IP field, including presentations at IPO and the Corporate IP Institute as a panel member to analyze and discuss trends in corporate IP management, as well as to share strategies for using patent analytics to manage IP portfolios and IP teams. As part of his work on the IPO’s Corporate IP Management Committee, for which he has served as Vice Chair, Neil helped develop a benchmarking survey that assists in-house counsel in the management of their IP departments and patent portfolios.

Prior to joining Harrity, Neil worked as a Primary Patent Examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, where he examined patent applications directed to computer-related technologies, operations research, e-commerce, computer software, complex network analysis, internet applications, and business methods. While working at the USPTO, Neil attended The George Washington University National Law Center and served as a member of The George Washington Law Review. He has been with Harrity, LLP since April of 2012.

To learn more about Neil’s background, and to view all of his speaking engagements and publications, please visit his Harrity Bio Page.

 

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 Promotes Three Attorneys to Partner, Including First Female Partner

WASHINGTON, DC (January 24, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, a leading patent law firm based in the Washington, DC metro area, is pleased to announce the promotion of three top patent attorneys into partner roles, effective January 1, 2020.

Neil Kardos, Eli Mazour, and Elaine Spector have consistently demonstrated excellence in their practices while going above and beyond to contribute to the firm’s accomplishments in the intellectual property sector. The announcement comes at a time when Harrity is on track to be national leaders in innovation, automation, analytics, charity, and diversity initiatives in the legal field. The transition of Neil, Eli, and Elaine into partnership roles will be a driving force in the continued growth and advancement of the firm.

“Neil, Elaine and Eli are an exceptional group of talent. During their collective time at Harrity, each has demonstrated a tremendous amount of leadership, innovation, efficiency, and progression, both within the firm and the IP community as a whole- all while providing top quality services to our clients. We are thrilled to have these three attorneys begin a new chapter with us as partners and know they will play an instrumental role in furthering Harrity’s accomplishments into the new decade,” said the firm’s Managing Partner, John Harrity.

Neil Kardos, a former Primary Patent Examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and active member of the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association (IPO) and Corporate IP Institute, specializes in preparing and prosecuting patent applications. His practice focuses on electrical, computer, and mechanical technologies, including telecommunications, 5G, vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems, financial technologies, computer hardware and software systems, computer networking, search engines, optical systems, internet hardware and software systems, machinery, sensors, control systems, e-commerce, and business methods. Neil is a graduate of The George Washington University National Law Center and has been with Harrity since April of 2012.

Eli Mazour joined Harrity in 2010 and currently leads the firm’s patent prosecution team with a focus on helping Patent 300® companies build valuable, high-quality patent portfolios in an efficient manner. In this role, he develops and implements best practices for managing workflow and innovative patent prosecution strategies for reaching favorable results at the USPTO. Eli is also the creator and host of the Clause 8 podcast, which features interviews with prominent members of the IP community, and has written and presented about various patent-related trends. As a result, he is sought out by clients and other professionals for his insights on various patent policy developments, including legislative proposals and changes at the USPTO.

Elaine Spector has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property law. Her extensive experience in the IP field includes patent application drafting and prosecution, trademark prosecution and enforcement, as well as litigating complex patent cases in federal courts. Elaine’s current practice consists primarily of prosecuting patent applications with a focus on electromechanical technologies. Elaine is a driving force in legal service quality, diversity programs, and charity involvement at the firm, and currently serves as Chair of the Harrity Diversity Committee and Chair of the AIPLA Women in IP Law Committee’s Global Networking Event and Outreach Subcommittees. She is also on the IPO Diversity Committee’s Management Team and is a Board Member at the non-profit No More Stolen Childhoods. Elaine has been with Harrity since 2017 and is the firm’s first female partner.

“Truly, something extraordinary is happening here at Harrity; where a woman, or any other lawyer for that matter, can have the opportunity to be a partner, but not at the sacrifice of their family.  I am unaware of any other firms that provide the flexibility that Harrity offers; that can allow a mom like myself (who likes to cook for her family and be involved) an opportunity to work reduced hours, while still caring for my family in a way that feels good to me,” said Elaine.  “I am very excited for the opportunity I’ve been given and for what the future holds for this awesome firm.  The best is yet to come.”

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 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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

https://soundcloud.com/clause-8/episode-7-tariq-hafiz

Tariq Hafiz – Clause 8 – Episode 7

A must-listen episode of Clause 8 for anyone interested in patent prosecution.  Eli Mazour talks to Tariq Hafiz – USPTO Director of Technology Center 3600 Business Methods – about his career at the USPTO, soon to be released 101 guidance, overlooked strategies for effectively dealing with examiners and their Supervisors, and many other subjects. 

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

https://soundcloud.com/clause-8/episode-6-representative-henry

Henry Waxman – Clause 8 – Episode 6

In the latest episode of Clause 8, Eli Mazour talks to legendary Congressman Henry Waxman about the passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act, current proposals to deal with the impact of new PTAB proceedings on pharma patents, effectively influencing IP policy in DC, and many other subjects.

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

https://soundcloud.com/clause-8/episode-4-david-kappos

David Kappos Interview – Clause 8 – Episode 4

Eli Mazour recently interviewed former USPTO Director David Kappos. Learn about his time at IBM and the USPTO, what in-house IP counsel should keep in mind, the importance of 5G technology, and so much more! You do not want to miss this insider interview!

Find the full Clause 8 podcast interview here https://www.clause8.tv/ or via your favorite podcast app. 

Harrity Blog

Analysis of December 2016 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples

By Kris Rhu & Paul Gurzo

On December 15, 2016, the USPTO published three subject matter eligibility examples focusing on business method claims, which can be found here.  The purpose of these examples is to give guidance on how claims should be analyzed using the 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility, recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, and recent Memorandums published by the USPTO.  These examples seem to indicate that the power of §101 to restrict patentability has been whittled down since Alice and that the USPTO would like to reduce the number of §101 rejections for technological claims in light of court decisions post-Alice.  Below, we describe each example provided by the USPTO, explain the USPTO guidance for each example, and provide practical practice tips that practitioners can use to help reduce or overcome §101 rejections.

READ MORE >

Alice in Wonderland falling surrounded by playing cards

Alice on Dulany Street: How the PTAB Handles 101 in Ex Parte Appeals

By Eli Mazour & James Bennin

“The outlook has become only more grim for appellants who are hoping that the PTAB will overturn a § 101 rejection.”

Previously, we analyzed ex parte appeal decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) from the year following the Alice v. CLS Bank decision. At the time, we concluded that the PTAB is unlikely to reverse § 101 rejections based on Alice. We decided to revisit this conclusion based on ex parte appeal decisions from December 2016.

READ MORE >

IPO Education Foundation Girl Scout IP Patch Event

May 7, 2016 – Harrity & Harrity had a wonderful time hosting
a booth at the IPO Education Foundation Girl Scout IP Patch Event at the United States Patent & Trademark Office. The patch curriculum was developed jointly by IPO Education Foundation (IPOEF), U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and Girl Scout Counsel of the Nation’s Capital (GSCNC). Patches were presented by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and USPTO Deputy Director Michelle Lee at a ceremony at the Langdon Education Campus.

Watch the video below to highlights of this great event!