21 April 2017

Regulatory Board Recognises Validity of Publicly-Listed Patent Attorney Structures

TickThe Trans-Tasman IP Attorneys Board (TTIPAB) – the regulatory body formerly known as the Professional Standards Board for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys – has released a consultation paper as part of its review of the Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys 2013 (‘Code’).  This review was mandated under the arrangement between the Australian and New Zealand governments to merge the registration and disciplinary regimes for attorneys in the two countries, which came into effect on 24 February 2017.  Any amendments to the Code that may be necessary or appropriate in response to the creation of the Trans-Tasman attorney regime must be made within 12 months of its commencement, i.e. by 23 February 2018.

In addition, as I mentioned in an earlier article regarding the consolidation of a number of Australian IP attorney and legal firms into publicly-listed groups, the TTIPAB commissioned Professor Andrew Christie of the University of Melbourne to examine these structural changes in the profession and advise on whether any further regulatory amendments are required in light of these developments.  Professor Christie has delivered his report, and the TTIPAB has consolidated his findings, and its corresponding proposed revisions to the Code, into the present consultation paper.

Broadly speaking, and consistently with my expectations, no actual issues have been identified with the current ‘listed group scenario’ (as the consultation paper calls it).  While these types of arrangements have the potential create conflict-of-interest situations that cannot arise with traditional independent firm structures, the existing listed holding companies, IPH Limited (ASX:IPH), Xenith IP Group Limited (ASX:XIP) and QANTM IP Limited (ASX:QIP), have all recognised the issues, obtained relevant legal advice, and have implemented a range of measures to manage the associated risks.  The TTIPAB appears generally satisfied with these measures.  The consultation paper states, in particular, that:

The Board recognises that the listed group scenario is a valid legal structure when considered from the perspective of corporations law. The Board also recognises that an equivalent scenario in which the holding company is a private company would also be a valid legal structure. The Board is of the view that attorneys should be free to adopt whatever valid legal structure best suits their commercial interests. Accordingly, the Board does not propose to prohibit or restrict the ability of attorneys to deliver their services through the operation of groups of incorporated attorney firms owned by a holding company, whether that holding company be a publicly listed company or a private company.

17 April 2017

University of California Unsurprisingly Appeals Decision to Terminate CRISPR Patent Interference

Gavel FigureIn February, I reported the decision of the US Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the patent interference proceedings initiated by the University of California (‘UC’) against the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (‘Broad’) in relation to CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology.  That decision was that there is ‘no interference in fact’, meaning that Broad’s development of the CRISPR/Cas9 system for use in eukaryotic cells (i.e. complex cells with, among other characteristics, distinct nuclei) was a non-obvious advance over UC’s development of the system for use in simpler prokaryotic cells (specifically, bacteria), and that there is thus scope for both parties to hold distinct patents.  At the time, I noted that the PTAB decision was subject to a possible appeal to a US Federal Court – most likely the specialised Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) – and predicted that UC would file an appeal, in view of the substantial commercial interests at stake.

I am therefore not at all surprised to now be reporting that UC has indeed appealed to the CAFC.  In a press release announcing the appeal, UC has confirmed that it ‘seeks to have the PTAB reinstate the interference’, and quotes Edward Penhoet, a ‘special adviser on CRISPR to the UC president and UC Berkeley chancellor’ as saying that:

Ultimately, we expect to establish definitively that the team led by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier was the first to engineer CRISPR-Cas9 for use in all types of environments, including in non-cellular settings and within plant, animal and even human cells

Broad has responded with its own media statement saying, in relation to the appeal, that:

Given that the facts have not changed, we expect the outcome will once again be the same.
We are confident the Federal Circuit will affirm the PTAB decision and recognize the contribution of the Broad, MIT and Harvard in developing this transformative technology.

New USPTO Data Set Reveals Recent Trends in Software and Business Method Patent Grants and Filings

New DataThe US Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) has released a new public patent data service, which it calls the Patent Examination Data System (PEDS).  PEDS is intended to replace the PAIR Bulk Data (PBD) service, and has a very similar interface for filtering, viewing and downloading bulk US patent data, as well as an application programming interface (API) for live access.  Although PEDS is still under development, is missing some data fields that are present in PBD, and currently provides fewer filtering options than PBD, it is already ahead in a number of important respects. 

Firstly, where I have previously noted that the PBD set was incomplete in relation to patents granted in 2016, this problem seems to have been resolved in PEDS.  Secondly, PEDS includes the ‘transaction history’ for each application in the data set.  Readers familiar with the USPTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) online system will be aware that the PAIR interface includes a ‘Transaction History’ tab that displays a list of all actions and events that have taken place on the file, along with their corresponding dates.  This information is now included in PEDS.  The USPTO has indicated that, in future, PEDS may include enhancements to search additional fields, additional data from tabs in Public PAIR, and the Image File Wrapper (IFW).

The availability of this new, and more complete, data set has enabled me to revisit the analysis of software and business method patents that I reported back in January, with the benefit of more than a year of additional data.  As a result, I have been able to observe how the trends in patent grants have progressed since the end of 2015.  In short, there has been no further change.  The rate of grant of patents assigned to software Art Units within the USPTO continues to track – and even slightly exceed – the overall rate of grants across all technologies, while business method patent grants remain in the doldrums, flat-lining at the rate to which they fell shortly after the US Supreme Court’s Alice decision in June 2014.

The additional data has also enabled me to look at trends in filing behaviour, which may be indicative of how applicants have responded to Alice and the USPTO’s subsequent changes in examination practice and guidance as applied to software and business method patent applications.  Interestingly, this data indicates that the rate of applicants filing for patents in relation to ‘business method’ inventions has been in steady decline since June 2014, but that there has been an equally steady increase in the rate of filing of applications for software inventions.

16 April 2017

IP Australia Updates Website with Better Advice for Patent Applicants

Browsing with tabletBack in February, I presented an analysis of Australian patent application data showing that self-represented applicants tend to achieve extremely poor outcomes relative to those who seek professional advice and assistance.  In doing so, I pointed out that IP Australia’s web site provided only the most minimal encouragement for prospective applicants to engage a patent attorney before proceeding.  As I reported further in March, this did not pass unnoticed at IP Australia, which was quick to point out that they have a downloadable PDF document (A guide to applying for your patent, 3.89MB) which includes a number of stronger statements about the benefits of obtaining professional assistance.  However, this document was not easy to find, since it was not linked from any of the primary informational/educational content on the site.

Via a tweet at the time, IP Australia promised that they would look into the issue, and see where it might be possible to make improvements.

I am really pleased to report that IP Australia have been true to their word, and the following pages on their web site now include recommendations for prospective applicants to seek professional assistance and/or links to the downloadable patent application guide:
  1. Patent basics
  2. Types of patents
  3. What can be patented
  4. Decide if you have a standard patent
  5. Apply for a standard patent
  6. What to include in your application
  7. Decide if you have an innovation patent

Professional Advice is More Than Application Assistance

If you are an innovator, the benefits of speaking with a professional adviser, such as a patent attorney, before charging straight for the patent office go far beyond just making sure that you have invented something patentable, and that you file a quality application with good prospects of protecting the invention, although it is these aspects which which IP Australia is naturally most concerned.  A patent attorney should also be informed of your specific commercial objectives and can advise on the most suitable overall filing strategy.

10 April 2017

‘Clustering’ Australia’s Patent Applicants

Clusters - BrisbaneI recently generated an interactive map of Australia’s most innovative postcodes, using recent Australian patent application and maintenance data.  While it is, of course, interesting to know whether one lives or works in a particularly innovative part of the country, the exercise of classifying activity by postcode is inherently artificial, in that it presupposes there is something ‘meaningful’ about the region covered by each particular postcode.  There is, however, no reason to suppose that this is the case.  There is nothing about the boundaries between adjacent postcodes, which are set by postal authorities for their own administrative purposes, that would necessarily lead to them being well-suited to the task of locating innovative activity.

A somewhat less arbitrary regional structure (from a socio-economic perspective) is defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in the form of a hierarchy of ‘statistical areas’ (SAs).  In conjunction with its Australian Geography of Innovative Entrepreneurship (2015) research paper, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science produced its own interactive Innovation Map using the ABS SA3 definitions as the basic regional unit.  Generally speaking, SA3s are regions with populations between 30,000 and 130,000 persons and reflecting regional identity in terms of geographic and socio-economic characteristics.  This results in aggregation of data over wider areas than individual postcodes.  In Sydney, for example, it results in the greatest number of patent filings being attributed to the Sydney Inner City SA3 region.  It is not possible, at this level, to observe the particular concentration of activity occurring around Macquarie University in the North of Sydney noted in my postcode-based analysis, since this is ‘diluted’ by lower activity in other parts of the encompassing Ryde-Hunters Hill SA3 region.
National Innovation Map 2015 - Sydney
The answer you receive thus depends upon the question you ask, e.g. how many patent applicants are located within a particular postcode, or within a particular SA3 region?  In both of these cases, a set of geographic areas is imposed before even commencing the analysis, and the results are constrained by this choice.  In the real world, however, innovation does not begin or end at some artificial boundary set by a postal officer or statistician.  So how can we analyse the distribution of patent applicants objectively and without applying predetermined geographic constraints?

One approach to this problem is a technique known as cluster analysis, or clustering.  The idea behind clustering is to apply an algorithm to automatically group elements in a data set according to a measure of similarity, such as geographic proximity.  It can be regarded as a form of machine learning in which the algorithm is designed to ‘discover’ patterns in the data without explicit direction from a human operator. 

In this article, I present some results of applying one of the most commonly-used clustering algorithms, k-means, to an Australian patent application data set to analyse national and local distributions of patent applicants.  This kind of analysis could be used, for example, to identify regions in which it could be most productive to invest in support for innovative industries, or to set up a business providing services to innovative companies, such as R&D tax advice or IP services.

04 April 2017

Justice Stephen Burley Pulls Excess Teeth from Australia’s Innovation Patent

ToothThe innovation patent is Australia’s ‘second tier’ patent right.  It is granted without substantive examination (but must be examined and certified before it can be enforced), has a maximum term of only eight years, and requires a lower level of inventiveness than a standard patent in order to be valid.  Despite this, however, a certified innovation patent gives its owner all of the same rights and remedies against infringers – including injunctions and financial compensation – as a standard patent.  And in one respect innovation patents have appeared, since September 2011, to offer a distinct advantage over standard patents in that damages have been held to accrue not just back to the date of certification, or the date of grant, but all the way back to the original effective filing date.  In the case of divisional applications, this could be many years before the actual filing and grant dates of the innovation patent.  (For more information, see Britax Childcare Pty Ltd v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd [No 3] [2012] FCA 1019, and my earlier article Innovation Patents Reach Back in Time for Infringement.)

Innovation patents are currently under attack from a number of quarters, and it is no secret that a number of authorities would like to see the system abolished altogether.  I have repeatedly argued, however, that the main criticisms of the system could be dealt with through some judicious modifications to strike a better balance between reduced patentability standards, patent term, rights of patentees, and rights of competitors and the wider public.  (See, for example, IP Australia Has the Innovation Patent In Its Sights, Again!, Five Easy Ways to Fix the Innovation Patent System, The Productivity Commission on Patents – It’s All About ‘Value’ and ‘Quality’, and Users and Abusers of the Australian Innovation Patent System.)

The strategic use of divisional innovation patents to ‘tailor’ claims targeting a competitor’s activity, and then claim compensation back to the original filing date of the parent application, was highlighted by the Australian Government’s Productivity Commission in its final report on its Inquiry into Australia’s Intellectual Property Arrangements.  In a chapter concluding with a recommendation that the innovation patent system be abolished, it presented the following diagram illustrating the discrepancy between the period during which divisional innovation patent claims are public (i.e. when infringers may be on-notice of liability) and the period over which compensation can be claimed (Figure 8.4, p 255).
PC IP Arrangements Report Figure 8.4
However, in a decision issued on 3 April 2017 and authored by Justice Stephen Burley (with whom Justices Nicholas and Jagot expressly concurred, rather than simply issuing a joint judgment), a Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia has overruled Britax: Coretell Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 54. 

Accordingly, as the law now stands compensation for infringement of a divisional innovation patent cannot be claimed back to the original date of the parent application.  The correct position, according to the Full Court, is that compensation for infringement of an innovation patent (divisional or otherwise) is available only from the date of grant – which is also the date of publication – of the innovation patent.

02 April 2017

Where Are Australia’s Most Innovative Postcodes?

Macquarie University AreaAccording to IP Australia data covering live patents and applications, and recently-filed provisional applications, as at the end of 2015, the most innovative postcodes in Australia, across all fields of technology, are those taking in Macquarie University and surrounds in the North of Sydney.  Postcodes 1710 (Epping, NSW) and 2612 (represented by the nearby Blenheim Road post office) collectively accounted for nearly 1200 patents and pending applications, and 200 provisional applications filed by Australian applicants within the preceding three years.  This represents around 17% and 5%, respectively, of all such patents and applications owned by Australian applicants at that time.

Other hotspots are the regions around the CBDs of the New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian state capitals Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.  Also featuring strongly in the top 50 postcodes for patent filing are major university precincts in and around the University of Sydney, Monash University and the University of Melbourne.

In addition to the major cities, where it is unsurprising to find significant concentrations of innovative activities and industries, there are also a number of notable regional centres of innovation.  These include the NSW Central Coast, north of Sydney, particularly around Somersby (postcode 2250), west of Sydney around Long Point (postcode 2867), and Aitkenvale in the suburbs of Townsville in North Queensland (postcode 4814).

More generally, a map of Australian patent filing and ownership by postcode leads to a similar conclusion to the one I reached in my recent analysis of the origins of biotechnology patent applications – innovation is a collective activity that tends to occur in geographic clusters.  By exploring the interactive map below, you will be able to identify the various localities on national, state, regional, urban and suburban scale within which much of Australia’s innovative activity takes place.

26 March 2017

Enforcing Patents on Processes for Producing Biologics – Easier Said Than Done?

Seeking answersA biological medicine, or biologic, is a medicine that contains one or more active substances made by a biological process or derived from a biological source.  Compared to conventional pharmaceuticals, which are made by chemical synthesis using different organic and/or inorganic compounds, biologics are generally much larger molecules that are derived from the living cells of micro-organisms or animals by utilizing the metabolic processes of the organisms themselves.  In many cases, cells are genetically engineered, using recombinant DNA technology, to co-opt their expression capabilities and turn them into tiny ‘factories’ for producing the desired biologic molecules.  The first such substance to be approved for therapeutic use was synthetic ‘human’ insulin, developed by Genentech and first marketed by Ely Lilly in 1982.  Since then, biologics have become increasingly important, and hundreds of biologic medicines are now in use, including therapeutic proteins, DNA vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and fusion proteins.

The chemical structures of traditional ‘small molecule’ pharmaceuticals are usually well-defined.  Biologics, on the other hand, are often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to characterise structurally due to their size and complexity.  In many cases, some components of a finished biologic may be unknown.  Protecting biologics with patents can therefore be challenging, given the potential difficulty in claiming the active biologic molecule in terms that are sufficiently precise to meet legal requirements for the invention to be clearly defined, while also being broad enough to encompass variations that may have the same therapeutic properties, and satisfying the tests for novelty, inventive step and subject-matter eligibility.

The complexity of biologics also means that they are more difficult to produce than small molecule pharmaceuticals.  Minor differences in the production process, raw materials, temperature, pH, or cell line can result in a significant alteration in a medicine’s quality, efficacy, or safety.  While this creates challenges in manufacturing and quality control, it also creates opportunities for the protection of intellectual property, by securing patents on methods of producing biologic medicines either in place of, or in addition to, trying to claim the active molecules themselves in some form.

Process claims are all very well if the patentee can established that a suspected infringer is using the patented method of production.  But what happens when the suspect company keeps its manufacturing processes secret, as indeed is most commonly the case?  Well, then the patentee may need to convince a judge to issue an order for preliminary discovery, compelling the accused infringer to disclose relevant information about its processes.

This is exactly what Pfizer recently sought to do in preparation for possible patent litigation against Samsung Bioepis AU (‘SBA’) in relation to Pfizer’s product ENBREL (active ingredient etanercept), which is a biological medicine used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.  Unfortunately for Pfizer, Justice Stephen Burley has denied its application for discovery, ruling its evidence insufficient to establish a ‘reasonable belief’, as opposed to a ‘mere suspicion’, that SBA is infringing its patents relating to a process for producing etanercept: Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 285.

19 March 2017

Revisiting Official ‘Advice’ on Engaging Patent Attorneys

FeedbackLast month I presented an analysis of the fate of Australian patent applications filed by self-represented applicants.  It was not pretty.  I found that for Australian patent applications made by small self-filers, at least 90% of all provisional applications, 77% of all standard patent applications and 95% of all innovation patent applications ultimately result in absolutely no enforceable rights whatsoever. 

I laid some of the blame for this squarely at the feet of IP Australia which, despite its vision of having ‘a world leading IP system that builds prosperity for Australia’, appears to make only the most cursory effort on its web site to encourage prospective applicants to seek advice from a patent attorney.  I also presented examples of corresponding content from the web sites of the US Patent and Trademarks Office, the UK Intellectual Property Office, the European Patent Office and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, all of which highlight the risks of failing to obtain professional assistance, and encourage applicants to engage a patent attorney.

This elicited some responses from IP Australia via Twitter.  The Chief Economist, Ben Mitra-Kahn, speculated that the fate of self-filed applications might not be a significant issue, on the assumption that the the relative number of self-filers is small.

Sadly, this is not the case.  Based on the Intellectual Property Government Open Data (IPGOD) 2016 data set, in calendar-year 2014, for example, the total number of standard patent applications filed naming one or more Australian resident private or small-business applicants was 1499, of which 220 (14.7%) were self-filed.  Clearly this is not so far short of the 20% of resident self-filers in the UK.  And if history is anything to go by, fewer than 50 of those 220 self-filed applications will ultimately result in granted claims.

IP Australia also pointed out to me that there is a downloadable PDF document, A guide to applying for your patent, that contains stronger suggestions regarding the benefits of professional advice.

Appeals Court Annuls $1.5 Million ‘Unjustified Threats’ Damages Award

Unjustified ThreatUnder section 128 of the Australian Patents Act 1990, a person or company that has been unjustifiably threatened with patent infringement proceedings may seek an injunction to prevent the threats from continuing, and the recovery of any damages sustained as a result of the threats.  These provisions may be invoked pre-emptively by an accused infringer, for example against a patent holder that may be trying to inhibit competition by making vague or dubious claims.  However, they may also be invoked defensively, in response to the actual commencement of infringement proceedings by a patent holder that has initially made threats by way of a cease-and-desist letter.  As the law has developed in Australia, an application for relief from unjustified threats will be successful in any case in which it ultimately turns out that a patent is invalid or not infringed, regardless of how objectively reasonable the patentee’s original belief may have been.

I have written on a number of previous occasions of my concerns about the operation of the unjustified threats provisions in the Patents Act.  Most recently, in August 2016, I discussed the difficulties faced by a patentee in raising and seeking to resolve a dispute prior to commencing proceedings – as required under the Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011without incidentally opening itself up to a subsequent unjustified threats claim.  At around the same time, a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Barker J) issued an 870 paragraph judgment (Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 7) [2016] FCA 991) awarding damages of A$1,506,859 against the Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd (‘AMC’) for making unjustified threats against Coretell Pty Ltd, following a number of years of patent infringement proceedings in which AMC was ultimately unsuccessful.  (For earlier articles on this dispute see Innovation Patent Claims Once Again Construed Narrowly, Australian Appeals Court Further Clarifies ‘Purposive Construction’ and Australian Federal Court Considers Patent Attorney Privilege.)

If you think (as I do) that $1.5 million seems like an excessive amount of damage to have resulted from the sending of a fairly typical letter of demand, then I am pleased to report that you would be correct.  A Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia has now wholly overturned the ruling of the original judge and ordered that, instead, Coretell’s claim for damages should be dismissed with costs: Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 44.  In doing so, the Full Court has highlighted the importance of establishing causation, i.e. that damage is sustained as a result of the threats.  In particular, the judgment cautions against failing to distinguish properly between damage sustained as a result of the threat of infringement proceedings and damage sustained as a result of infringement proceedings themselves.

This is, to my mind at least, a welcome development in the law.  While it does nothing to prevent the unjustified threats provisions being invoked by an accused infringer in response to proceedings commenced on the basis of a reasonably-held belief that a patent is being infringed, it significantly limits the practical impact of the provisions in such circumstances.  I imagine that it would be rare for substantial damage to be sustained merely as a result of an initial threat of proceedings in any case where infringement proceedings are actually commenced within a reasonable period of time, allowing for some efforts to resolve the dispute prior to litigation.

12 March 2017

Australia’s Biotechnology ‘Hotspots’ – An Interactive Map

Heatmap-thumbAccording to IP Australia data covering patent applications filed during a 16-year period commencing on 1 January 2000, Melbourne is the biotechnology capital of Australia.  Sydney comes in second, followed by Brisbane.  There is significant biotechnology activity in Adelaide and, to a lesser extent, Perth.  Canberra looks to be an active area, but is something of a special case.  There is, however, very little activity in this sector in Australian regional areas. 

A ‘heat map’ highlighting the locations of organisations filing Australian patent applications relating to developments in biotechnology shows how innovation in the biological sciences thrives principally where there is an ecosystem of academic, medical and corporate organisations located in close proximity.  Melbourne’s leading position is driven primarily by the critical mass of public and private medical and bioscientific research institutes located in the ‘Parkville precinct’ and its immediate surrounds.  Similarly, the primary origins of patent applications relating to biotechnology in the other capital cities coincide with the locations of major research universities, hospitals and associated companies and institutes.

The single largest filer of patent applications over the period analysed is – as in many other fields of technology – the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).  In fact, CSIRO is almost single-handedly responsible for putting Canberra on the map in biotech, as a result of the fact that it uses its national capital address on all patent applications.  However, much of the actual research covered by those applications is conducted at CSIRO’s many other sites around Australia, including locations in and around Melbourne in Parkville, Clayton, Werribee and Geelong.  In all likelihood, therefore, Melbourne’s leading position in Australian biotechnology research and development is even more pronounced than the map suggests.

The top Australian patent attorney firm handling all of these applications is Davies Collison Cave – and it is so by a considerable margin.  Second-placed FB Rice has been responsible for filing only about half as many applications relating to biotechnology over the same period.

05 March 2017

Users and Abusers of the Australian Innovation Patent System

Up and Down In an eight year period – one full innovation patent lifecycle – between 2007 and 2015, Australian residents were overwhelmingly the biggest users of the second-tier innovation patent system, filing over 10,000 innovation patent applications.  The next most frequent filers were the Chinese, with just 1500 applications, followed by US applicants with less than 1000.  Over 90% of the Australian applicants were individuals or small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs – businesses with fewer than 200 employees), i.e. the exact people the innovation patent system was intended to benefit when it was established by the Howard Government in 2001.  Over the same period, Australian residents filed just over 23,000 standard patent applications, a very distant second to US residents who were responsible for 115,000 applications.

Yet despite the system’s success by these measures, it is an open secret that IP Australia would like to see the end of the innovation patent, and has been diligently working behind-the-scenes for some years to achieve this objective.  After first proposing – and failing to win substantive support for – raising the ‘innovative step’ threshold to the same level of inventiveness required for standard patents, IP Australia economists undertook a study of the ‘economic impact’ of the innovation patent system which was used – prior to any publication or consultation on the methodology or results – to convince the now-defunct Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) to issue, as its final act, a recommendation that the Government consider abolishing the system.  A belated consultation on this recommendation elicited submissions from a range of stakeholders who once again overwhelmingly supported retaining the innovation patent as a second-tier right in Australia, although many favoured modifying the system to address problems that had become apparent since its introduction in 2001.  IP Australia passed the submissions received in response to its consultation paper on to the Productivity Commission, which was by then in the midst of a 12-month review of Australia’s entire IP system.  To nobody’s great surprise, the Commission recommended abolition of the innovation patent system, in both its draft report and, despite further submissions from stakeholders, in its final report

More recently, Innovation and Science Australia released its Performance Review of the Australian Innovation, Science and Research System, in which it followed the Productivity Commission in declaring that Australia grants patent protection too easily and this has allowed a proliferation of low-quality patents, and innovation patents in particular.  IP Australia was quick to highlight this particular ‘weakness’ of the IP system in a post on its blog.

Now, I do not doubt that IP Australia would dispute that it is gunning for the innovation patent.  Rather, I am sure that its position is that it is seeking to provide evidence-based input to government to enable it to make informed decisions in meeting legitimate policy objectives.  The difficulty I have with this is that, despite a veritable cacophony of dissenting views from stakeholders, with proposals to improve rather than abolish the innovation patent system, it seems that the current position of IP Australia, the Productivity Commission, and Innovation and Science Australia – all of which have the Government’s ear – is informed almost entirely by the IP Australia Economic Impact study.  It is perhaps worth noting that this study cannot be independently replicated, verified and/or its assumptions tested, because key data on which it is based – Australian Tax Office records of R&D tax concession claims by businesses, industry sector information, and business/tax registration records – are not publicly available.

There is, however, much in the Economic Impacts study itself, and in the publicly-available IPGOD data set, supporting a view that the innovation patent system has not failed so badly as to justify its abolition.  Although its fate may already be sealed, given the forces rallying against it, it is worth taking a fresh look at who is using the innovation patent system and, equally importantly, who is abusing it.

27 February 2017

On Using Patent Claims to Predict the Prospects of Success in Examination

Nearest NeighboursIn a recent article, I presented an analysis of US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) data demonstrating that success rate for so-called ‘business method’ patent applications has fallen dramatically since the US Supreme Court issued its Alice decision in June 2014.  While the difference between ‘business methods’ and other more ‘traditional’ fields of technology is particularly stark, it is more generally the case that average allowance rates at the USPTO vary considerably across the various examination Art Units (i.e. the groupings of examiners assigned to specific technical subject matters).  For example, an article published by IP Watchdog in 2015, Austin Underhill of Juristat demonstrated that allowance rates across all Art Units range from less than 10% in some of the ‘business method’ units to nearly 100% in Art Unit 3659 (which covers aspects of material and article handling).

It follows that if it were possible to predict, in advance of filing, to which Art Unit a US patent application would likely be assigned, this could go some way towards predicting the prospects of success in examination.

As also mentioned in my earlier article, the USPTO Office of the Chief Economist has published the Patent Claims Research Dataset, comprising six data files containing individually-parsed claims, claim-level statistics, and document-level statistics for all US patents granted between 1976 and 2014 and US patent applications published between 2001 and 2014.

Having this large data set available caused me to wonder: are patent claims a good predictor of the Art Unit to which an application may be assigned?  On the one hand, it seems logical that might be the case.  After all, Art Unit assignments are based on technology, and it is generally necessary to refer to technical features of the invention in the patent claims.  On the other hand, claim language is often broader and more abstract that the specific field of technology to which the claimed invention may be directed, and the allocation to an Art Unit is, in practice, based upon an initial review of the patent specification as a whole, and not just the claims.

There is, however, only one way to find out whether there is a sufficiently strong correlation between claim language and Art Unit to enable prediction, and that is to conduct some experiments using the available data.

My initial results are promising.  By employing some relatively straightforward text processing techniques, I have successfully predicted the Technology Centre to which an application is assigned in just over 70% of cases, the correct group of 10 Art Units in over 40% of cases, and the individual Art Unit in around 24% of cases.  This is certainly sufficient to encourage me to persevere with some more sophisticated techniques, to see if it is possible to make further improvements.

19 February 2017

What IP Australia Does Not Tell You: If You Want a Patent, You Should Hire a Patent Attorney!

Seated ProfessionalThe next time anybody asks me what they need to do to obtain a patent for something they have invented, I shall tell them just one thing: first, find yourself a patent attorney.  Not me, obviously, since I am not currently providing patent attorney services to inventors... but a patent attorney nonetheless.  If they query the cost, I shall simply say that if they cannot afford a patent attorney, then maybe they should forget about patenting their invention.  If they object that there must surely be something they can do without the assistance of a patent attorney, I will reiterate that they need to engage a patent attorney, and that is the one and only piece of advice I have for them.

This is not the advice I have always given in the past.  When working as a patent attorney in private practice myself I would sometimes encounter people who were clearly unwilling or unable to pay for an attorney.  Taking the view that self-help is better than no help at all, I might have directed them to IP Australia’s web site and other resources designed to help them to get started by themselves.

Never again will I encourage potential self-filers in this way.  It is a great disservice to them, and runs directly contrary to their interests.  As a rational person, I have allowed my views to be changed by actual evidence!  Specifically, I have crunched the numbers to assess how self-represented applicants actually fare at the Australian Patent Office, and the statistics are not merely bad, they are appalling.  In a nutshell:
  1. self-represented ‘small entity’ applicants file about half as many provisional applications in Australia as do applicants with external or in-house attorneys, but less than 7.5% the number of standard patent applications claiming priority from those provisional applications;
  2. the same category of self-represented applicants file 15% more innovation patent applications than applicants with attorneys, but seek certification of those patents in only around 17% of cases, of which over 60% are rejected and cease as a result;
  3. innovation patent applicants with attorneys request certification at double the rate of self-represented applicants, and successfully achieve certification in 83% of those cases; and
  4. when self-represented applicants file standard patent applications, these result in accepted claims just under 23% of the time, compared with a little over 53% of applications filed by applicants with attorneys.
Overall, when I look at Australian patent applications filed by small, self-represented, applicants, I see at least 90% of all provisional applications, 77% of all standard patent applications and 95% of all innovation patent applications ultimately resulting in absolutely no enforceable rights whatsoever.  And this does not account for the fact that even where enforceable rights are ultimately obtained, they may be of minimal commercial or legal value, considering that the applicant may have had only a limited comprehension of what they were doing in the course of examination.

All of this is not only wasteful and harmful to the individual applicants involved, it is associated with a social cost representing a negative contribution to the Australian innovation system.  I therefore cannot understand why IP Australia, which states that its vision is ‘to have a world leading IP system that builds prosperity for Australia’, provides only the most minimal suggestion that applicants might benefit from engaging professional assistance.  It is clear that Australia’s patent-issuing authority should take a leaf from the playbooks of its peers in (at least) the USPTO, European Patent Office, UK Intellectual Property Office, and Canadian Intellectual Property Office, and clearly inform prospective applicants that hiring a patent attorney is practically essential, or at least highly recommended, in order to obtain a commercially worthwhile outcome.

16 February 2017

USPTO Board Terminates CRISPR Patent Interference

TerminatedOn Wednesday 15 February 2017, the US Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) handed down its much-anticipated decision in the patent interference proceedings initiated by the University of California (‘UC’) against the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (‘Broad’) in relation to CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology.  That decision, in short, is that there is ‘no interference in fact’.  That is to say, the three judges making up the PTAB panel have determined that Broad’s development of the CRISPR/Cas9 system for use in eukaryotic cells (i.e. complex cells with, among other characteristics, distinct nuclei) was a non-obvious advance over UC’s development of the system for use in simpler prokaryotic cells (specifically, bacteria), and that there is thus scope for both parties to hold distinct patents.

In its full decision [PDF, 412kB], the PTAB summarises its findings as follows:

Broad has persuaded us that the parties claim patentably distinct subject matter, rebutting the presumption created by declaration of this interference. Broad provided sufficient evidence to show that its claims, which are all limited to CRISPR-Cas9 systems in a eukaryotic environment, are not drawn to the same invention as UC’s claims, which are all directed to CRISPR-Cas9 systems not restricted to any environment. Specifically, the evidence shows that the invention of such systems in eukaryotic cells would not have been obvious over the invention of CRISPR-Cas9 systems in any environment, including in prokaryotic cells or in vitro, because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected a CRISPR-Cas9 system to be successful in a eukaryotic environment. This evidence shows that the parties’ claims do not interfere. Accordingly, we terminate the interference.

This is a considerable win for Broad which, subject to a potential appeal, has for now delivered a fatal blow to UC’s hopes of invalidating a number of Broad’s CRISPR-related patents and applications.  Unsurprisingly, Broad has reacted to the decision by declaring its full agreement with the PTAB, while UC maintains its belief that the evidence is on its side.  The stock market also reacted quickly to the news, adding US$200 million to the value of the Broad-connected biotech company Editas Medicine Inc.

11 February 2017

Is This The Exact Day That IP Australia Turned on ‘Business Method’ Patents?

CalendarOn 30 October 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) handed down its en banc decision in In re Bilski, affirming the rejection of patent claims directed to a method of hedging risks in commodities trading.  I have analysed IP Australia patent examination data, which provides reason to believe that this specific event triggered an unacknowledged change in examination practice within the Australian Patent Office.  This change subsequently resulted in a number of published decisions in which claims to computer-implemented ‘business methods’ were found to be unpatentable, and two appeals that went as far as a Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia.  It is also reasonable to suppose that numerous further applications simply lapsed without fanfare following objections raised by patent examiners.

Most readers would be aware that the Bilski case went on further appeal to the US Supreme Court, which again confirmed the rejection in an opinion issued on 28 June 2010.  The Supreme Court decision was almost immediately cited by an Australian Patent Hearing Officer, who found that a claimed method for commercialising inventions does not constitute patentable subject matter under the Australian ‘manner of manufacture’ test: Invention Pathways Pty Ltd [2010] APO 10.

The Invention Pathways decision resulted in an official change to Australian Patent Office practice whereby a claimed invention, to be patent-eligible, would not only need to involve a ‘concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation’ (as per Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120), but one that is ‘significant both in that it is concrete but also that it is central to the purpose or operation of the claimed process or otherwise arises from the combination of steps of the method in a substantial way’.

Invention Pathways was the first of a series of Patent Office decisions refusing or revoking patents for so-called computer-implemented ‘business methods’ based on this logic, including Iowa Lottery [2010] APO 25, Research Affiliates, LLC [2010] APO 31 and [2011] APO 101, Myall Australia Pty Ltd v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2011] APO 48, Discovery Holdings Limited [2011] APO 56, Network Solutions, LLC [2011] APO 65, Jumbo Interactive Ltd & New South Wales Lotteries Corp v Elot, Inc. [2011] APO 82, Sheng-Ping Fang [2011] APO 102, and Celgene Corporation [2013] APO 14.  The Research Affiliates and RPL Central matters both ultimately ended up on appeal before a Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia, which confirmed that the claims in each case were not patent-eligible, albeit for reasons somewhat different from the Patent Office’s ‘centrality of purpose’ test.

While published reasons are the most visible and detailed outcomes of Patent Office decision-making, they typically have their genesis some months – or even years – earlier, with one or more reports issued by examiners.  The original Research Affiliates application, for example, was first rejected by a patent examiner on 28 October 2009, eight months prior to the Invention Pathways decision.  It is also notable that this type of ex parte hearing, i.e. involving only the patent applicant ‘appealing’ an examiner’s decision, has historically been relatively rare.  Prior to Invention Pathways, I count a total of just 11 published decisions of this type under the Patents Act 1990 (which commenced on 1 April 1991).  This number roughly doubled in the three years following Invention Pathways, driven by rejections of ‘business method’ applications.  It is therefore difficult to avoid inferring that something changed in the prior period that led to this unusual spike in hearings.

06 February 2017

Publicly-Listed Firms Account for Half of the Australian Market for Patent Services

Hand upAccording to my analysis of patent data made available by IP Australia, nine firms of Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys now owned by the three Australian publicly-listed holding companies IPH Limited (ASX:IPH), Xenith IP Group Limited (ASX:XIP) and QANTM IP Limited (ASX:QIP) account for around 48% of patent services provided to Australian companies and individuals.  Furthermore, following its acquisition of Griffith Hack, Xenith now commands a leading market share at around 19%, with IPH and QANTM at around 15% and 14% respectively.

The top 20 Australian firms overall now collectively account for nearly 80% of all patent services provided to Australian clients.  The market is, however, more fragmented when it comes to ‘small entity’ clients (i.e. individuals and small businesses), with the top 20 firms in this segment handling about 75% of patent work.  For larger clients, the market is more highly-concentrated: the top 20 firms in this segment handle nearly 95% of patent work for non-‘small entity’ organisations.

Prior to the consolidation of the market resulting from the acquisition of firms by public companies, the top 20 ‘independent’ firms overall covered just under 75% of the market.  In the ‘small entity’ segment, the top 20 firms handled a little under 70% of patent work, whereas the figure was around 92% for patent services to larger organisations.

While all of this suggests that the recent spate of acquisitions has resulted in a reduction in competition for patent attorney services (as one would expect during consolidation in a market of any kind), it is important to keep in mind that the true position is more nuanced.  As I have explained previously, all of the firms acquired by IPH, Xenith and QANTM continue to operate independently and in competition with one another.  Each firm maintains its own client files and record-keeping systems.  Attorneys and other staff have no access to information held by the other firms within the commonly-owned group.  For most practical purposes, therefore, there has been no change in the competitive landscape for patent services in Australia.

However, the consolidation in the Australian market has been of sufficient concern for the Professional Standards Board for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys to commission Professor Andrew Christie of the University of Melbourne to examine the issues and advise on whether any changes to the regulation of the profession are required in light of these developments.  It is therefore timely to look a little more closely at the extent of the effect of the changes within the Australian market for patent services.

29 January 2017

The Patent History of Australia’s Most Litigation-Prone (Former) Senator

From the Australian Parliament websiteI read a column today recommending that Australians ride out the Trump presidency by having a laugh at America’s expense – ‘we must’, the author extols us, ‘make sport of her in this high season of her weirdness, this peak of her fever, this pomp of her lunacy.’  Who knows, maybe this is good advice.  But it does have one major failing: right now Australian politics is itself hardly a bastion of seriousness and sanity.  And of all the buffoons and bloviators propelled into parliamentary prominence by last year’s farcical federal election, there is arguably none more compellingly attention-catching that ex-One Nation Western Australian senator (or, quite probably, ex-senator, unless you are asking him) Rodney Norman Culleton – a man whose submissions at a Federal Court bankruptcy hearing have been described by the Chief Justice of the court as ‘unfocused’ and ‘bombastic’.

It would be impossible to compress the continuous carnival that is Rod Culleton’s political career into an entire article, let alone a single paragraph.  But for the benefit of my international readers, I will do my best.  Culleton was propelled into the Senate at the election of 2 July 2016, grabbing the 11th (of 12) Western Australian seats despite receiving only 0.52% of the primary vote – of which the bulk (0.5%) was for One Nation as a party, rather than for Culleton personally – thanks to a byzantine cascade of preferences.  He succeeded despite (or because of) new voting rules that were intended to prevent minor candidates from getting elected off the back of byzantine cascades of preferences.  Even so, the legitimacy of his candidacy fell under a cloud, on account of the fact that he had been convicted of theft.  The conviction was subsequently quashed, but this does not alter the fact that at the time of voting he would have been barred from being elected under s 44(ii) of the Constitution.  With the High Court still considering that particular conundrum, Culleton then resigned from the One Nation party (the source of 96% of his primary vote), before being declared bankrupt by the Federal Court (just in time for Christmas), disqualifying him from remaining in parliament under s 44(iii) of the Constitution.  The bankruptcy orders were stayed, to give him time to appeal, but in the meantime his Senate seat was officially declared vacant.  Not that Culleton is fazed by such trivial setbacks – the official parliamentary website may have him listed as ‘Former Senator Rod Culleton (Independent)’, but the man himself has shown a marked preference for the ‘alternative fact’ that he is ‘still a senator’.  Through all of this, Culleton has become renowned for his ability make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and to become involved in physical altercations at the most inopportune moments.

And that is all in under six months.  So, aside from the fact that you would have to laugh, otherwise you would cry for the demise of Australian democracy, you might be wondering what any of this has got to do with the usual subject matter of this blog.  Well, as the former senator’s parliamentary web page states, Culleton’s qualifications and occupation before entering Federal Parliament include ‘business entrepreneur in farming, manufacturing, inventor and transport/logistics’, while his sole listed publication is ‘”Storage Bin”, 2015202345, Australian Divisional Patents, IP Australia, 2004’.  This connection came to my attention when I read that Culleton has accused former Wesfarmers director Dick Lester, who brought the proceedings to have Culleton declared bankrupt, of ‘abusing the bankruptcy process to get hold of Culleton’s Australian Keg Company patent in lieu of payment “to obtain what he wouldn’t otherwise have got”.’

Indeed, not only is Culleton an inventor, but one of his patents has even been successfully enforced after the infringer attempted to sue the Australian Keg Company for making unjustified threats of patent infringement.  I wrote briefly about that decision here, back in January 2014.  This is of some interest, because of course the overwhelming majority of patents are never litigated.  Yet Culleton appears to be a man drawn to the courts as inexorably as a moth to a flame!

22 January 2017

The Challenges of Protecting and Commercialising IP in Casino Games

Skull CardsThere are people who seem to believe that ‘inventing’ is some kind of get-rich-quick scheme – come up with an idea, slap a patent on it, and then wait for the untold millions to (magically) come rolling in.  A logical corollary to this belief is that if somebody acquires an idea from such a person, and subsequently incorporates the idea into a patent application, then they have clearly deprived the originator of their rightful fortune!  And, of course, the way to deal with such a situation is by spending, collectively, a few hundred thousand dollars disputing ownership of the patent application firstly in a state Supreme Court and then before a Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia.

The only way this could all be a bigger waste of money and effort would be if the patent application in question was directed to some kind of unpatentable subject matter, such as a method of wagering on a card game, for example.  Sadly, this was precisely the situation in a case decided last October, Kafataris v Davis [2016] FCAFC 134.  There was, however, more to the dispute than inventorship and rights to a potentially worthless patent application.  Also at issue was whether or not the plaintiff had made a contribution to the wagering system described in the application that the defendants were obliged to keep confidential.  If so, then he might have been entitled to some form of compensation, regardless of the fate of the patent application.

Setting aside the ultimate futility of the legal action, there is a valuable lesson to be extracted from this particular dispute for those people who choose to direct their innovative efforts to the wagering and gaming industry – namely that novel developments in this field can be notoriously difficult to protect as a form of intellectual property.  Fortunately, the high level of regulation of gaming creates some barriers to entry which can be used, along with branding, as a means to secure an edge on potential competitors, even if patents are not available.

16 January 2017

The Most Prolific Inventors of the Past 25 Years, and the Connections Between Them

“No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main...” – John Donne, Meditation XVII
Leg up
A simple analysis of inventor data from the US Patent and Trade Marks Office (USPTO) records reveals something interesting but, upon reflection, unsurprising: invention does not happen in a vacuum. Prolific inventors tend to be associated with other prolific inventors, and/or with prolifically inventive organisations.  Of the ten people who have received the most US patents over the past 25 years, there are four ‘pairs’ of inventors who have worked closely together over an extended period, and one who works for IBM – a company that recently topped the list of US patent recipients for the 24th consecutive year.  And, while the final member of the top 10 is not partnered with any other famously prolific inventor or company, he has at least one co-inventor on around half of his granted patents, where the same names of family and associates keep cropping up.

Two Australians make the list.  Indeed, the most prolific recipient of US patents over the last quarter century is Australian Kia Silverbrook.  The other Australian in the top 10, at number five, is Paul Lapstun, who has worked with Silverbrook for many years.  Japan’s top inventor, Shunpei Yamazaki comes in at number two, with his colleague at Yamazaki’s company Semiconductor Energy Laboratory (SEL), Jun Koyama, at number four.  Long time collaborators, and now senior inventors at Intellectual Ventures, Rod Hyde and Lowell Wood sit at numbers three and six respectively. 

Two members of the list, Apple’s Jony Ive (10) and Bartley Andre (seven), make the grade primarily on the basis of their large numbers of design patents, while Kangguo Cheng comes in at number eight on the basis of his work at IBM Research.

The tenth member of the top ten, coming in at number nine, is Donald E Weder, who is inventor or co-inventor on a mix of utility and design patents relating primarily to floristry.  Even though Weder is not paired with any other member of the top 10, or associated with a famous corporation like IBM, he is nonetheless a collaborator like all the other, sharing the inventing credits with up to 11 others on some of his patents.

All of this serves to confirm that the popular image of the lone inventor, toiling away in isolation in a laboratory or garage somewhere, is a complete myth.  Innovation mostly happens where the conditions are right, and that means having a supportive environment, including teams of innovative people who can work together and bounce ideas off one another in the course of creating something new.  Indeed, over 3,600 patents attributed to the top 10 inventors have two members of the list as co-inventors.

15 January 2017

The Importance of Continuing Professional Education (And of Not Lying About It!)

StudyingIf you are the client of a patent attorney, you probably expect that your experienced (and, perhaps, expensive) professional adviser is keeping up-to-date with the latest developments in their chosen field. Indeed, in many professions some form of continuing professional education (CPE) – alternatively known as continuing professional development (CPD) – is not just an expectation, it is a mandatory requirement.

The Australian patent attorney and trade marks attorney professions are among those in which a mandatory CPE requirement exists.  Some outsiders might be surprised, however, to learn that this has only been the case since 1 July 2008, and that regular compliance audits of attorneys only commenced in 2011. It has therefore been just a little over five years that anybody has been monitoring the efforts of Australian attorneys to keep our skills and knowledge current and relevant.

The formal CPE requirements are fairly minimal, being just 10 hours per year in order to remain registered as a patent attorney or trade marks attorney only, or 15 hours for patent attorneys who wish to remain registered as both.  Even so, I am occasionally surprised to encounter attorneys who do not appear to be as familiar with recent developments that I would have expected.

I do not imagine that anyone who reads this blog regularly will be surprised to hear that I believe that CPE is incredibly important.  Since entering the profession as a trainee in 2002, I have been on a constant learning curve.  The Australian law has, of course, evolved over this time through legislative change and through interpretation and development by the courts.  Keeping abreast of developments in other major jurisdictions, including the US, Europe, and China, has also been vital, given that many Australian companies wish to pursue IP rights in key export markets.  And the patent attorney profession itself has changed considerably, with clients having an increasing expectation that their attorneys will have a sound understanding of their business strategies and objectives, and be able to tailor a IP strategy recommendation accordingly.

The reason I have been thinking about the importance of CPE is a story I read recently out of the US, about a Californian IP attorney who falsely claimed that he had completed his mandatory 25 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) – notably quite a bit more than is expected of Australian patent attorneys, but still not hugely onerous – when he had, in fact, completed none!  Which made me wonder, could it happen here?

08 January 2017

How the Fate of Software and Business Method Patents has Turned on USPTO Directors and the Courts

Chart PresentationThe ‘death of software patents’ in the US has been greatly exaggerated.  That is, so long as you exclude patents covering computer-implemented business/financial processes and schemes, which may well be, if not quite yet deceased, for the most part (about 75%, in fact) mortally wounded. 

But for those ideologues who are trying to convince themselves, and others, that software-implemented inventions are simply no longer validly patentable, I am afraid I have bad news.  I have analysed US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) data covering millions of patents issued over the past decade, which shows that patents covering computer-implemented inventions, outside the particular fields of ecommerce, business and finance, not only are not in any form of decline, but have never, at any time over the past decade, shown any significant difference in grant rate from the bulk of patents issued by the USPTO across all fields of technology.

Patent claims classified by the USPTO as relating to ecommerce, business methods and finance, are another matter.  The Supreme Court’s Alice decision, issued in June 2014, led to an immediate, dramatic and sustained fall in the number of patents being granted in these fields of endeavour.

Interestingly, the top US Court’s previous pertinent decision, Bilski (issued in June 2010, shortly after I started this blog), had no noticeable impact on the rate of grant of business method patents.  This is, perhaps, unsurprising given that Bilski was the result of an appeal against a rejection of the application at issue by the USPTO, which had already been upheld by the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).  Thus it did not represent, or require, any significant change in policy or practice at the Patent Office which the Supreme Court confirmed had been right to reject Bilski’s application.  To the extent that Bilski changed anything with regard to business method patents, it was following the CAFC decision, rather than that of the Supreme Court.

In fact, the last event prior to Alice that had a significant effect on rates of grant of business method patents was the 2009 transition from Jon Dudas to David Kappos as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO (via John Doll, who was acting in the role between Dudas’ resignation on 20 January and Kappos’ confirmation on 9 August).  Granting of business method patents had been in decline under Dudas, however this trend was soon reversed under Kappos, with issue of business method patents once again tracking rates across all technology areas by the first quarter of 2010.

My analysis also shows that the CAFC’s Bilski decision and the early months of the Kappos era are associated with an increase in the average word-count of independent claims in granted business method patents, and also in patents directed to other forms of computer-implemented invention, along with a significant jump in the average number of claims in issued business method patents.  These effects are almost certainly a result of changes in examination practice at the USPTO, likely influenced at least in part by Bilski.

Copyright © 2014
Creative Commons License
The Patentology Blog by Dr Mark A Summerfield is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia License.