Us Patent Web Site

Posted on October 25, 2011 by Admin
Us Patent Web Site

Us Patent Web Site

By Patricia Barclay, Managing Director, Bonaccord Ecosse

The America Invents Act has now been signed into law by President Obama. The statute includes some fundamental changes to US patent law and procedure: most notably moving to a “first to file” system and replacing a number of cour procedures with administrative options which it is intended should speed up the resolution of patent disputes so offering lower costs and greater certainty to business. The changes are being introduced over an 18 month period with some changes such as those relating to fees coming in immediately while others such as “first to file” requiring a longer lead time.

The introduction of “first to file” aligns US law more closely with practice in other industrialised countries but a number of US quirks are maintained. For example there will still be a 12 month grace period during which time disclosures of the invention will not be fatal to a US patent (but remember disclosure anywhere in the world is fatal to an application in Europe) but this is ow restricted so that these disclosures have to originate from the person ultimately seeking the patent application. While there has been considerable discussion in the US as to the potential impact on the small inventor who has traditionally used the 12 month grace period to gather support for his invention before going to the expense of applying for a patent the continuing grace period allowed the inventor himself would seems still to provide that cover although he will now at least probably have to seek a provisional patent to secure his priority date.

The application process itself is subject to a few changes too. Paper filing will attract an additional fee to encourage online filing and a new category of applicant “the micro-enterprise” is introduced which will benefit from substantially lower fees. It will also be possible to pay an additional application fee in order to obtain prioritised examination. This may well have benefits for companies seeking to enter into collaborations or funding arrangements who need an early determination. It remains a requirement for a US application that the best methodology for practising the patent must be disclosed in the application however once granted it is no longer open to third parties to challenge the patent on the basis that the best methodology was not disclosed in the application. This removes the potential for often rather opportunist litigation based on hindsight and imaginings of the subjective opinions and biases of the applicant. Assignees and organisations to which an inventor is obliged to assign his invention will now be able to file themselves obviating the need to chase down affidavits and signatures from the originator which is likely to make life easier for academic institutions in particular or for companies faced with tracking down retired or departed staff.

Opportunist litigation is also attacked by the wholesale cancellation of “false marking” claims that have flooded the courts in recent times. This is when someone has found an item bearing an expired patent and has brought an action for false marking with respect every single item on the market. Now only the government or those who can show that they have actually suffered damage through the false marking will be able to claim and the damages are firmly restricted to genuine loss. This not only puts an end to often very trivial litigation brought in the hope of a windfall and defended at vast expense but also removes the need for expensive monitoring systems within companies to ensure that goods bearing unexpired patent number do not reach the market. Funds and energy expended on this rather pointless activity can now be directed by the company to more useful activities.

Sometimes several patents cover a particular product and it may be difficult to list these on the item itself accordingly a new provision permits a patentee to mark a product with “patent” or “Pat” and a website address and then list all the relevant patent numbers on the website. This approach is likely to be more informative to the public as well as more convenient to the manufacturer who may also save tooling costs where items containing a similar component can have that component marked before being incorporated into the product rather than having to tool up separately for each product. The new inter partes review procedure will require a higher standard of likelihood of success by the challenger than the current procedures and this too should lead to a reduction in opportunist litigation. A much closer connection between defendants brought together in a joint action will now also have to be shown but there has been some debate as to how helpful this will be. While it may restrict the number of defenders who can be dragged into actions in states with which they have minimal connection or being caught up in litigation where their defence differs substantially from other parties it will also make it harder for small companies to sue all the infringers in one action. On balance however it is likely to be pro-industry and primarily strike at the so-called “patent trolls” who do not themselves work patents but hold them with a view to suing and licensiing others.

As with all new pieces of law there are some potential ambiguities and it will take a while to settle down until we all see what it means in reality -other than a windfall for patent textbook writers as we all replace our libraries. One clause however that seems likely to be subject to further interpretation in court is the prohibition on patents “directed to or encompassing a human organism” . That human life cannot be patented is well understood and is unlikely to prove controversial in the foreseeable future however it is not clear to many of us what “directed to” might mean. One obvious area where this might be relevant would be in developing new techniques or treatments for infertility. For a number of companies and researchers this will obviously be a matter of some concern. Another clause with the potential for uncertainty is the new definition of “inventor” who is described as someone who “invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention” current precedent set by the courts defines inventor as someone who contributes to the conception of the invention. There must also be some concern regarding the concept of discovery in relation to patents as the US has always be more open to this idea than other countries were much greater human intervention is required for something to be a patentable invention.

Another type of patent that is specifically addressed in the act is the business method patent. Tax strategy inventions are now specifically excluded from patentability. It should be noted however that the defence to infringement that the defendant was already making commercial use of the invention prior to the patent application being made which was previously restricted to business method cases is now available to all types of patent. Note however that defendant must produce evidence of use stretching back more than one year before the patent application is made or is published to the public whichever is the earlier. It is not clear why such long-term use should be required but that is what statute says.

A number of opportunities are introduced for opponents to challenge both applications and granted patents in an administrative procedure rather than going to court. This should bring costs down considerably and also help genuine claims to succeed or be defended by being heard before a professional tribunal rather than being faced with the vagaries of a jury or judges unfamiliar with the technology or area of law. Time limits have been established for the process which again should help business certainty and keep costs down although it must be said that the extent of discovery that is to be permitted with respect to some of these procedures would suggest that costs will still be higher than one might expect in say continental Europe. Particularly likely to benefit are those with more controversial technologies or who have in the past felt open to bias for example pharmaceutical originators often feel lay judges and juries are sympathetic to generic arguments as a result of concern at the perceived high costs of their products as opposed to the pure legal argument. It is thought that professional examiners will be less likely swayed.

On the face of it this appears to be a pro innovation statute that will increase certainty and should speed up both the application and the objection processes while limiting the scope for abuse. However it also contains uncertainties and in a number of areas further subsidiary regulation will be required for full implementation. With some of the most significant changes not coming into force for 18 months it is likely to be three or four years before we really have an understanding of how everything will work in practice however it is important to start making preparations now in planning long-term US strategy and in particular to consider those small procedural matters that are being introduced in the near term.

http://www.bonaccord.eu

 

Description

BACKGROUND

[0001] Over a period of time, use of internet has increased. Websites have become interactive and provide a plethora of options to a user. With an increase in interactivity, time spent on the website also increases and thus revenue generation through advertisements or other modes also increases. Hence, it is desired to make websites interactive.

[0002] Some websites, for example event based websites display contents that changes frequently. For example, a website listing currently running movies has dynamic content which can change every week. A user can visit such a website and decide to purchase a ticket. The user can also interact with other online buddies through social networking websites, for example Facebook.RTM. or through any other mode of communication. However, this causes dependence on modes other than the movie website to interact with buddies and determine buddies who are interested in watching the movie.

SUMMARY

[0003] An example of a method includes determining, electronically, a social network associated with a user in response to the user visiting a web page. Further, the method includes determining, electronically, a first buddy of the user on the social network. Furthermore, the method includes identifying, electronically, a first event from events associated with the first buddy which matches an event associated with the web page. In addition, the method includes displaying the first event and information associated with the first buddy on the web page.

[0004] An example of a system includes a communication interface to enable communication with one or more electronic devices when desired. The system also includes a memory coupled to the communication interface for storing instructions. Further, the system includes a processor, coupled to the communication interface and the memory, and responsive to the instructions to determine a social network associated with a user in response to the user visiting a web page, determine a first buddy of the user on the social network, identify a first event from events associated with the first buddy which matches an event associated with the web page, and display the first event and information associated with the first buddy on the web page.

[0005] An example of an article of manufacture includes a machine-readable medium and instructions carried by the medium and operable to cause a programmable processor to perform determining, electronically, a social network associated with a user in response to the user visiting a web page. Further, the machine-readable medium carries instructions operable to cause the programmable processor to perform determining, electronically, a first buddy of the user on the social network. Furthermore, the machine-readable medium carries instructions operable to cause the programmable processor to perform identifying, electronically, a first event from events associated with the first buddy which matches an event associated with the web page. In addition, the machine-readable medium carries instructions operable to cause the programmable processor to perform displaying the first event and information associated with the first buddy on the web page.

Share