Patent claim charts

Patent claim chart, with one row not matching
Patent claim chart, with one row not matching

Think that someone is infringing on your patent?  Worried you are infringing, or want to show a patent reads on prior art?  Analyze with patent claim charts.

The basic idea behind a patent claim chart is to first break a given patent claim down into a series of smaller sections, and then to determine if each smaller section matches a corresponding aspect of a target of interest. This target may be a potentially infringing product or service, another patent, or even a public domain product or service (to try to show that a patent may be invalid).

Patent claim charts usually follow a row and column table format.  One column contains various sections from a claim of interest, spread out over a number of rows.  Another column contains various aspects of a target of interest, also spread out over a number of rows.  Rows containing sections from the claim column are compared with rows containing aspects from the target column.

If can be shown that every row from the claim column exactly matches up to one or more rows from the target column, then this suggests that claim does describe the target. Note, however, that although every claim row must match with a target row, there is usually no reverse requirement that every target row match-up with a claim row.

Sounds simple, but the devil is in the details.  Since patent claim charts are often part of an adversarial process, each side may feel under pressure to “slant” their claim charts in a way that favors their particular position.

Claim charts can be slanted in many ways.  One of the most common ways is to write the chart in a way that skips over important details, often by not breaking the claim down into small enough sections.

Some of the comparisons may not be accurate.  Also, remember that individual claim terms can sometimes be misleading because they may have been defined in the text of the patent application (or during prosecution), in a somewhat unexpected way.

So read and write claim charts with caution and skepticism.  Don’t use sloppy claim charts to initiate any legal action.  Of course, don’t blindly accept claim charts from others without doing your own independent analysis.

Contractor ownership of IP

Agree on IP ownership in advance
Agree on IP ownership in advance

The ownership rules for copyrights, patents, and other IP vary depending on if the IP creator is an employee or an independent contractor.

In today’s world, the distinction between employee and independent contractor is often blurred, but legally, these two forms of working are very different.  As a result, whether you are working as an employee or independent contractor, or hiring employees or independent contractors, it is good to be aware of how these different types of work engagements impact IP ownership rights.

These laws can vary from state to state.  Consider California. Generally, work done by an employee for an employer, at the employer’ request, does belong to the employer. However the IP assignment process is not always automatic (patents, for example, generally need to be assigned to the employer in writing).

One of the reasons why California has a booming high-tech economy is that California labor code sections 2870-2872 mandate (with certain exceptions) that work that does not relate to an employer’s business (and is done with the California employee’s own time and materials) generally belongs to the employee. However, this section of California law may not protect independent contractors.  So if you are an independent contractor, you may want to negotiate this.

US copyright law (writing, art, software, etc.) also distinguishes between employees and contractors. For employees, copyright ownership for works made for the employer typically goes to the employer. However for independent contractors, absent a signed written agreement (such as a work made for hire agreement) that copyright ownership is being transferred, often ownership remains with the independent contractor.  So if you are hiring an independent contractor, absent a written agreement, just because you paid for something doesn’t automatically mean that you own it!

How to distinguish an employee from an independent contractor?  Generally, the difference is the amount of control.  For an independent contractor, whoever is paying can control the work result, but generally not how the work is done.  By contrast, even an employer who gives his employees freedom still has the legal right to specify how the work is done.

Regardless of work arrangement, it is always a good idea to work out the issues of who is going to own what in writing and in advance.  For employees, spell this out with a proprietary information and inventions agreement. For independent contractors, negotiate and sign an agreement on these issues before starting work.  This topic often comes up in due diligence.

Patent demand letters

Frustrated patent troll
Frustrated patent troll

Patent demand letters are stressful.  Before responding or ignoring, evaluate infringement, patent prosecution history, ownership, and litigation history.

Has your startup received a “demand” letter asserting that you are infringing on a patent?  Although real infringement of valid patents does occur, and some of these letters are legitimate, many demand letters are sent in less than 100% good faith. The sender may be betting that the startup will settle quickly to avoid litigation costs, regardless of the actual merits of the situation.

Don’t immediately contact the sender, and don’t ignore the letter either.  Instead, calm down and evaluate the facts, preferably with the help of a patent attorney.  Is there a plausible infringement problem or not?  How to tell the difference?  A few common methods are discussed below.

To start, get: 1) a copy of the issued patents discussed in the demand letter, 2) the USPTO prosecution history of these patents, and 3) information about the allegedly infringing product.  If the letter doesn’t provide actual issued patent numbers, or if the letter only cites patent application numbers, the probability that the letter is bogus becomes higher.

Look at the independent claims for each patent (claim 1 is not always the broadest claim), and see if your allegedly infringing product infringes the entire wording of any independent claim. If so, look at the relevant dependent claims for more detail. If the letter argues contributory infringement, combine your product with the other accused product for this analysis, and check if your marketing literature is promoting this combination.

The patent prosecution history for the patents in question, usually downloadable from the USPTO, can be very relevant. This history will often reference if the patent has been used in litigation before; if the patent has been reevaluated by either reexamination or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); and if the patent applicant had to make significant concessions during the patent prosecution history.

The patent’s USPTO assignment records can be used to better understand the relationship between the sender and the actual patent owner of record. This is often obfuscated. What is this relationship, and is the purported patent owner the real patent owner?

If there is a history of litigation, check it out. Patent litigation usually takes place in Federal Courts.  This is usually available through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and a number of other sources. Has the patent owner been filing a lot of lawsuits and then settling before the court reaches a decision, or does the patent owner usually win?

There are many other issues that can be explored as well, but this type of information can help you and your attorney better evaluate what your next steps should be.

Startup IP due diligence

Maat
Maat – goddess of truth

Startup investors know that they are mostly investing in just your IP.  So get your IP ownership situation under control before due diligence starts.

What does a startup investor get for his money? Startup companies are really just a bundle of information (usually ideas), people (founders, contractors, consultants), and things (tangible property, cash). A startup’s “things” will usually have minimal value. The people can walk out the door at any minute. So all that an investor may actually get for his money is some sort of ownership option in the information – the startup’s intellectual property (IP).  Prudent startup investors thus often conduct a fair amount of due diligence on this “IP”.

A startup’s IP can be viewed as being a mixture of alleged inventions (e.g. actual or potential patents), alleged copyrights, alleged trademarks, and alleged trade secrets.  At least some of this information may still only exist in the minds of the founders, contractors, and consultants. What is potentially real here, and what is not?

Sophisticated investors also know that according to our IP laws, unless actions are taken to protect the IP, the IP may either still belong to the individual that created it; or it may have become public domain.  Investors also know that startups often don’t fully understand IP law.  Has that intriguing startup already accidentally lost its key IP?  Was it missing essential IP to begin with?  This is why investors want IP due diligence studies.

Some ways that IP can be missing or lost include failure to obtain written IP assignment contracts, inadvertently placing IP into the public domain, and reliance on IP owned by someone else.

Failure to obtain written IP assignment contracts: IP assignment agreements should be obtained from anyone who has materially contributed to the company’s IP. Don’t assume that just because you paid for something, your company owns that IP — you often don’t. Try to do these IP assignments up front, because the longer you wait, the more leverage the other party has. For example, they could make unreasonable demands, or deny assignment altogether.

Inadvertently placing IP in the public domain: For patents, assume that anything you publish before a patent application is filed can be used against you, and be careful to update your patent filings as your technology advances. For trade secrets (i.e. important, not-generally known information which is often not patentable), take active steps to restrict access, require confidentiality agreements, and of course never publish this at all.

Reliance on IP owned by someone else: For patents, consider prior art searches to reduce the chances that you are infringing on other patents. For copyrights, check the status of your software licenses, and that you and your contractors are not copying other work. Avoid using names that might confuse customers from related companies, since this may cause trademark problems. For trade secrets, stay away from inside knowledge (not generally known in your field) that you or your contractors may have obtained from other companies.

Remember that from an IP due diligence perspective, if you can’t prove you did things right, the assumption will probably be that you didn’t.  So keep your documentation on file.

About Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area

Golden Gate
Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco

Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area have a worldwide reputation for innovation. But is there any subjective evidence for this? What do the patent statistics say?

According to the USPTO statistics, at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cls_cbsa/allcbsa_gd.htm, as of 2013, Silicon Valley “classic”, characterized as San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara (Metropolitan Statistical Area 141940), led the field in patents with 12,899 patents granted. By contrast, the remainder of the San Francisco Bay Area minus Silicon Valley, characterized as San Francisco, Oakland, and Fremont (Metropolitan Statistical Area 141860) came in a respectable second at 8,721 patents.

Here the San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara area includes other cities such as Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale.

By contrast, the San Francisco, Oakland, and Fremont area includes other cities such as Belmont, Burlingame, Emeryville, Foster City, Fremont, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Newark, Oakland, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Francisco, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Union City.

Combining the two, the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole dominates the rest of the country, at an impressive 21,620 patents granted in 2013. By contrast, the next runner-up, the New York-New Jersey area, comes in at 7,886 patents. The Los Angeles area is close behind at 6,271 patents, followed by the Boston area at 5,610 patents. So from a patent perspective, yes the San Francisco Bay area is, in fact, pretty unique.

CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation II: more cutting-edge legal confusion

Confused?  So is everyone else!
Confused? So is everyone else!

Legal confusion:  There remains a lot of legal confusion in the US regarding the question, are software inventions patentable? How to answer this question? We could of course look at the letter of the law (e.g. 35 USC 101), which would give us the rather boring answer that software is patentable. But if someone doesn’t want software to be patentable (and a number of large powerful companies do not), that’s not the answer they want.

How else might we get an answer? In ancient Greece we might consult the Oracle at Delphi, or perhaps sacrifice a goat and examine its entrails. However in the modern US, we know that this is silly. As we all know, the modern US way to decide this is to put this question to a small panel of elderly individuals who know nothing about software or patent law. We call this small panel the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

To answer questions, the Oracle at Delphi inhaled vapors, fell into a trance, and then spoke in riddles. These were then interpreted by various priests. In much the same way, SCOTUS (hopefully without the aid of vapors) has given us some confusing and inconsistent rulings, such as the CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation decision, that in essence are riddles that must be interpreted by various priests (e.g. lower courts, the USPTO).

So in “Alice”, SCOTUS told us that “abstract ideas” are patent ineligible, and also told us that “In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the “abstract ideas” category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here. Both are squarely within the realm of “abstract ideas” as we have used that term.

So the ruling in essence is the riddle: “abstract ideas are not allowed“, and “abstract ideas are undefined”. This is a pretty good riddle. So the next step is, now that the Oracle (err… SCOTUS) has spoken, how are the various priests (err… the USPTO and lower courts) going to interpret this riddle?

Some good news on this front. On December 16, 2014, the USPTO issued its “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility”, available here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf

Among other things, the USPTO appears to be heading towards the interpretation that when given incoherent rulings, at least try to minimize damage by applying the rulings narrowly. Thus the latest guidance instructs examiners to perform detailed analysis, and look for specific problems such as financial hedging and mitigating settlement risks, rather than generally rejecting everything. The Guidance also advises examiners that even if a patent hits on a “forbidden area” (judicial exemption), so long as the claim does not seek to tie up the judicial exemption so that others cannot practice it, the claim is probably OK.  (Note added 4-26-16 — sadly the USPTO has not followed their own guidance consistently. The official patent examination “MPEP” rules for eligibility are still literally a blank page).

First (inventor) to file

Mark your calendars for March 15, 2013, because on March 16, 2013, the US patent office switches to the new AIA “first-to-file” system.  In fact, mark your calendars for March 14, 2013, because it is quite possible that the USPTO servers may crash on March 15 under the weight of a huge number of last minute electronic patent filings.

The US patent system has traditionally been friendly to individual inventors and smaller startups.  The old system gave inventors some time to work to improve their original concepts before filing.  Inventors were protected because the old system allowed them to prove (using lab notebooks and the like) that they had thought of the invention some time before their patent filing date.  This proof was called “swearing back”.

The rest of the world, by contrast, has been on a stricter “race to the patent office” aka “first-to-file” standard.  Under “first-to-file”, the inventor with the earliest patent office time stamp wins, end of discussion.

Congresses’ 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) changes the US from the old standard to a US version of “first-to-file”.  There are some tricky aspects to this new standard.  It is possible (with evidence, and only for a limited time) to file a USPTO “derivation proceeding” to challenge a non-inventor (i.e. alleged thief) who filed first.  Inventors are also given up to 12 months after publication or sale of their invention to file, without having their own publication or sale used against them, BUT…

If an inventor publishes or otherwise discloses their idea, someone else hears about the idea, makes a few changes and files first, under the new rules this could legally knock out the inventor’s rights to these improvements. Since, in the real world, inventions often come into focus gradually over time as a series of small improvements, you can see the problem.   To add to the fun, the courts haven’t even seen new rule cases like this yet, and it will take years for them to sort things out.

The moral is, under the new rules, if you want decent patent protection for your work, consider filing on initial concept, and filing again on significant improvements.  Resist the temptation to share your still forming ideas with the world.  The old days of protection by “swearing behind” are gone as of March 15, 2013.  What was OK to do last year is not OK to do this year.

International design patents

Good news for US inventors who are interested in filing international design patents.

Design patents are for unique designs for something that otherwise functions according to prior art.  In the US, inventions that function differently from prior art are covered by “utility patents”, while the unique ornamental appearance of a design is covered by a “design patent”.  Design patents are relatively easy to get, and presently last 14 years.

Although the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) has provided utility patent inventors and owners with a simple (if expensive) way to begin to file their utility patents in various countries, the PCT system does not provide a mechanism by which an American design patent can be filed internationally.  This was a nuisance, because design patent standards can differ substantially from country to country, which made the process of obtaining international design patents (industrial design applications) complex and expensive.

Fortunately this is about to change.  On December 19, the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs was signed into law in the US.  The Hague Agreement can be viewed as a “PCT-like application” for design patents.

In addition to providing a standardized procedure for international filings, the Hague Agreement also extends the life of design patents to 15 years.

This agreement has actually been in the works for some time.  The original Hague Agreement was established in Geneva in 1999, and was ratified by the Senate in 2007!