Indian Patent Office launched Comprehensive e-Filing services

Following an initiative to offer transparent, user friendly and improved patent application e-filing services, Indian Patent office launched Comprehensive e-Filing services on  15.12.2012. Some of the key features offered under this service include: Dual way login (password and digital signature based), facility to update digital signatures, simplified e-filing process, elimination of transaction errors, validation with IPO patent database, etc. The user manual can be accessed here. This is a welcoming step offered by the Indian Patent Office, thus making the patent application e-filing process more efficient and streamlined. e-Filing services of the older version will be correspondingly discontinued w.e.f. 12:00 hrs IST on 31.12.2012. Readers may check the IPO website for any further updates.

( Image courtesy link)

 

Provisional or Non-Provisional !

 

It is often seen that inventors are perplexed with the idea of filing a provisional patent application or a non-provisional one.  Interestingly the solution lies in the hands of inventors themselves. Here are a few points that may help you decide which one to file:

   1.   The stage of your invention plays a crucial role in whether you end up filing a provisional or a non- provisional patent application. If you are in the preliminary stages of finalizing your invention concept, it is better to file a provisional one.  Apart from that filing a provisional application gives you  an early priority date and an additional 12 months to file a non-provisional application. This time could be utilized to hone your application and invention research .

2.   For start ups and sole businesses , filing a provisional application proves to be beneficial when financial resources are limited and the invention or concept is in the nascent stages of development . In this case, the only benefit that a provisional application provide is an early priority date. 

3.   In case your invention is thorough and well defined, every detail  is tested and foremost if the funding is sufficient , one may think of filing a complete specification i.e. a non-provisional application . The filed non-provisional application will be eventually examined by the examiner on payment of requisite fee and if accepted, an inventor may get a patent granted for a span of twenty years in general.

4.  There is a misconception  amongst inventors that a provisional application will qualify for a patent. This is not true. The fact is that a provisional patent application has a life span of 12 months , within which an inventor is required to file a non provisional patent application disclosing the invention in the best possible manner.  The provisional application is not examined  by the USPTO. One has to file a regular or a non-provisional application with requisite fee to get their applications examined in order to qualify for the patent.

5.  There is an interesting thing to note here. If an inventor files a provisional followed by a non- provisional patent application within 12 months, then in case if a patent is granted on your invention, you will enjoy the patent rights for a span of twenty years from  the actual filing date of your non- provisional patent application . Hence filing a provisional gives you an additional year of patent term and the priority date benefit from the provisional application.

6.    Some inventors wish to save overall time and cost, hence prefer filing the non-provisional applications directly. However  if an inventor directly files the non-provisional application then the term of twenty years will be applicable from the filing date of non-provisional application and the priority date will be the effective filing date of the non-provisional one.

I hope inventors now find it easier to decide which application to go ahead with.

  

( Note: The article is not intended to give any legal advice to the readers.)

(Image courtesy link)

Patent pool offers common hub for Technologies

 

These days technology based patents are all over the place. Firms are more concentrated on the permutations and combinations of tapping infringements, filing lawsuits, remuneration for damages etc. Amidst all this, there is a compelling need to implement a system which could act as a one-stop hub for licensing all technology related patents. This will potentially act as a marketplace for all future related IP licensing needs. In short, the concept of Patent pool shall be utilized for pooling technology based patents and thereby giving substantial opportunities to the member parties who are potentially willing to license-out or cross-license their patented technologies , alongwith the ones who are willing to be potential licensees of such technologies. Such Patent pools not only enhance technology based collaborations but also reduce the risk of litigation for other organizations offering or manufacturing products and services related to such patents.

In the past, we have seen many such Patent pooling consortiums. For example, Open Innovation Network® founded in 2005, founding members being IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony. Open Invention Network® operations include acquiring patents and making them available royalty-free to companies, institutions or individuals who agree not to assert their patents against the Linux System. Thus promoting technology based collaboration. Potential licensees of Open Innovation Network® agrees not to assert their patent rights on Linux based Systems on becoming OIN licensees. On the other hand, licensees can fruitfully benefit from the royalty free access to the valuable Linux based Patent portfolio.

Other such technology based patent pools include OpenPatent Alliance founded in 2008 by Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco Systems, Clearwire, Intel, Sprint and Samsung for patents related to WiMAX standard ( Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access). Another such consortium being the Medicines Patent Pool which aims to improve access to affordable and appropriate HIV medicines in middle or low income countries. More information on Medicine Patent Pool can be accessed from our earlier blog post here.

The recent addition to the patent pool consortium is Via Licensing's LTE ( Long Term Evolution ) Patent pool ( announced on October 3, 2012 ) for the wireless industry which aims at accelerating innovation by providing efficient, transparent and cost-effective access to LTE standard essential patents. The members offering their patents through this LTE Patent pool are AT&T, Clearwire Corporation, DTVG Licensing, HP, KDDI Corporation, NTT DOCOMO, SK Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefónica, and ZTE Corporation.

Analyzing all this, we can hope additions of more such Patent pools in the near future enhancing technology based collaborations and building a stronger ecosystem for licensing present and upcoming technologies. 

( Image courtesy link) 

Are fashion patents here to stay !

In the recent times with advancements in global shopping networks and eCommerce based shopping platforms, there is an obvious adrenaline rush amongst renowned fashion brands to make an impact on the customers with their signature lines and unique apparel collections. Amidst all conventional methods of legal protection, fashion brands are eying on more substantial protection in the form of design patents. Design patents solely protect the ornamental or visual designs of the manufactured objects unlike utility patents which are granted on the functional utilitarian basis. Design patents encompass various aesthetic combinations of patterns, colors, shapes and configurations applied on various objects like jewelry, containers, apparel, furniture, etc.

Fashion or Apparel brands finds it more appealing to protect their industrial designs via design patents which confer them monopoly and exclusive rights to sell, distribute or license their designed products besides tapping infringements. For example, in a recent incident, Lululemon filed a legal suit against Calvin Klein for infringing upon their Yoga Pants design patent. Typically a Design patent protection in the US lasts within 14 years from the date of grant with no additional maintenance fee unlike utility patents which last in 20 years along with additional maintenance fee applicable. The reduced cost, reduced time and simple application procedure thus makes it an attractive proposition for fashion brands to go for design patents. Although, design patent applications are fairly simpler than utility patent applications but demands superior quality patent illustrations or drawings conferring to set standards to increase your chances of securing a design patent successfully.

Many fashion brands actively apply for design patents in order to safeguard their business from active competitors and to develop firm business strategies with open options for licensing-out deals. Besides protecting industrial designs at the national level, brands can actively protect their designs internationally by filing a single application for different designated countries via Hague System for the registration of International  Industrial Designs, administered by WIPO. For registering the designs across European Union, a single Community Design application can be filed mentioning the designated countries at the OHIM portal. It is important to note that the duration of such protection may vary depending on the international treaties and conventions involved.

Looking at the rising number of design patent applications each year, it is expected in future fashion businesses will rely more on such design based patent protections and will incorporate them under their core Intellectual Property business strategies. 

( Image courtesy link) 

Guest Post: Invalidation: Law at the heart of patent litigation

Today, we bring you a guest blog post from Leonard Priet, a writer for Patexia.com. The post briefly discusses about the scenario after the thrust in technology oriented patent applications and various tactics employed to practice defense in patent wars.

 Invalidation: law at the heart of patent litigation

With the dot-com bubble around the turn of the century, there was a dramatic increase in the number of patents issued by the USPTO. The world, and the United States in particular, was rife with ideas that companies and individuals wanted to protect. This aggravated a problem that had been mounting for the previous decade. Beginning in the past twenty years the patent office, couldn’t keep up with the dramatic increase in the number of applications per year, which resulted in the issue of a number of patents that did not necessarily pass the strict standards of patentability from which the world of American innovation had flourished since its creation in eighteenth century. By erring on the side of a laissez-faire approach due to sheer lack of resources, the patent office has left the burden of determining which patents are valid to the courts.

Today’s excessively litigious technology market - where swaths of thousands of patents are bought and sold , aiding in increasingly harmful patent wars - is the crucible in which irrelevant patents must be boiled away, leaving only those that live up to the USPTO’s strict standards of patentability set forth in Chapter 10, Title 35 of the United States Code.

Everybody’s suing everybody else

The question that the courts must answer in patent infringement is: which lawsuits are legitimate or, alternatively, which patents are valid? When a defendant is being sued for patent infringement, the most common recourse is to invalidate the patents involved. This all boils down to patentability which, in the eyes of patent law, means non- obviousness (sect. 103) and novelty (sect. 102).

Non-Obvious subject matter : (35 U.S.C. 103)

An idea is not patentable if it is obvious to a person skilled in the field related to a particular patent. To invalidate a patent under this section, a defendant in a patent infringement case must show that the idea disclosed in a patent would be obvious to an individual skilled in the field of the patent. For example, if a defendant is sued for a patent that claims replaceable ink cartridges, the defendant needs only to show that replaceable ink cartridges are an obvious addition to pens. At least obvious to someone who works in the business of pen making. Patent invalidation by obviousness is rare because examiners can easily recognize obvious ideas before they are patented, so obvious patents seldom end up in lawsuits.

Novelty : (35 U.S.C. 102)

To hold patent for an idea, that idea must be unique. This requirement is where the majority of patents fall short, and therefore is what many patent infringement defendants use to invalidate patents and win cases. To determine whether or not an idea is novel, an examiner must effectively look through an endless number of sources, a tall order when time and resources are limited. As a result, a significant proportion of patents are issued because a patent examiner could not find any source to demonstrate that the idea is not novel. But this does not mean these sources referred to as “prior art” do not exist. The most common way for a defendant to win a patent infringement case is by finding some documented proof that the patent’s idea is not novel by locating this prior art. As a result, such prior art searches have become an integral part of patent litigation defense, and are likely to become increasingly important and ubiquitous in upcoming years. Hence, we are able to conceptualize the latest trends in the patent wars and the modes employed therein to practice defense.

Leonard Priet is a writer for patexia.com -- a social network for researcher, business, and innovation. Patexia’s mission is to advance the pace of innovation by offering community resources and patent research tools  as well as expert-targeted prior art searches for patent invalidity.

(Image courtesy link)

 

Software Patents : What you need to know before filing

Software based mobile application patents are a trend now. With the launch of umpteen smart phone apps on a regular basis, the inventors tend to be extra cautious of protecting their innovations. One of the prime contributing reason being the stiff competitive market of these mobile apps. When you have thousands of apps offering more or less similar features, it becomes vital to secure an early priority date and eventually a patent to be on the beneficial side.  Now talking more on the practical side of these mobile app based patent applications, it is a requisite to know few vital points while drafting your patent application.

1. Prior art is life saving : In spite of being the most important aspect , many solo inventors or start ups tend to overlook this one on account of extra financial expenses. While one might be thinking his invention is unique and one of a kind but in actuality a lot other inventions embody similar backgrounds or likely similar patent claims. Especially under the mobile app patents prior art, you will find many claims which more or less reflect your proposed invention. Such a high probability of similar or likely similar claims emanate from the overcrowded mobile app marketplace where attaining patents can certainly gives you an edge over others.


2. Provisional or Non Provisional application:   Inventors have an option of filing a provisional patent application in order to attain an early priority date. It is also desirable to file a provisional application when you are still undergoing the process of finalizing the invention but at the same time wish to safeguard the initial idea. As soon as you are ready with the complete invention details, you may go ahead filing the non provisional patent application. A provisional application has to be followed with a non – provisional patent application within 12 months from the provisional filing date. Many a times, a provisional application gives appreciable time to the inventors during which they can test or validate their ideas in the marketplace before filing the complete patent applications.


3. Quantity and Quality of claims:    Well structured and technically adept claims attain benefits during patent application examinations. Always lay more emphasis on the quality rather than the quantity of claims.It is also noteworthy that additional claims beyond a certain limit amounts to additional fee. Hence, it is imperative to select the best combination of dependent and independent claims highlighting the proposed invention. 

4. Drawings : Specially in the case of smart phone app based patent applications, it is crucial to add the right mix of flowcharts, user interface, graphical interface and other component based diagrams explaining the essence of the proposed invention. Well arranged, adequately labeled and well explained drawings always maintain an advantage over others.

Hence, we tried to give you an overview of certain important elements which you shall keep in mind while filing the software patent applications under mobile apps domain. 

( Image Courtesy link)