International Trademarks: Madrid Protocol

Madrid Protocol countries
Madrid Protocol countries (US color or darker is “in”)

For US companies, the Madrid Protocol can be a low-cost and time efficient way of getting international trademark protection.

The internet makes it almost trivial to sell products and services internationally.  But how do you manage the IP for these products and services? The legal system has been lagging here. Although the 1970’s (pre-internet) PCT system simplifies the process of filing international patents, the underlying international patent system still remains cumbersome and expensive.  In the end, you still have to hire local law firms in each country and work with the local patent offices.

What is the situation in trademarks?  Almost reasonable!  This is because, in the early post-internet era, the international trademark system got a major upgrade, called the Madrid Protocol. So if you are a startup wanting to protect your trademark rights internationally, the Madrid Protocol is a reasonable and cost-effective way to do so.

The Madrid Protocol is a 1996-era refinement of an earlier 1891 Madrid trademark agreement.  The US and over 90 other countries (EU included) are presently members (see the darker countries on the world map), with Canada expected to join in the 2017 to 2018 timeframe.

The main advantage of the Madrid Protocol is that the applicant needs to only file once in the WIPO Madrid system in order to apply for trademark applications in a variety of different countries (such as the entire European Union at a single time).  The application fees, at least by patent standards, are reasonable (e.g. about $1600 to apply for full EU coverage).  This system minimizes the hassles and expense of hiring local law firms and dealing with local trademark offices in each country.

There are a few catches – the applicant must be associated with a Madrid subscribing country, so US based companies can do this; but Canadian companies — not quite yet.  You can’t start from scratch – rather you should have at least one national trademark application pending (and preferably issued), to form the basis of your Madrid application.  US applicants, for example, can use their pre-existing US trademark to file for Madrid coverage through the USPTO. The USPTO will check this Madrid application, and then forward it to the WIPO office in Geneva, Switzerland.

Some other cautions — in the event that your original national trademark application fails within the first five years after filing, your other Madrid filings will likely also fail. Additionally, the various local countries that you designate do have the right to refuse your trademark on an individual basis within the first 12-18 months after filing.

So additional research before filing is recommended.  At a minimum, check the WIPO trademark database for conflicts. Check if your US trademarks might be “generic” or otherwise inappropriate in your Madrid target countries.  Madrid Protocol filings must be renewed every 10 years, so remember to put this on your long-term calendar as well.

Enfish for Alice: a software win

Einfish is good news for software patents
Enfish is good news for software patents

The recent Enfish court decision improves the outlook for US software patents.

Good news for software patents.  The negative impact of the 2014 SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) “Alice” decision (invalidating some business method and financial software patents) has been somewhat mitigated by the recent “Enfish” court decision.

What is “abstract?”  “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” Inigo Montoya, “The Princess Bride”.

In “Alice”, SCOTUS did not make business-method and financial software patents patent ineligible.  Instead, they determined that “abstract” subject matter is patent ineligible.  Unfortunately, SCOTUS refused to define the meaning of “abstract”, and then further confused things by using circular logic.  The present two-step, circular-logic, SCOTUS mandated test for patent eligibility is:

Step 1) Determine if the patent is directed to “abstract” subject material.  If not then congratulations, the patent passes this test.   

Step 2) But if the patent is found to be “abstract” in step 1, then determine if the patent contains “something extra” beyond just “abstract” subject material.  If there is nothing extra, then reject the patent as being “abstract”.    

No one knows what “abstract” means.  Unfortunately since late 2014, the USPTO has been generally assuming that patents for software running on standard computers must be abstract under step 1.  Many USPTO examiners (and judges) have been totally skipping step 1 of the two-step Alice test.  They just assume that a given software patent is abstract, and start their Alice test at step 2 “something more”.  This makes it much easier to reject the patent.

What is “something more?”  It is also undefined, but financial and business software generally seems to be lacking.  We could substitute “evil spirits” for “abstract”, and “charisma” for “something more”.  We could almost as validly say that lately, many USPTO examiners and judges have been rejecting most business and financial method patents because 1) assumption of evil spirits and 2) a further lack of charisma.  It is easier to understand if you don’t expect logic.

In 1982, Congress established the Federal Circuit Court to bring more logic and consistency to patent law.  In the recent (May 12, 2016) “Enfish v Microsoft” (Enfish) decision, the Federal Circuit has finally started to do its job.  The Enfish court has ruled that examiners and judges can’t just arbitrarily skip step 1 of the two-step Alice test.  Specifically, the Enfish court ruled that it is improper to assume that software running on standard computers is “step 1” abstract.

The Enfish court pointed out that in Alice, SCOTUS didn’t rule that software is automatically abstract.  Further in Alice, SCOTUS also warned against running amok since every patent is somewhat abstract.  So don’t make software automatically fail the two-step Alice test at step 1.  The Federal Circuit further determined that software running on standard computers that improves an existing technology (such as a database) is not abstract at step 1.

This is another important point:  “abstract” is an undefined legal term, and you and I lack the authority to officially define it.  But the Federal Circuit does have the legal authority to define “abstract”.  The USPTO and other judges have to follow this updated definition.  So Enfish is good news for US software patent law.

Patent restrictions and elections

Why is my examiner holding a chainsaw?

USPTO examiners can require patent restrictions.  These narrow the scope of your originally submitted patent claims.  Choose carefully here.

A while back, you filed a patent application.  Now you have received a phone call or letter from your examiner.  You are informed that there are “Election/Restrictions” and that you must choose between various patent claims on various “Species group” lists.  What is this?

Your initial USPTO patent filing fee buys your patent application about 25 to 30 hours of total examination time.  This is not a lot of time, and frequently examiners think that an application will take longer than this. When this happens, the examiner can reduce his workload by asserting that your application contains “multiple inventions”.  Each of these “multiple inventions” is called a “species”.  These “species” are pieces or fragments of your original claim set.  Examiners divide your claim set among these species, and then send you a notice asking you to “elect” a “species” and claims for examination.  The claims that you don’t elect are called “withdrawn”.

Be careful here.  Examiners have orders to initially reject most patent applications.  The examiner is chopping your invention into smaller pieces to make it quicker and easier to reject. This chopping is uneven. Some pieces may be commercially useful, others not.  Some pieces may be easy to reject, others hard. Sometimes there are only a few pieces, but other times the examiner may split your invention into 15 or even 50+ pieces!

USPTO rules allow restrictions and elections to be done either orally or in writing.  Sometimes your examiner may call you on the phone, explain the restriction and election options, and ask what you want.  A bad decision can be costly, and these oral elections are often legally binding.  I recommend not deciding on the spot.  To be sure you understand all the details and have time to think, request the restriction in writing.

There are restriction rules.  The species need to be distinct, and the restriction should not destroy the invention.  If your examiner has violated these rules, you can and should argue back (this is called a “traverse”) in writing.  Unfortunately, you still have to choose, no matter how unreasonable your examiner’s scheme may look.

Even if your examiner rejects your arguments, there will be other chances.  Later in the examination process, after your elected claims are found to be allowable, you can request “rejoinder” and try to get more claims examined.  You can also have the unelected claims examined later (for extra filing fees) as one or more divisional applications.

Continuation applications

Don’t like having your own inventions used against you?  Before your patent issues, consider filing a continuation application.

Continuation applications
Continuation applications

Just got your US patent application allowed?  Congratulations!  Now before it issues (usually about 2-4 months after you pay the issue fee), you need to decide if you ever will want to file any improvements or variations of that invention in the future.

If you do have some improvements or variations in mind, now is the time to start working on filing a “continuation-in-part” (or CIP).  In a CIP, you are basically telling the USPTO that you have added some new concepts to your original patent application.  This is OK – worst case the examiner may determine that the new concepts have a later filing date, but in any event, the examiner won’t hold your original patent application against you.

In contrast to a CIP, patent continuation applications are essentially a repeat of the original application. Any differences to the claims had better be fully disclosed in the original application.

Why file a continuation?  One common reason is that you think that you may be able to get stronger claims the second time around, perhaps by making the claims shorter and hence stronger.  Or perhaps there was something in the original application that you forgot to put into your original claims. Both types of claim changes are fine so long as you can show that the newer claims were fully disclosed in the original application.

A second common reason is a nagging fear that although you might not have thought of any improvements or variations yet, you can’t rule out the possibility that you might do so in the near future.  Here, if you don’t file a continuation, after your patent issues, your own patent will be used against your later patent applications as if someone else had invented it.

However if you do file a continuation, it essentially keeps your original patent “alive” a while longer (usually at least another year or so).  Then, if you do come up with an improvement, you can then file a CIP to your continuation application.  When you use this strategy, the USPTO will allow you to claim your later improvement without using your original application against you.

Foreign patent traps

It’s a trap!

Outside of the US, foreign patent offices will often use your own prior patent filings against you.  Avoid this trap by planning carefully.

Both US and foreign patent laws are based on various legal fictions.  One legal fiction is that an invention is instantly created in a fully formed state.  Another legal fiction is that even if a particular improvement to the invention was not actually obvious to the real inventor, still an examiner or judge may reject this improvement as being obvious to an imaginary “person of ordinary skill in the art”.  Patent law just doesn’t cope with hindsight well.

In practice, we all know that real inventions often come into life slowly, usually after much trial and error.  Complex inventions may take years to fully develop. The inventor is thus faced with a dilemma – file fast so as to be the first person to file, or keep working on the invention, file a better patent application, but possibly lose to someone who filed sooner?

US patent laws recognize this problem, and allow an inventor file as many patent applications as needed, even over a period of years, and gradually accumulate a “stack” of patent applications.  This stack of patent applications captures both the time of earliest invention, as well as a later time-optimized form of the invention. Intuitively this system seems fair.  Wouldn’t it be unfair to use an inventor’s own earlier work against the inventor?

Doesn’t this basic rule of fairness apply everywhere?  Unfortunately it does not.  The harsh reality is that outside of the US, other countries typically use an inventor’s own earlier patent applications against them.

This assumption of basic fairness often traps inventors and startups.  Here the only way to avoid the trap is to recognize that this problem exists, and take steps to mitigate problems.

As a good rule of thumb for international patents, assume that there is at most a 12 month window after a first (US) patent application has been filed in which to make further improvements. Plan accordingly. If you have thought up improvements to your invention, it is far better to submit these improvements as an updated PCT patent application before the 12 month anniversary of the first patent application.

After 12 months, you can’t claim the priority date of your first US filing. Someone else can jump ahead of you and claim credit.  Even worse, 18 months after filing (when usually your first US patent application will be published) your first US patent application can then be used against your later filed improvement.

It is very irritating to have an international examiner claim that your improved invention is obvious against your own earlier filed application.  Even more irritating when you know that in reality the improvement was totally not obvious.  Perhaps the improvement may have taken you a year or more of hard work!  Too bad — to the foreign examiner, your improvement is obvious.

The lesson here is: if you have made improvements, file them as an updated international patent within 12 months of the filing date of your first invention (or in an emergency, at least before your first patent application is published — usually 18 months after first filing).

Open source software licenses for startups

BSD open source license

Not all open source software licenses are alike. Some are intentionally hostile for commercial use.  Choose wisely.  

Open source software is a wonderful thing.  The open source community has given us a gift pack animal that everyone from individual hackers to the largest companies in the world can ride.  However not all open source software licenses are alike. In particular, some of the most famous open source software comes with legal obligations that can be hazardous for startups.  So if you are doing a startup, resist the temptation to immediately grab your favorite open source software and start hacking.  Instead first take a bit of time to look that gift pack animal in the mouth.

What’s Gnu? Back in the 1980’s, Richard Stallman, who wrote the original and very influential Gnu OS open software license, had a deeply held opinion that in order to create an open software sharing community, it was necessary to “poison the well” for many commercial uses. This underlying hostility towards commercial applications is very evident in “The GNU manifesto”.

These “poison the well for commercial use” Gnu concepts in turn influenced the open source GPL (General Public License), which Linux and MySQL use; along with a number of other popular open source licenses.  Some of these open source license terms can negatively impact your ability to patent your software, as well as your other attempts to make your business profitable.

This problem scares investors.  Sophisticated investors now frequently include open source software questions as part of their routine, pre-funding, due diligence process. So yes, to avoid starving, this stuff matters.

Enter BSD: Not all open source software licenses have these problems. In the 1990’s other software experts decided that an open software sharing community could develop without also poisoning the well for commercial uses.  They developed the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license (initially for their Unix-like operating system). The BSD license encourages sharing, but does not usually limit commercial use or patents.

Although BSD type open source licenses and software are not quite as famous as GPL open source software, a large number of well-respected and highly reliable BSD distributions are available.  Like Linux, there are different flavors of BSD for different applications. Look into FreeBSD for large scale servers, OpenBSD for secure applications, and NetBSD for smaller scale devices.  There are also BSD web servers (e.g. Nginx, httpd, Lighttpd), BSD databases, and many other BSD licensed open source applications.

Use your business model to pick your open source software (license), and not the other way around.  Google’s main revenue is from advertising.  They could afford to base Android on GPL licensed Linux. They have to make Android available for a free download, but given their business model, this isn’t a problem for them.  By contrast Apple has a business model based on selling closed devices.  Apple can’t survive with non-proprietary software. As a result, Apple chose to build iOS and OS X on a BSD foundation.  So pick the license that is best for your business (hint, think permissive or public domain).

Medical device patents

Medical device patents
Medical device patents

Why are medical device patents important? New medical devices are both expensive and risky to produce. Without patent protection, few new medical devices would ever reach the market.

The number of filed and granted medical device patents has substantially increased over the last few years, with certain US states (California, Minnesota and Massachusetts) leading the way.  Certain countries, in particular Japan and Germany, are also heavily active in this area.

Write carefully: In contrast to some high tech areas, such as computers and software, which often rely on a larger number of lower impact patents, the medical device industry tends to rely on a smaller number of higher impact patents.  What this means is that any given medical device patent is more likely than average to be subjected to a high level of competitor scrutiny.  Remember also that in the medical device field, both the patent office and the courts may view the “person having ordinary skill in the art” (PHOSITA) as being highly skilled, such as a PhD or MD. Thus care should be given to write accordingly. It is helpful to include a lot of detail and discuss alternative approaches. Research and disclose prior art, and of course try to write claims in a manner that distinguishes over prior art.

Remember Europe: Medical devices are an international market, and often due to slower FDA review times, US firms first introduce new products in Europe.  Many US medical device patent applications end up being filed in Europe.  Thus European patent rules are often important.

Although there are a few glaring exceptions, US medical device patent eligibility rules generally tend to be expansive. The USPTO typically reviews these patents in its 3700’s art unit.  In recent years, this art unit has continued to grant medical device patents according to its historical percentages.

European patent eligibility rules are also generally quite permissive with regard to “gadgets” and in-vitro devices, as well as technical aspects of in-vivo devices.  However Europe (See G-II 4.2.1) doesn’t allow “methods of treatment of the [living] human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practiced on [usually interpreted as “in”] the human or animal body “.  Fortunately the Europeans tend to read this exclusion narrowly, so this isn’t actually quite as restrictive as it sounds. However from a claim writing perspective, be careful of method claims with limitations that read on the patient’s body.  Try to focus more on the details of how the gadget (device) itself works.  Watch out for methods that remove a tissue, treat it, and then return it to the body, as these could run into trouble.

Patent non-publication requests

Keeping patent applications confidential

Non-publication requests: Patent non-publication requests can be an important part of your IP strategy. Under US law, patent applications can be filed with patent non-publication requests. When this request is made, the USPTO will hold a patent application secret (i.e. will not publish it) until when and if the patent finally issues. Otherwise, absent this request, the patent office will automatically publish the patent application 18 months after the initial filing date.

When to consider filing a non-publication request: Non-publication requests are particularly appropriate for certain types of software patent applications, such as “business methods” and related software patents. This is because the US patent law for this type of software is presently in an unsettled state, and the international acceptance of this type of patent is also more limited. By filing with a non-publication request, your disclosure remains a trade secret. If the USPTO grants you a patent that is broad enough to be worth disclosing your work; great. If not, then you can continue to elect to keep your work hidden from the public.

When filing a non-publication request may not be appropriate: If you have plans to file outside the US, then by international treaty, you must file for international patents within 12 months of your initial filing date, and also allow your initial application to be published within 18 months. Here you can either not include a non-publication request on initial filing, or alternatively send in another form rescinding your non-publication request.

Other considerations: Unless a specific reason for non-publication can be identified, I generally recommend filing using the default, “publication” mode. This is because published patent applications can be useful. They help provide published prior art to help establish priority over patent filings from competitors. Additionally, published patent applications look impressive to investors, and can help give you more credibility.

Software patents in China, Europe, and the US

Software patents in China, Europe, and the US

Summary: In general, software patents that deal with technical effects, physical parameters, and improving computer function tend to be favored. By contrast, software patents focused on business methods tend to be disfavored.

China: Before April 2017, China restricted software patents to methods that solve technical problems, control internal or external processes according to the laws of nature, and produce technical effects in accordance with the laws of nature.  Machine readable medium type claims, and game patents, were not allowed. However these guidelines are now somewhat more expansive. For example, business methods that also have a technical aspect may now also be eligible for patent protection.

Europe: Software patents should have a “technical effect” (e.g. controlling industrial aspects, improvements in computer technology, data pertains to physical properties,). Pure methods directed “only” to doing business and computer programs without “technical effect” are not allowed.

United States: The rules are presently incoherent. Traditionally (before 2014-2015) US policy was permissive. Indeed the present written (i.e. statutory) US legal standard is that all types of software patents are permitted. However the latest judicial rulings and USPTO policies are that at least some software patents may represent “abstract ideas” run on “generic computers” that are not patentable unless there is “something more”. Unfortunately the terms “abstract”, “generic computer” and “something more” are effectively undefined (and thus can vary according to the whims of the judge or patent examiner at hand).

How will US software patent rules evolve in the future? This is a bit like reading tea leaves, but the latest US software patent decisions appear to be trending more towards a Chinese or European-like approach. On average, “Business method” software is increasingly being rejected as being “abstract”. However software that exhibits technical effects, operates on data pertaining to physical properties, or improves computer function is often accepted on the basis that it is not “abstract”, not run on “generic computers” or contains “something more”.  Arguably the US, presently lacking coherent rules, may be at least temporarily filling the void by borrowing rules from other countries.  The constitutionality of this approach remains to be determined.

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, 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.