Loading...

Follow OC Patent Lawyer on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

For many, a provisional patent application (PPA) should be filed first as a PPA delays downstream patent examination costs and allows one to shift course and expedite patent examination later on, when needed, as explained in detail below.

The decision to file either a provisional patent application or a nonprovisional patent application (NPA) is based on two different factors.

  1. How fast do you want your patent granted?
  2. How long do you want to delay patent examination costs?

Unfortunately, these two factors conflict with each other. If you want to secure a patent grant expeditiously, you need to accelerate patent examination costs. Conversely, if you want to delay patent examination costs as long as possible, you need to delay the grant of your patent.

You cannot have both (i.e., a fast patent grant and delayed examination costs) at the same time. You must choose one. However, filing a provisional patent application first will allow you to delay examination costs and then switch course to secure a patent grant very rapidly when needed.

[cmtoc_table_of_contents]

First, let me identify something that is not a significant factor: patent preparation costs (i.e., the cost to prepare a patent application). There is a cost difference in preparing a PPA versus an NPA, but it is minor when the PPA is prepared properly.

Allow me to explain. If the NPA and PPA are prepared to provide the same level of patent pendency-type patent protection, a provisional patent application (PPA) costs about $2,000, or 20% less than an NPA, to prepare. Yes, PPAs are less expensive to prepare but not significantly. For more information, read “Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative? and “Cost Considerations for PPA and NPA.”

Second, I should clarify the difference between preparation costs versus examination costs. Preparation costs are those upfront costs needed to secure patent pendency (e.g., filing a patent application). In contrast, examination costs are downstream costs related to securing the grant of the patent (e.g., responding to office actions from the Patent Office).

More importantly, the correct answer to the question of whether you should file a provisional or nonprovisional patent application depends on your personal vision for your product launch and your business situation. Please consult with your patent attorney on this issue. If you would like to discuss this issue with me, please schedule your consultation.

As a general default strategy, the provisional patent application is a reasonable first step based on a default strategy of delaying fees as long as possible, unless there is justification to incur the cost immediately.

The time gap between preparation costs and examination costs

The cost to secure a patent can be separated into two different types of costs, as stated above.

The first type of cost (i.e., preparation costs) includes the cost to prepare and file a patent application. Approximate estimates for this type of cost are about $5k to $10k. This cost is normally spent within two months after retaining a patent attorney to prepare and file a patent application. It is normally spent right before you start to market your product or invention and share your idea with others. In many instances, this cost is simply a cost of doing business and cannot be delayed unless you accept certain risks of marketing your invention without filing a patent application first. For more information, please read “Pitfalls of one year grace period and “Beware of marketing an invention before filing a patent application.”

The second type of cost (i.e., examination costs) is related to the examination of the patent application. Approximate estimates for this type of cost are about $1k to $10k. An examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office will review or examine the patent application and subsequently reject or allow the patent application. The examination will occur about 1.5 years after filing the NPA. Our role as patent attorneys is to convince the examiner that a patent should be granted on the patent application. The examination costs are associated with this effort. For more information on patent costs, read “Patent application cost, short and long term.” The estimates in this article are approximate estimates for the purposes of our discussion here.

The time gap between the preparation costs and the examination costs is somewhere between 6 months to 2.5 years, depending on the following:

  1. Whether you file a provisional or nonprovisional patent application
  2. Whether a fast track or expedited examination request is filed with the nonprovisional patent application

You can adjust this time gap based on when you would like to secure the patent and when you would like to incur the examination costs. If you want to delay the patent examination costs, then you should file the provisional patent application first. The PPA will not enter the queue or line for examination. It will never be examined before the NPA is filed, and the NPA can be filed up to one year later. Hence, the PPA delays the examination by one year.

Once the NPA is filed, it will take the Patent Office about 1.5 years to work through its backlog before the NPA is actually examined.

Hence, the total time gap between the preparation costs and the examination costs could be as long as 2.5 years. This time period could be used to test market the invention or product.

By filing the PPA, the grant of the patent is also delayed. If the goal is to secure a patent grant as soon as possible, then patent examination costs cannot be delayed by filing a provisional patent application. Instead, a nonprovisional patent application must be filed. If a patent grant needs to be secured as quickly as possible, then file the NPA with an expedited examination request.

Filing a PPA maximizes examination cost delays

Let’s back up a bit and explain the differences between and similarities of the provisional and nonprovisional patent applications for those of you just starting your research into the patent process.

Both the provisional and nonprovisional patent applications establish patent pendency upon filing of the patent application. Patent pendency means that the patent application has priority over other patent applications that are filed after your patent application. The Patent Office will grant the patent to the application with priority when there are two applications for the same invention.

However, only a nonprovisional patent application is examined by the USPTO. Upon filing the nonprovisional patent application, it will enter the line or queue for examination. Based on the backlog of nonprovisional patent applications to be examined at the USPTO, an examiner at the USPTO will review the nonprovisional patent application. The examiner will either reject it or allow it to mature into a patent. Under normal processing, the Patent Office takes about 1.5 years before they substantively examine a patent application.

This is not true for a provisional patent application. The provisional patent application never enters the line or queue for examination. Rather, by default, the provisional patent application is abandoned one year after its filing date.

To preserve the priority date established by a PPA, a corresponding nonprovisional patent application must be filed before the provisional patent application is abandoned. The nonprovisional patent application refers back to the PPA and is treated as if it had been filed on the filing date of the PPA. When the nonprovisional patent application is filed, it enters the line for examination, and eventually examination costs will begin to accrue in about 1.5 years under normal processing.

As such, if delayed examination costs are preferred, one should file a provisional patent application. The patent application will not enter the line or queue for examination until the corresponding nonprovisional patent application is filed. Hence, examination costs can be delayed for up to one year by filing the provisional patent application. Examination costs will start to occur in about 1.5 years after filing the NPA. This approach allows examination costs to be delayed for up to approximately 2.5 years (i.e., one year for the PPA and 1.5 years waiting for the examination to begin) after the start of the patent process.

Delay patent examination costs to test market

Why would you want to delay the examination costs? The simple answer is to test market your idea before you start to incur more legal fees. Test marketing the invention could take months or even years, so you might need all the time you can get. If marketing efforts indicate that the product or invention will sell well, this justifies downstream examination costs.

Unfortunately, if marketing shows that the product or invention would not sell, then you should consider abandoning the patent process.

Conversely, if the goal is to secure the patent sooner rather than later, filing the provisional patent application will only delay the patent grant. If time is a factor, skip the provisional patent application and go straight to the nonprovisional patent application. The nonprovisional patent application should be filed so that the patent application enters the queue for examination immediately. Examination will occur about 1.5 years after the filing.

If the goal is to secure the patent as quickly as possible, you should file the nonprovisional patent application with a request to expedite examination. In general, an expedited nonprovisional patent application will be examined in about four to six months rather than the 1.5 years it would take under normal processing.

Default Strategy

In my opinion, a reasonable default strategy is to file the provisional patent application first. The purpose of this is to delay the examination costs as long as possible, until there is sound justification to accelerate those costs. If marketing goes very well for the product or invention, then the corresponding nonprovisional patent application can be filed at any time before the one-year due date. The corresponding nonprovisional patent application does not need to be filed on the one-year anniversary. It could be filed six months later or even the day after you file the PPA, if needed.

If sales are going well for the product or invention and competitors are threatening to copy the invention/product to compete with you, expedited examination can be requested when the nonprovisional patent application is filed.

As such, by filing the provisional patent application first, your options to speed up the examination to secure a patent faster or to delay patent examination costs are left open. If marketing goes well, then the patent process can be sped up, namely, by filing the NPA before the one-year deadline and paying the expedited examination fee when you file the NPA. On the other hand, if marketing is going slower or not as well as expected, you can keep delaying the patent process and the examination costs. Keep working on marketing. File the corresponding NPA closer to the one-year date, and don’t request expedited examination.

The U.S. patent process offers great flexibility to the inventing community because examination costs can be delayed or the patent process can be expedited to secure a patent faster, depending on how business and marketing progress for the product or invention.

The post Should you file a provisional or nonprovisional patent application? appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

A provisional utility patent application is one of the most misunderstood tools of the patent system—at least by non-patent practitioners. From the layperson’s perspective, the provisional patent application is usually viewed as a cheap patent application. However, as discussed below, the provisional patent application is not cheap compared to the cost to prepare a nonprovisional patent application. The provisional patent application is more accurately described as a lower cost (i.e., slightly less) option compared to a nonprovisional patent application when they are prepared to provide the same level of patent protection.

By patent protection, I refer to patent-pendency type patent protection, and not enforceable patent rights. Patent-pendency type patent protection refers to the protection an inventor receives by merely filing a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The filing date of the patent application establishes a date of invention or priority date as to the information included in the patent application. The pending patent application has superior rights to a later filed patent application by another person. In contrast, enforceable patent rights only accrue when the patent application matures into a granted patent.

Cheap Provisional Patent Applications

Numerous websites advertise cheap provisional patent applications. The cost for a provisional patent application can be as low as $199 plus governmental filing fee ($140 for a small entity). These websites identify the fields of a patent application and require the inventor to fill in the information for each field. The burden is on the inventor to explain how the invention works with enough detail to satisfy U.S. patent law requirements (e.g., written description and enablement requirements). Unfortunately, many laypeople cannot do so because of the complexities of patent law. Also, a patent practitioner (i.e., patent attorney or patent agent) does not prepare or even check the adequacy of the inventor’s work.

Regardless of whether inventors can meet these challenges, inventors are attracted to the advertised low prices in that they figure that it couldn’t hurt to secure the provisional patent application for $199. The apparent belief is that if it needs to be fixed later, a patent attorney can do so—later—when the non-provisional application is filed. Unfortunately, a defective patent application cannot be fixed later in many instances because the information provided in the provisional patent application cannot be modified. If the explanation provided by the inventor is not sufficient to satisfy the written description and/or enablement requirement, then it is defective and cannot be fixed later. Additionally, if the patent application prepared by the inventor is less than ideal in that the invention is described in a narrow way, then the cost to prosecute the patent application (i.e., respond to office actions and amend the claim set) so that the patent claims are not unduly narrow may significantly rise.

Is there a purpose for these types of do-it-yourself (DIY) patent applications? Yes. If the inventor simply does not have the funds retain a patent attorney, then these types of patent applications may be beneficial. Something is better than nothing. If possible, patent attorneys should take the time to explain these common pitfalls when filing a DIY patent application.

While inventors are capable of preparing a patent application to protect their inventions, based on my experience, DIY patent applications are typically not done to a satisfactory level. The difficulties of maneuvering around the various patent laws make it difficult for inventors to adequately prepare their own patent application even when they understand their own invention better than anyone. The legal requirements and the way an invention should be described so that the invention is not described in an unduly narrow manner is difficult to achieve. For patent attorneys, it takes years of practice to improve this skill under the mentorship of a senior patent attorney.

Related articles:

Inexpensive Provisional Patent Applications

Inexpensive provisional patent applications prepared by a patent practitioner (e.g., patent attorney or licensed patent agent) are also available if you look on the internet. These applications may be as low as $1500 but are usually higher. Is this better than the $199 option? It depends. If the patent practitioner can explain how the invention works to a sufficient degree so that those aspects can be claimed later when the nonprovisional patent application is filed, then it is better than a cheap provisional patent application. But oftentimes, $1500 does not buy enough of the patent practitioner’s time to prepare an adequate disclosure.

Let me explain with an example. To claim an invention, the provisional patent application must be described so that one of ordinary skill is enabled to practice the full scope of the claim. In general, if a species (e.g., one embodiment) is disclosed, then the corresponding genus (e.g., broad generic category) can be claimed provided that the species enables the practice of the full scope of the claimed invention. With this in mind, for example, the issue is whether the disclosure of a mechanical nut and bolt fastener allow one to claim all types of fastener connections, including electro magnets, adhesives, zippers, and welding? Unfortunately, for a lower priced provisional patent application, the patent practitioner may not have sufficient time to fully explain the full scope of various connection mechanisms. As such, inexpensive provisional patent applications may provide some measure of protection but may fall short of what the inventor expects to receive.

Inexpensive patent applications might explain the point of novelty but not much more. At least, that has been my experience when transferring in cases from other patent attorneys and agents. In general, no emphasis is placed on trying to broadly describe the invention or to include other variations, options, or ranges of key parameters as potential future backup arguments.

But there is a place for a cheap or inexpensive provisional patent application. For example, if you are meeting with others on short notice, then a cheap or inexpensive provisional patent application that requires a minimal amount of time to prepare might be a good option based on the logic that some patent-pendency type patent protection is better than none.

Beware of a False Sense of Security

One dangerous aspect of cheap or an inexpensive patent application is that clients expect their inventions to be “protected,” but may not understand the different levels of patent protection that cheap, inexpensive, and a full-up patent application provide. Inventors expect high quality from attorneys even if the price is low. For inventors and small businesses, especially those who are just starting out, any sum of money, whether it is at the $199 level or $1,500 level, is high.

Because of this, patent attorneys should spend the time with the inventor/client so that they understand and appreciate the level of protection they are receiving based on the cost. Unfortunately, when little money is being spent on the application, little time is given to explain the risks, benefits, and what is provided.

Related article: Misconceptions of provisional patent applications

A Full-Up Provisional Patent Application Costs Slightly Less Than a Nonprovisional Patent Application

The cost for a corresponding full up provisional patent application is slightly less than the cost of a full-up nonprovisional patent application. The cost of the full-up nonprovisional patent application will be about $5,000 to $15,000 with the cost of the full-up provisional application being about $1,000 to $3,000 less.

By full-up, I mean a patent application that identifies the point of novelty of the invention, includes the various options to the basic point of novelty, and describes the invention to try and broadly protect the invention and address at least some of the potential ways competitors might try to design around the claimed invention. The price range is broad because the exact price depends on the complexity of the invention and technology, the number of drawings to be included in the patent application and the extent of disclosure desired (i.e., omnibus or focused on point of novelty).

The cost of the full-up provisional patent application is just slightly less than the cost of the full-up nonprovisional patent application because the most time-consuming part of the patent application to prepare (i.e., Detailed Description section) must be included in both the provisional and nonprovisional patent applications if they both are to provide the same level of patent protection.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office describes the provisional patent application as a lower cost (i.e., slightly lower cost) option which is a better characterization of the provisional patent application than cheap or inexpensive. It certainly is not a cheap or inexpensive alternative if the provisional patent application is to provide the same level of patent protection compared to the nonprovisional patent application.

Be aware that although a higher cost patent application provides better patent protection in general, it is not necessarily true because the quality of the patent application is based on other factors such as the quality of the patent practitioner (i.e., patent attorney and agent) that prepares the patent application.

Both Provisional and Nonprovisional Patent Applications Must Include a Detailed Description of the Invention

Some describe the provisional patent application as a cheap alternative because the provisional patent application does not have as many requirements as a nonprovisional patent application. This is a true statement in terms of the number of requirements. The issue is whether the lower number of requirements results in a cheap provisional patent application that provides the same level of patent protection compared to a full-up nonprovisional patent application.

Figure 1 is a table of requirements for the provisional and nonprovisional patent applications. It lists the sections of a patent application and indicates which sections are required for the provisional and nonprovisional patent applications.

 Nonprovisional patent applicationProvisional patent application
BackgroundX
Brief SummaryX
Brief Description of the DrawingsX
Detailed DescriptionXX
ClaimsX
AbstractX
DrawingsXX
Figure 1

Referring to Figure 1, the provisional patent application does not require a background section, a brief summary section, a brief description of the drawings section, a claims section, or an abstract. However, these sections are not time consuming to prepare, except for the claims section. Even for the claims section, the time to prepare it is usually low compared to the Detailed Description section.

The bulk of any patent attorney’s time to prepare a patent application is in the Detailed Description section of the patent application. To prepare the Detailed Description section, the patent attorney needs to spend time to understand the invention and identify the point of novelty of the invention. From there, the patent attorney can then begin to write the detailed description to highlight the point(s) of novelty, include the various options to the basic point(s) of novelty, and describe the invention to broadly protect the invention and deal with potential design arounds.

The Detailed Description section, which is usually the most time-consuming portion of the patent application, is required for both the provisional and nonprovisional patent application as shown in the table above. Hence, in my opinion, the better way to describe the cost for the provisional patent application is that it is a lower cost option, not a cheap or inexpensive option to the nonprovisional patent application.

Patent applications at each cost tier can provide a strategic benefit to the inventor or business. Patent attorneys should spend the time to educate inventors and businesses about the level of patent protection afforded at each tier, including whether it will provide the value and benefit they need.

This blog post is a republication of my article that I published in Orange County Lawyer.  Here is a pdf download of the article: Provisional Patent Application: Not a cheap alternative to a nonprovisional patent application

The post Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative? appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

The holding of Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016).? In these cases, the courts invalidated the patent as being directed to an abstract idea for claiming an end result and not the how to achieving it.? In Interval Licensing LLC, the dissent?s opinion is much more interesting.

  1. He explains the frustration over the current legal analytical framework (Alice/Mayo two step format) for determining patent eligibility.
  2. He suggests that the ?inventive concept? analysis was replaced with the obviousness analysis in the 1952 Patent Act.
  3. He gives specific next steps to fix the current problems with Alice/Mayo two step analysis.
1.? Frustration over patent eligible subject matter laws

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. is significant for the dissenting opinion.? The dissenting opinion explains the frustration at the Federal Circuit level over the current Alice/Mayo framework.

Judge Plager (dissent) explains that he and at least two other judges on the Federal Circuit have gone on record to voice their frustration with the current Alice/Mayo analytical framework for deciding patent eligible subject matter.? Judge Richard Linn in Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority and Judge Alan Lourie in Berkheimer v. HP Inc.? He additionally indicated that there are more judges that are frustrated but only behind the scenes.? Judge Plager states that:

?I do not mean to suggest that they are the only two such judges on the court ? to my knowledge, other than myself, they are the only two who have gone on record in such clear terms regarding the law of ?abstract ideas.??

Judge Plager?s main objection appears to be that the current legal framework for deciding which patents are patent eligible does not give confidence that the outcome is necessarily correct and impossible to know with any certainty whether the invention is or is not patent eligible.? He wants a just result and a clear framework that is more repeatable.? That is what others want but are not getting with the current Alice/Mayo framework.

Commentators have recognized the current problems with our Section 101 jurisprudence.? See comments by?former head of the USPTO has called for abolishing Section 101.? See also USPTO Report on Patent Eligible Subject Matter.

For Judge Plager, the problem exists because abstractness is just one of degree. It is impossible to tell when an abstract idea turns into a concrete idea.? He gives an example where two statements are both abstract but one is more abstract than the other.? He argues that the statement ?let?s have hamburgers for dinner? is less abstract compared to ?I have an idea-I am going to invent how to make time go backwards.?? He rhetorically asks:

  • How much abstractness is a function of concreteness?
  • How do we pick the line where the articulation and explication of an idea is sufficiently concrete to be ?non-abstract,? but not such much as to be ?generic and conventional??
  • Does it help to phrase the notion as the difference between claiming a desired result and claiming how to produce that same result?
  • Or are we just substituting one set of vague notions for the other, with the same line-drawing problem?

Another source of frustration is the current method of comparing your case with other similar cases to determine patent eligibility.? Why? He states that ??Abstract ideas,? like the term ?obscenity,? may provide a cultural consensus in a given instance regarding whether a past event qualifies, but it fails to provide the kind of specificity and clarity that makes it useful for future prediction of outcome.?

2.? Inventive concept was abolished long ago with the advent of the nonobviousness requirement

On page 7 of the dissenting opinion, importantly, Judge Plager explained the history of 35 USC 103 (i.e., Section 103) and how it relates to the current analysis for determining patent eligibility.?? Section 103 is a statutory requirement that the claimed invention must be nonobvious in light of the prior art or existing technology. The dissenting opinion suggests that historically the ?inventive concept? analysis was replaced by the nonobviousness requirement.

The dissenting opinion explained that before enactment of the 1952 Patent Act, nonobviousness was not a requirement to secure a patent.? During this time, the court had injected a ?requirement for invention? to secure a patent.? For 100 years prior, the courts opined on what did and did not amount to ?invention? which was not very fruitful.? At the end, the courts concluded that ??invention? resulted from the exercise of the ?inventive faculties? and other circular reasonings.?? With the enactment of the 1952 Patent Act, Congress had made nonobviousness a requirement to secure a patent.? Later, a famous judge, namely, Judge Rich shortly thereafter had written about the 1952 Patent Act.? He wrote:

?that when 103 has been complied with, there is no further and different requirement called ?invention?; that compliance with 103 is the policy judgment of Congress on how to bring the invention within the Constitutional purpose.? Giles S. Rich, The Vague Concept of ?Invention? as Replaced by Sec. 103 of the 1952 Patent Act, 46 J. Pat. Off. Soc?y 855 (1964).

Before the 1952 Act, the ?requirement for invention? had caused problems for the court.? Judge Plager suggests that the current “inventive concept” requirement in the Alice/Mayo framework is just the ?requirement for invention? but in different words.? He suggests that the current nonobviousness analysis can do the work to ferret out and exclude abstract ideas that the ?inventive concept? step in the Alice/Mayo framework is trying to do.

3.? Next steps

Judge Plager reaches out to the Supreme Court.? He asks them to abolish the abstract idea rules.? For the district courts, he suggests that they analyze 102 (novelty), 103 (obviousness) and 112 (enablement and written description) before analyzing 101 (patent eligibility).? Lastly, he asks Congress for help in resolving this issue.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

The post Plager calls to overturn current patent eligibility analysis appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Orange County is a hotbed of innovation, especially considering its size.? For 2017, Orange County companies were granted 1,619 patents, whereas Los Angeles companies were granted 1,731 patents.? Considering the relative populations of Orange County (3.19 million) and Los Angeles County (10.4 million), the intensity of innovation at companies based in Orange County is high.? Per capita, Orange County is three times (3) more innovative than our Los Angeles neighbor.

The rapid pace of innovation in Orange County seems to be accelerating.? The number of patents granted to Orange County companies from December 2017 to May 2018 exceeded the number granted in all of 2017 – both in terms of total patents granted, and in terms of the rate at which those patents were granted.? As mentioned above, 1,619 patents were granted to Orange County companies in the year of 2017.? In the following six months, as of May 28, 2018, 2,083 patents were granted to Orange County companies.? That is an increase in the rate of patent grants by 28%.

Top cities with companies focused on patenting their ideas

Which Orange County cities have the most companies focused on patenting their ideas?

CityCompany with most granted patents (Number of patents assigned to Company)Total Number of Granted Patents (Utility and Design) per City for the past 1 yearTotal Number of Design Patents per City
IrvineAllergan, Inc. (83 Patents)88393
Santa Ana Universal Electronics Inc. (39 Patents)18315
Aliso Viejo Microsemi Corp.i Corp. (37 Patents)1531
Lake Forest Oakley, Inc.y, Inc. (31 Patents)11627
Newport Beach Newport Fab, LLC (12 Patents)10912
San Clemente ICU Medical, Inc.l, Inc. (26 Patents)8110
Huntington Beach C&D Zodiac, Inc. Inc. (11 Patents)6321
Anaheim Hestan Commercial Corporation (12 Patents)6114
Rancho Santa Margarita Applied Medical Resources Corporation (25 Patents)592
Costa Mesa CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC. (11 Patents)5514
Fountain Valley Kingston Digital, Inc. (21 Patents)4821
Yorba Linda Vyaire Medical Capital LLC (8 Patents)334
Brea Beckman Coulter, Inc. (17 Patents)318
Buena Park ALMEX USA INC. (6 Patents)

Orora Packaging Solutions
(6 Patents)
2311
Tustin Dynalloy, Inc (3 Patents)222
Cypress Christie Digital Systems USA, Inc. (13 patents)212
Laguna Niguel Urban Armor Gear LLC (8 Patents)187
Orange Kerr Corporation (4 Patents)180
Laguna Hills LINQ3 Technologies LLC (5 Patents)170
Garden Grove Allied Wheel Components (9 Patents)1611
Mission Viejo UBRANDS, LLC (7 Patents)142
Fullerton Raytheon Command and Control Solutions LLC (3 Patents)132
San Juan Capistrano Agouron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (3 Patents)91
Dana Point Atlantis Technologies (2 Patents)71
BCAT, LLC (2 Patents)
Laguna Beach Tropare, INC. (3 Patents)71
Ladera Ranch EmiSense Technologies, LLC (4 Patents)50
Westminster SYPHERMEDIA INTERNATIONAL, INC. (3 Patents)51
Los Alamitos Cleland Sales Corporation (2 Patents)40
La Palma HydroNovation, Inc. (3 Patents)30
Placentia 20
Seal Beach Cosmodyne, LLC (1 Patent)20
La Habra EYES4LIVES, INC. (1 Patent)10
Villa Park MotorMood, LLC (1 Patent)11
Top technologies being patented in Orange County

Based on the categories defined by the Cooperative Patent Classification system, the top 3 industries in Orange County, California with respect to the number of patents granted are:

  1. ?Medical? (CPC Section A61: Medical or Veterinary Science; Hygiene)
  2. ?Computers? (CPC Section G06: Computing; Calculating; Counting)
  3. ?Communications? (CPC Section H04: Electric Communication Technique)

Side Note: The CPC is a classification system similar to the Dewey Decimal Classification.? Every patent document (i.e., granted patent and pre-grant publication) is categorized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under a system referred to as the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC).? The classification is managed by the USPTO and the European Patent Office.? The patent offices around the world has a common interest in working together to ensure that only new and nonobvious inventions are protected by a patent.? By harmonizing the databases at the various patent offices, examiners have more information at their fingertips when examining an application for patent.

Top companies innovating in the top technologies

Twenty-six (26) % of the total number of patents are for medical-related inventions.? Companies that invent in that area include:

Fifteen (15) % of the total number of patents are related to computers.? Companies in that area of technology include:

10% of the total number of patents were related to communications.? Companies in that space include:

  • MBIT Wireless, Inc.
  • Newracom, Inc.
  • Quest Software, Inc.,
Top 10 companies granted a patent

The 10 highest-patenting companies – as defined by number of patents granted – in Orange County, California are:

CompanyNumber of Patents past 1 year
Allergan, Inc.83
Abbott Medical Optics Inc.26
Applied Medical Resources Corporation25
BSH Home Appliances Corporation43
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation65
ICU Medical, Inc.26
MBIT WIRELESS, INC.28
NEWRACOM, INC.52
Oakley, Inc.31
Quest Software, Inc.31
Universal Electronics Inc. 43
An Orange County patent attorney?s summary: the non-legalese version

Orange County has an unusual depth of innovation.? The number of patents per capita is 3 times greater compared to Los Angeles which is remarkable.? The breadth of technological innovation is equally impressive: Orange County companies are not focused only on software or computer technology as in other areas of California such as Silicon Valley. The numbers from the Patent Office (USPTO) suggest that Orange County can look forward to even more innovation, expansion, and growth.

Should you have any questions or want more data, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 433-0900.

The post Orange County Patent Statistics for 2018: Midyear Report on Top Innovators appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
Boston University’s patent claim invalidated for failing to enable its full scope

In Boston University v. Everlight Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent claim for failing to enable the full scope of the claimed invention. In particular, the claim contemplated six (6) combinations based on two factors.? The first factor had two options.? The second factor had three options.? Every permutation between the two factors yielded six different possible combinations.? Unfortunately, the patent specification only enabled five (5) of the six (6) scenarios.? Hence, the patent claim was not fully enabled by the specification and thus invalid.

Enablement requirement: How the issue arose?

For this reason, it is important to remember that the patent application must include enough detail to enable the full scope of what you would like to claim as your invention.? Oftentimes, inventors come up with the preferred embodiment but do not consider the value of the alternate designs.? The lesson to be learned by this case is not only one of patent specification drafting but also claim drafting.

On the one hand, if the patent owner had just drafted the claim to cover the five enabled combinations from the six different potential combinations, the patent claim would not have been invalidated.? On the other hand, had the patent owner merely enabled the sixth combination in the patent specification, then the patent claim would have been fully enabled and valid.

Enablement requires that the disclosure enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation under 35 USC 112.

Although the problem appears simple and easy to fix, it isn?t.? The inventor must have the foresight to envision the different combinations and answer tough questions whether all of the various combinations are enabled.

Facts and analysis of Boston University case

Let?s discuss the facts of the Boston University case.? The patent owner in Boston University owned US Pat. No. 5,686,738.? The ?738 patent is directed to light emitting diodes (LEDs).? LEDs have a substrate, an n-type semiconductor and a p-type seminconductor.? The claimed invention was defined by two different limitations: ?grown on? and ?a non-single crystalline buffer layer.?

Grown on was construed to mean:

  1. formed indirectly above; or
  2. for directly above

A non-single crystalline buffer layer was construed to mean a layer of material that is not monocrystalline, namely,

  1. polycrystalline;
  2. amorphous; or
  3. a mixture of polycrystalline and amorphous located between the first substrate and the first growth layer.

These two limitations generated six different combinations that the patent specification had to enable.? Otherwise, the patent claims would be invalid for not enabling the full scope of the claimed invention.

During litigation, the defendant?s expert testified that it was impossible to grow a monocrystalline film directly on an amorphous structure at the time the patent application was filed.? The patent owner pointed to research where others were capable doing so.? However, they were only able to do so after the filing date of the patent application which matured into the ?738 patent.? In response, the Federal Circuit stated that:

?But the inquiry is not whether it was, or is, possible to make the full scope of the claimed device ? a scope that here covers a monocrystalline growth layer directly on an amorphous layer.? The inquiry is whether the patent?s specification taught one of skill in the art how to make such a device without undue experimentation as of the patent?s effective filing date.? (emphasis added).

Gap-filling exception to enablement is limited to well known art

From a patent attorney?s perspective, the logical question after reading Boston University is whether a patent drafter must discuss every permutation within the scope of a patent claim to enable the entire full scope.? No!? The Federal Circuit explained that the patent specification does not need to disclose what is well known in the art.? ?But this gap-filling is merely supplemental; it cannot substitute for a basic enabling disclosure.?? Essentially, the gap-filling carve out cannot be used to establish enablement.? If the gap-filling carve out could establish enablement, then the claim would be invalid for being not novel, or in layman’s terms, trying to claim the prior art.

Patent drafting tip and increased cost to prepare a patent application

Technically, the Federal Circuit does not require the patent attorney to spell out every single permutation.? Nonetheless, it is still a good idea to keep this holding in mind when drafting a patent application.? How many permutations of the invention are possible?? Have I discussed each permutation and will it work based on the words that are in the patent specification?? These are good things to strive for when drafting a patent application.? Inventor beware.? Ultimately, you are responsible for ensuring that the alternate embodiments are included.

Because the patent application must enable for the full scope of what is being sought as the claimed invention, this also increases the cost for securing a patent.? Inventors believe that their invention is very simple and should be easy to explain, thus low cost.? However, because of the need to enable the full scope of what is being sought for protection, patent attorneys when they can think of it will include alternate embodiments.? For example, a tongue and groove combination could also work if the tongue and groove are reversed.? Both should be included in the patent application.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

The post Patent application must enable FULL scope of claimed invention appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Components, parts and aspects of a device (i.e., invention) which are described as important or necessary to the invention can be used to limit the scope of the patent.? When preparing a patent application, the goal is to describe an invention so that the important or necessary parts are highlighted but not necessarily described as important or necessary.? In this way, aspects and embodiments of the invention can be flexibly claimed during examination.? However, a component described as important and critical can be used to narrow the scope of the patent claims.

Scroll down for?tips and examples of how to mitigate the risk of a ill-prepared patent application from narrowing your patent claims.

In Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018), the defendant attempted to narrow the scope of the claims by arguing that the specification taught a particular arrangement of the components of the patented device.? The Federal Circuit reviewed the patent specification and found that the particular arrangement of parts was not ?clearly? described as being ?important.?? As such, the Federal Circuit held that it was an error for the District Court to limit the scope of the patent to the particular arrangement based on the description of the invention, and not based solely on the language of the claims.

Fact pattern of Blackbird Tech

The patent owner (Blackbird Tech LLC) sued the accused infringer (ELB Electronics, Inc.) for patent infringement based on US Pat. No. 7,086,747.? To narrow the scope of the claims, the accused infringer argued that the patent claims should be interpreted to include a requirement that the attachment surface be secured to the ?ballast cover? even though the claims did not recite this arrangement.? The language of the claims stated that the attachment surface is secured to the ?illumination surface.?

Below is a figure from the patent which shows the attachment surface secured to the illumination surface.? The ballast cover is not shown in the drawings.

Here is the accused infringer?s logic.? The accused infringer pointed to the prosecution history of the patent, namely, US Pat. No. 7,086,747.? Prosecution history refers to the back and forth communication between the patent owner and the examiner.? In particular, when the patent application was first filed, the original claims required the attachment surface be secured to the ?ballast cover.?? However, in response to a rejection based on indefiniteness by the examiner, the patent owner had amended the claim to recite an attachment surface secured to ?a ballast cover an illumination surface.?? (markups show the amendment to the claim).

Although the opinion of the court didn?t fully explain the accused infringer?s logic, it appears that the accused infringer was arguing that the amendment to the claims were being done for the purposes of ?clarification? and not to ?change? the scope of the patent claim.? The claim had been rejected based on indefiniteness.? An indefiniteness rejection merely means that by the words of the claim, the scope of the claim is unclear and cannot be determined.? As such, when the patent owner changed the claims presumably to make the language of the claims ?clear,? the patent owner was not trying to ?change? the scope of the claims but merely “clarify” the meaning of the words.? Hence, the interpretation of the amended claims should be the same or similar to the old claims.

The Federal Circuit disagreed.

Analysis of scope of claims

The Federal Circuit recognized that limiting the claims to an attachment surface secured to the ballast cover would be importing a limitation not based solely on the claim language itself but on the specification.? The language of the claims only recited that the attachment surface be secured to the illumination surface, not the ballast cover.

After a review of the patent specification, the Federal Circuit repeatedly stated that the patent specification did not describe an attachment surface secured to the ballast cover as being important or critical to the invention.? As such, the Federal Circuit held that it was error to limit the claims to require the attachment surface be secured to the illumination surface.

The Federal Circuit vacated the judgement by the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Possible Lessons Learned

The way that the components, parts, aspects, and embodiments of an invention are described can have a significant negative impact on the scope of the claims of the patent.? After the patent application is filed, the emphasis placed on the various parts of the invention cannot be shifted, amended or altered.? As such, it is important to mitigate these risks of a limiting disclosure in the way that the invention is described in a patent application.

1. Deemphasize important and critical parts of the invention in the specification but emphasize them in the claims

If features that are described as important and critical can limit the scope of the patent, then it would be prudent to limit or not described any part of the invention as critical or important.? That is sometimes difficult.? Inventors might be caught up in their own invention and want to make sure that the examiner understands the critical and important parts of the invention.? Certainly, the examiner needs to know what the critical and important parts of the invention are.? However, the primary means to accomplish that is through the claims, not necessarily the detailed description section of the invention.? The claims define what the inventor is seeking a patent for.? The description informs the public what the meaning of the language of the claims.

a) Use words such as ?may?

A way to mitigate placing too much of an emphasis on any part of the invention is to merely describe the device as ?may? having a component.? In this way, the component is described as an optional part of the inventive device, not a critical or important part of the invention.? Inventors might worry that proper emphasis is not being placed on what really is the crucial part of the invention.? However, they need to understand the role of the specification versus the claims.? The claims draw the attention of the examiner to the critical and important inventive aspects.? The specification provides written description support for the claims.

b) Use words such as ?Typical?

Another method of mitigating a narrow description is to describe the feature as being preferred or typical such as a ?typical or preferred adhesive.?? Or, the patent specification can state that the attachment is with an adhesive but other fastening mechanism are also contemplated such as [fill in the blank].

c) Describe other ways to accomplish the same function

Sometimes a part needs to be highlighted in a patent application because it really is important and critical to the invention.? Nevertheless, consider deemphasizing the important and critical part.? For example, other ways may be disclosed that achieve the same part.? A patent specification can describe a preferred adhesive but mention other suitable attachment mechanisms (e.g., welding, nut and bolt, etc.) to deemphasize the importance or criticality of the thing being described.

2. Identify the point of novelty properly

Not all patent applications are equal.? Some cover the invention much better than others.? There is no recipe or standard form for crafting a patent application.? Hence, the range of quality from attorney to attorney is wide.? One of the crucial steps in determining whether the patent claims well written is by reviewing how well the patent attorney you are working with identified the point of novelty.

If the point of novelty is identified properly, then all other aspects can be described as being optional.? Also, the point of novelty of the invention can be highlighted but not in terms of being important or critical.

3. Do not use the word ?invention? in the patent specification

In my opinion, very little good comes from referring to the product to be patented as the ?invention.?? Once you identify the invention then it narrows one?s understanding of what the invention is.? If the patent specification describes that the invention is X, then the courts are more likely to construe the claimed invention as requiring X.? Instead of using the word ?invention,? the product or service can be merely identified as the product or service.? For example, an inventive car can be referred to as the car having various features.

4. Examiner?s interview

During review of the prosecution history of the instant case, the Federal Circuit reviewed the indefiniteness rejection and the patent owner?s response of amending the claims to overcome the rejection.? Because the patent owner did not fully explain why they made the claim amendment, the Federal Circuit did not allow them to speculate as to the reason.? The Federal Circuit stated that:

?A person of ordinary skill in the art may not be able to divine what transpired between the applicant and the examiner in that interview that caused the change in claim language and scope.? That is irrelevant to the issue.? We look at what an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand about the claim scope from reading the prosecution history.?

The patent owner and the examiner had a telephonic interview.? The exact contents of the interview was not written down or fully explained in writing.? In my opinion, this is beneficial to the patent owner.? Whenever you write something down, those words can and will be used against you when you assert the patent against an accused infringer or defendant.

Typically, an interview will consist of a written statement of what is to be discussed.? Normally, I provide a draft response to the office action and through the interview, get feedback as to the direction that I?m trying to take the claims.? The draft response might be filed and entered into the prosecution ?history but the back and forth discussion with the examiner is never transcribed.? At most, a brief summary of the content of the interview might be written down in an interview summary which can be objected to later on if it is not accurate.

The bottom line is that the telephonic interview allows the patent owner and inventor to expedite the prosecution without having all of the words in the interview used against the inventor/patent owner later.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

The post Components described as important can narrow scope of patent claims appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Below, Advantek Marketing, Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., LTD?(Fed. Cir. August 1, 2018) is discussed in terms of whether the scope of design patent protection is affected when electing a species in response to a restriction requirement.? However, the context of the parties and how the litigation arose provides insights on how U.S. companies might better protect themselves against the danger that their own foreign manufacturer would eventually compete against them.

Scroll down to the second half of this article to read my analysis of the legal issues related to election, restriction requirement and disclaimer.

How to protect yourself against your manufacturer from competing against you?

Foreign manufacturers are an integral part of anyone?s small business.? ?They manufacture and supply your products that you sell in the United States.? They have your tooling and molds used to make your product.? What happens if one of your manufacturers decides to use your tooling and molds to make the same product and compete against you.? This was the situation in Advantek.? Fortunately, Advantek had secured design patent protection and was able to stop their foreign manufacturer from continuing to compete against them.? The Advantek case illustrates a strategy a U.S. company might employ to mitigate the risk of a foreign manufacturer from using the tooling and molds of the U.S. company to make the same product and compete against the U.S. company.

In Advantek, the accused infringer (Walk-Long) consisted of the former manufacturer (Shanghai Walk-Long Tools, Co.) and an ex-employee of the patent owner.? Companies in the United States will outsource manufacturing to companies outside of the United States to take advantage of the lower wages in foreign countries.? For example, many companies will seek out manufacturers in China to manufacture their products.? However, with that, comes the risk that the Chinese manufacturer will copy and distribute the product here in the United States without your authorization.? This is what appeared to have happened in Advantek Marketing.

Fortunately, the U.S. company (Advantek Marketing) had secured a design patent on the product. ?When the Chinese manufacturer and the ex-employee imported and sold the same product into the United States, the patent owner?s design patent was able to stop them from continuing to do so.? Below is a picture of the infringer?s product identified as the Pet Companion as well as drawings from the design patent, namely, US Design Pat. No. D715006.

For the limited purpose of preventing your own manufacturer from using your tooling and molds to compete against you, a design patent could be useful. I list three other situations here in my book Navigating the Patent System.? In general, design patents are easy to design around.? To avoid design patent infringement, all you need to do is make the accused product look differently.? For this reason, design patents are not very useful except in some unique situations such as in Advantek and the three situations I describe in Navigating the Patent System.

In protecting yourself against your own manufacturer, the design patent is useful because it makes it harder for the manufacturer from using your own tooling and molds to make the same product.? For the manufacturer, the cost of entry is low because they already have the tooling and molds.? Plus, they already know that there is a demand in the United States for your design because of your prior orders.? To make your product look different, they would presumably have to make new tooling which would increase the cost to enter the market.

In this sense, a design patent might be effective in stopping the foreign manufacturer from replicating your product with your own tooling and molds to sell the same product into the United States.? Moreover, because design patents are relatively inexpensive to secure compared to utility patents, design patents may in my opinion be relatively cost effective for these situations.

Does an election in response to a restriction requirement disclaim non-elected species to limit the scope of the patent claims?

In Advantek Marketing, the foreign manufacturer and the ex-employee (collectively, ?accused infringer?) worked together to manufacture and sell the same product that Advantek Marketing was selling in the United States.? The product was a pet enclosure or gazebo for a pet branded as Pet Companion.? The patent owner (Advantek Marketing) sued their foreign manufacturer and the ex-employee for design patent infringement.? Presumably, the foreign manufacturer and the ex-employee used Advantek?s own tooling previously used to manufacture goods for Advantek to now make their own competing product.

To avoid design patent infringement liability, the infringers (Walk-Long) argued that the scope of protection afforded under the design patent was not broad enough to cover what they were selling.? The design patent was for a gazebo or pet enclosure with a skeleton top and no cover.? The infringers were selling the same unit with the cover on a skeleton top.

Walk-Long argued that during examination of Advantek?s design patent, the patent owner had disclaimed a pet enclosure with a cover.? In particular, during examination, the examiner made a restriction requirement.? See links below for more information on restriction requirements. ?Advantek now had to choose between 1) a pet enclosure with a skeleton top and no cover or 2) a pet enclosure with a cover.? See images below.? Advantek elected for examination the pet enclosure with the skeleton top and no cover.? By doing so, Walk-Long argues that Advantek had surrendered pet enclosures with a cover from the scope of the design patent directed to a pet enclosure with a skeleton top and no cover.

A restriction requirement is a requirement by the examiner to elect one species of the various embodiments disclosed in the patent application for examination.? See MPEP 803. ?Many inventors become upset when they receive a restriction requirement.? They feel, from a lay person?s understanding, that the way the examiner is splitting up the various features, aspects, embodiments of the invention is incorrect because the various parts of the invention is really the same thing.

Not exactly.? For more information on my perspective on responding to restriction requirements, read the following articles:

The infringer (Walk-Long) manufactured and sold the design shown in Figure 2 with the cover.

During litigation, the infringer that the patent owner had disclaimed pet enclosures with a cover because the patent owner had elected the non-cover embodiment for examination.? In other words, by electing the non-cover embodiment, the patent owner was surrendering patent claim scope that would have included gazebos / pet enclosures with a cover.

The Federal Circuit disagreed.? The type of argument that the infringer was making was one of prosecution history estoppel.? Under Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, 739 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2014), prosecution history estoppel in design cases depends on three factors: 1) whether there was a surrender, 2) whether it was for reasons for patentability, and 3) whether the accused design is within the scope of the surrender.

Based on the third factor, the Federal Circuit found that ?regardless of whether Advantek surrendered claim scope during prosecution, the accused product falls outside the scope of the purported surrender.? ? A competitor who sells a kennel embodying Advantek?s patented structural design infringes the D?006 patent, regardless of extra features, such as a cover, that the competitor might add to its kennel.?

The Federal Circuit did not definitively answer whether an election in response to a restriction requirement is a disclaimer of the non elected embodiments.? Rather, the Federal Circuit indicated that if there was a disclaimer, the patent owner did not disclaim?the infringer’s version.? In my opinion, the Federal Circuit just did not want to preclude such possibility.? I’m aware of no other cases that held that an election is a disclaimer of the nonelected species which would limit patent protection either in a design or a utility case.? The Federal Circuit held that Advantek (patent owner) is not estopped by the prosecution history from asserting the D?006 patent against Walk-Long and the accused infringing product (Pet Companion).

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

The post Does a restriction requirement disclaim non-elected species? appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
Apportionment versus Entire Market Value Rule

Damage calculations for patent infringement are based on an apportioned value of the patented feature to the overall accused product.? Damages can be based on the entire market value which would increase the damages calculations.? However, the patent owner has a satisfy a high bar before being allowed to do so.

Apportionment limits damages so that damages are tailored to the harm incurred by the patent owner and the patent owner does not get a windfall for more than the value of the patented feature.? Using the entire market value of the accused product, not just the patented feature in the accused product would increase the damages calculation.

Entire Market Value Rule if other features did not influence

Damage calculations based on the entire market value is appropriate only if the patent owner can show that the patented feature was the sole driver of customer demand or substantially creates the value of the component parts.? Or, if the patented feature alone motivates customers to purchase the infringing product in the first place.? The patented feature cannot just be ?essential? to many customers.??In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2018), the Federal Circuit raised the standard by stating that the patent owner must show that the other features did not influence purchasing decisions.

The Federal Circuit set the bar very high before damage calculations are based on the entire market value of the overall accused product and not just the apportioned value of the patented feature.

Facts of Power Integrations v. Fairchild

In Power Integrations, the patent owner (Power Integrations) and the infringer (Fairchild) both manufactured and sold power supply controller chips (i.e., accused product).? These chips are used in power supplies, such as chargers for electronic devices.? To improve energy efficiency, these chips would regulate the power with a switching regulator. Prior art switching regulators would skip on/off cycles in some instances which would create a loud noise and provide intermittent power.? The patented feature was for a switching regulator that would reduce the frequency of on/off cycles rather than skip cycles.

The patent owner argued that damage calculations for patent infringement should be calculated based on revenues generated by sales of the power supply controller chips (i.e., overall accused product), not just the switching regulator (i.e., patented feature) of the power supply controller chips.? In order to show that damage calculations should be based on the entire market value, the patent owner showed that the patented switching regulator was ?essential to many customers, as it allowed the products to meet the federal government?s Energy Star program.? (emphasis added).

Evidence for Damage Calculations based on EMV Rule raised higher

The Federal Circuit disagreed and held that the evidence presented by the Power Integration (patent owner) was insufficient to invoke the entire market value rule.? The Federal Circuit raised the bar even higher before a patent owner can avail themselves of the entire market value rule.

The power supply controller chip is a multi-component product.? The chips had multiple features which customers were looking for.? During litigation, the patent owner and the infringer agreed that the accused infringing chips had other valuable features.? For example, jittering was also an important feature in these types of chips.

The patent owner did not show what effect those other valuable features had on consumer demand.? Although the patent owner showed that the patented feature was essential to a customer?s buying decision, more was needed. The patent owner needed to show that ?those other features did not influence purchasing decisions.? (emphasis added).

The Federal Circuit describe the entire market value rule as ?a demanding alternative to our general rule of apportionment.?? It certainly is and it appears that they have made it even more.

In my opinion, by having to further prove a negative (i.e., did not influence), the Federal Circuit may have set the bar so high that it would be very difficult to secure damage calculations based on the entire market value of the overall accused product.

Potential problems of raised standard

How do you prove a negative?? What percentage of consumers must have been not influenced by the other features?? 100%, 99%, etc.? How about aesthetics, fit and feel or other non-patented features?? How many products do we buy just because of one feature?? Not many.? What happens if the patent owner advertises that the product has many benefits, one of which is the patented feature?? These are all issues that need to be resolved in future litigation but leaves open many ways for infringers to argue for a lower damage calculations.

Maximizing damages for inventions

How do we try to maximize damages for our clients?? A possible way to maximize the value of a patent may be to craft a claim to the overall system and not just to the inventive feature.? In Power Integrations, the patent?s claim was for an inventive switching regulator for a power supply, not a power supply having an inventive power supply.? In this way, the lawsuit against the infringer would be against the infringer?s sales of power supplies or the overall accused product.

This would be an easy claim drafting exercise to do.? Many laypeople or inventors may believe that this is just semantics.? However, the words of the claims matter.? My mentor used to say that in patents, everything begins and ends with the claims.

The downside to switching up the claim?s focus from switching regulator to power supply would be that it limits the number of competitors could infringe the patent.? Only sellers of power supplies could infringe the patent.? Switching regulators might be employed in several applications other than just power supplies.? A claim directed to power supplies could not be used to sue others that make and sell those other types of products, just power supplies.? In Power Integration?s case, this may not have been significant because damages were calculated at $140 million for the overall accused product.

Fortunately, patent owners can have their cake and eat it too.? By filing a continuation patent application, the patent owner can seek a patent for a switching regulator for a power supply in a first patent application then a power supply with a switching regulator in a continuation patent application.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

The post When are damage calculations based on EMV rule? appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

By experimental use, I mean testing an invention.? Conducting a test in public can jeopardize the resulting patent if a patent application was not filed before public testing started.? The patent can be invalidated in at least two ways.? First, the patent can be invalidated if an alleged infringer successfully argues that the public testing qualifies as a public use under 35 USC 102(a)(1).? If the public use occurred more than one year before the filing date of the patent application, then your own public test becomes prior art against your patent application under 35 USC 102(b)(1).? Second, the patent can be invalidated if a third party files a patent application or publicly discloses their own improved version of the original invention before you file a patent application under 35 USC 102(a)(2).

In Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell, the alleged infringer (Campbell Company) attempted to invalidate a patent via the first way under 35 USC 102(a)(1).? The alleged infringer argued that the alleged public testing by the patent owner (Polara) was actually a ?public use? which occurred more than one year before the filing of the patent application.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the alleged infringer?s characterization of the testing in public. The Federal Circuit found that the inventor?s use in public qualified as experimentation, not as a public use.? Under US patent laws, a public test (i.e., experimentation) does not start the one year time period within which a patent application must be filed.

Before we discuss the particulars of Polara, let us see how the issue arises and the risks involved in public testing before filing a patent application.

Public use and experimental use exception

A public use is not the same as a public test of the invention.? In a public test, the functionality of the invention is being tested.? If so, the public testing is considered to be experimentation or experimental use which is an exception to the definition of public use.

Sometimes, inventors and businesses might have a need to publicly test an invention before establishing patent pendency (i.e., filing a patent application).? The most popular litigated case on this for patent attorneys is the City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co..? In City of Elizabeth, the inventor secured a patent directed to a roadway pavement.? To test the safety of the invention (i.e., road), the inventor built a public road and allowed cars to use the invention.? The inventor also had to test the road for a long period of time, specifically, more than one year.? The inventor had tested the product in public for more than one year before filing a patent application.

Fortunately, for the inventor, the public testing of the roadway qualified as an experimental use so that the use in public was not considered a ?public use.?.? In particular, US patent law does not consider the start of experimentation as the start of public use which would start the one year time period.

The Federal Circuit identified factors relevant to determining whether a use is experimental in Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009).? The nonexclusive factors are:

  1. the necessity for public testing,
  2. the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor,
  3. the nature of the invention,
  4. the length of the test period,
  5. whether payment was made,
  6. whether there was a secrecy obligation,
  7. whether records of the experiment were kept,
  8. who conducted the experiment,
  9. the degree of commercial exploitation during testing,
  10. whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use,
  11. whether testing was systematically performed,
  12. whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and
  13. the nature of contacts made with potential customers.

I discuss below how these factors relate to the instant Polara case.

Be warned that should you test your product out in the public and leave it out there so that the public can still see the invention after you know that it works, the one year time period will start.? You cannot assert that your use in the public falls within the experimentation exception indefinitely.

Market testing is not experimental use

In my experience, some inventors start to market their invention to others before filing a patent application.? Once they start to market their invention, they might realize that their invention or product is selling very well at a later date and begin to realize that they should file a patent application.? Unfortunately, sometimes, it does take them some time before their marketing efforts really take off to make it worthwhile to spend the money to file a patent application on their invention.? If it takes them more than one year from the first offer for sale, then they cannot seek patent protection for the invention.

In this situation, the marketing efforts of the inventor most likely cannot be characterized as experimental use to fall out of the definition of public use.? Experimental use refers to experiments to test the functionality of the invention, not whether people will purchase the product.? If you go through the factors listed above, it becomes obvious that market testing is not experimental use to test for function.

Public testing invites litigation

If an invention is publicly tested for more than one year, then alleged infringers will argue that the public testing really is not experimental use but rather turned into a public use once the inventor realized that the invention work.

In other words, when the inventor sues a defendant, alleged infringer or competitor, they will always argue that the invention was ready for patenting and that the one year time bar had lapsed before the inventor or business filed the patent application to invalidate the patent.? Even if your public testing clearly falls within experimental use exception, why wouldn?t they make that argument.

Put simply, publicly testing an invention for more than one year without first establishing patent pendency, invites the invalidity arguments and expenses raised in City of Elizabeth and Polara.

If money is not an issue, then the prudent strategy or next step would be to file a patent application before public testing starts on the invention.? Also, a series of patent applications should be filed before publicly testing any incremental improvement.? However, for most companies, filing a series of patent application like this is not financially feasible.

If the company has the funds or if the potential revenue of the invention is too large to take the risk, then the cost for securing patent pendency prior to public testing should be considered just a cost of launching the product.

If it came down to litigation, the cost to litigate the issue of whether the public testing qualifies as experimental use will cost the patent owner significantly more than the cost of serially filing patent applications to protect the invention and any improvements.? The patent owner will spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars litigating the issue if the alleged infringer feels that they have a good shot at invalidating the patent and not pay royalties or the inventor?s lost profits.

The bottom line for high value inventions is to be cautious.?? Patent prosecution has many goals.? One of the goals is to mitigate potential arguments that might be raised during litigation.? You can try to rely on your opinion that public testing qualifies as experimental use but opinions differ among reasonable people.? However, by spending a little more money by first establishing patent pendency before publicly testing, the inventor can mitigate or eliminate the associated litigation expense on this issue.

Risks based on first inventor to file rule

With the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States went to a first inventor to file rule.? The AIA created additional risks when relying on the experimental use exception that did not exist pre-AIA.

First, if a competitor or a third party views the public testing and files their own patent application on an improved version, then under the first inventor to file rule, the third party will be awarded the patent and not the original inventor.

Moreover, because the third party?s patent application was filed first, the third party?s patent application will be prior art and can be used to reject the original inventor?s later filed patent application.

The AIA does allow the original inventor to overcome the third party?s patent application as prior art by arguing that the original inventor was the first to publish under 35 USC 102(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(B).? But, the original inventor has the burden to prove they were the first to publish.

This is a new patent office rule or procedure which has not be litigated.? Patent attorneys just don?t know how the patent office nor the courts will rule in any specific situation.? Put simply, inventor beware if you are relying on these new rules or procedures.

Facts of Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell

Polara is a manufacturer of accessible pedestrian signal systems (?APS?) for a cross walk.? They had invented a two-wire version of their prior eight-wire system called the Navigator.

Polara tested prototypes of the two-wired version of the Navigator.? First, they did so in their laboratory.

Next, the tested it publicly at an intersection in Fullerton, California.? After overcoming some problems at this location, they uninstalled the unit.? They then installed the improved system at a busier intersection in Fullerton which was left in place until they filed the patent application which matured into the patent at issue (i.e., USPN 7,145,476).? These installations are referred to as the first and second installations and were installed without a nondisclosure agreement in place.? Even though the first and second installations were installed without a nondisclosure agreement, no one outside of Polara had access to the invention or could tell how the invention worked by merely looking at it, even the city workers. Fullerton was close to Polara?s office and they had full control of the invention.? They installed and monitored the invention.

Polara also later tested the invention in Canada.? However, this installation was done under a confidentiality agreement.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court?s finding that the first and second Fullerton installations qualified as an experimental use primarily based on the first factor, the need for public testing.? They stressed the importance of testing life safety equipment.? The Federal Circuit also appeared to appreciate other facts of the case and how those other facts favored the inventor or patent owner.

Factor Evidence or discussion
(1) the necessity for public testing, Evidence was submitted regarding the need to test for durability and safety.
(2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, For the first and second Fullerton installations, Polara had complete control except that the city workers had to open up the traffic signal boxes for the Polara employees.
(3) the nature of the invention, Life safety equipment
(4) the length of the test period,
(5) whether payment was made, No payment was made.? Polara started to sell the units after the patent application was filed.
(6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, No secrecy obligation in terms of the first and second Fullerton installations.? However, it appears that the court appreciated the fact that Polara had maintained complete secrecy.
(7) whether records of the experiment were kept,
(8) who conducted the experiment, Polara, not the City of Fullerton, CA installed the units
(9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing, The invention was sold only after filing the patent application.
(10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, Life safety device needs to be tested
(11) whether testing was systematically performed, Polara appeared to incrementally improve the invention.
(12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and Yes for all installations in Fullerton and Canada.
(13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers. Either Polara controlled the experiment or the experiment was performed under a confidentiality agreement.

On appeal, the alleged infringer only alleged that the first and second Fullerton installations did not qualify as experimental use.? The alleged infringer did not argue that the Canadian installation was not an experimental use.

In my opinion, the major difference between the Fullerton and Canadian installations was the confidentiality agreement.? A confidentiality agreement was not signed for the Fullerton installations but one was signed for the Canadian installation.? However, in both situations, the internal working of the invention was kept secret from those people outside of Polara.

The basic recommendation to companies that want to publicly test their invention before filing a patent application is to not do so.? If funds are available, they need to identify the core inventive aspect and at the very least, prepare and file a patent on the core inventive aspect(s).? If funds are tight, they need to pick and choose which aspects of the invention they want to file on.??? I do not think that it is sound advice to just publicly test and try to rely on the experimental use exception to the public use bar and the one-year time period.? Taking this approach appears to invite litigation instead of mitigating it.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

The post Experimental use of invention jeopardizes validity of patent appeared first on Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
Why innovation matters to Orange County?

Innovation matters to the local economy where innovation occurs.? Innovation brings jobs and revenue to the local economy.? We can see that innovation has helped develop new products that otherwise would not have been created.? But for the incentive of a patent, many new drugs that have high research and development costs but are easy to copy once they are available to the public would not have been invented and brought to market.? The patent data for Orange County, California shows that the top 2 innovative companies are in the fields of medical devices and pharmaceutical.? Patent protection also offers inventors and businesses the opportunity to secure new funding for startups and small businesses.? New products and processes mean new businesses, more jobs, increased efficiencies and more opportunities.

The data below focuses on the 4 most innovative OC companies.? Why the top 4?? The reason is that the number of patents for each company below the top 4 dropped off significantly compared to the top 4.

Source: USPTO filing and patent grant data

The companies in the top 4 are based on the number of patents issued to the companies for the year of 2017, according to data at the United Stated Patent & Trademark Office.? The data below cover not only the number of patents issued, but also the top areas of innovation, the top innovators at those companies, and other statistics.? The data show the relationship between the important areas of innovation in each company, as well as the more-prolific inventors in the company.

How far above ?average? are OC?s top innovators?

The top 4 most-innovative companies in Orange County were granted 66 patents on average in 2017.? To put that into context, the average number of patents held by a company that received at least 1 patent in 2017 was 3.43 patents per company.? Compared in those terms, the top 4 most-innovative companies were granted about 19 times more patents than were granted ?average? company that is granted patents.

Most companies in Orange County, California were not awarded even a single patent in 2017, because relatively few companies apply for patents at all.? Based on 2016 Census data, there were 94,703 businesses in Orange County, California.[1]? Assuming that this statistic stayed roughly the same for 2017, only 471 companies were granted a patent in 2017.? This means that only 0.5% of all Orange County companies were granted a patent in 2017.

What industries are the top innovators in?

The data below shows that the top innovators in Orange County, California invent in the areas of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, software and electronics.

Which companies are the top innovators in Orange County?

The most innovative companies in Orange County, California are:

  1. Allergan, Inc.
  2. Broadcom Corp.
  3. Edwards Lifesciences Corp.
  4. Universal Electronics, Inc.
Allergan, Inc.

Allergan plc (NYSE:AGN) is a global pharmaceutical company.? On its website, Allergan boasts commercial operations, manufacturing and R&D in more than 100 countries.? Although Allergan is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, the company assigns most of its patents to Allergan, Inc., based in Irvine, California.? A search of the USPTO database shows that the USPTO assigns a few patents to Allergan Industrie SAS in Pringy, France and Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Limited or Allergan Holdings Unlimited Company, which are located in Dublin, Ireland.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office categorizes all ideas into 8 different sections, known as the Cooperative Patent Classifications (CPC).? Each of these 8 different sections is further categorized into smaller subsections.? The CPC sections are:

A: HUMAN NECESSITIES

B: PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING

C: CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY

D: TEXTILES; PAPER

E: FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS

F: MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING

G: PHYSICS

H: ELECTRICITY

You can find out more information about the CPC at the Patent Classification homepage.

Table 1 below shows the number of patents granted to Allergan in each of the subsections of the CPC and their respective % with respect to the total number of patents granted to Allergan.? This should give you a sense of their focus areas of innovation.

Top areas of innovation for Allergan

CPC Subsection Title

Number of patents categorized in CPC section % of total number of patents

A61: Medical or Veterinary Science; Hygiene

49

62%

C07: Organic Chemistry

23

29%

C08: Organic Macromolecular Compounds

3

4%

G01: Measuring and Testing

1 1%

B01: Physical or Chemical Processes or Apparatus in General (e.g., furnaces, kilns, ovens)

1

1%

A47:? Furniture 1

1%

Grand Total: 79

Table 1

A patent will list the inventors that contributed to the invention.? Collectively, they are known as the inventive entity.? At Allergan, an average of 2.3 inventors were listed on each patent granted.[2]? In a sense, this indicates the level of cooperation between departments and innovators within the company.? A higher number might indicate a more collaborative environment between people in the R&D department of the company.? A lower number might indicate that people in the R&D department work independently and in silos instead of collaboratively.

When the same inventor is listed on multiple documents, this may indicate that the individual is the main driver of innovation for the company, a group, or a particular technology within the company.

Table 2 lists the top 4 inventors based on the number of patents for which they were included as part of the inventive entity.

Inventor

Number of Patents

John E. Donello

12

Michael E. Garst

11

Richard L. Beard

9

Veena Viswanth

9

Table 2

As noted above, Allergan was granted the most number of patents in CPC subsection A61.? In particular, they were granted 49 patents in this subsection.? A61 relates to Medical or Veterinary Science and Hygiene.? To get a feel for the specific types of invention in this subsection, the list below is a sampling of the Allergan patents in this section.

9763958 Preservative free bimatoprost and timolol solutions
9763959 Compositions and methods for stimulating hair growth
9764009 Treatment of psychological trauma
9765065 Therapeutic substituted cyclopentanes
9775846 Hypotensive lipid-containing biodegradable intraocular implants and related implants
9775849 Implants and methods for treating inflammation-mediated conditions of the eye
9782492 Stabilization of therapeutic agents to facilitate administration
9782517 Crosslinked hyaluronic acid-collagen gels for improving tissue graft viability and soft tissue augmentation
9795615 Methods for fat reduction

Top Allergan inventors in CPC Subsection A61 are shown in Table 3.

Inventor

Number of Patents

Chetan P. Pujara

6

John E. Donello

5

Table 3

John E. Donello made both lists.? He was named on the most number of patents and listed on the most number of patents within the primary area of innovation for Allergan.? Moreover, although Chetan P. Pujara was not identified as a prolific inventor, Pujara is a prolific inventor within the primary area of innovation for Allergan.

Broadcom Corp.

In 2016, Broadcom Corp. (NASDAQ:AVGO) located in Irvine was merged with Avago Technologies located in San Jose, California.? As such, the current patent assignment data for Broadcom appears to be the remains of the merger between Broadcom and Avago, and may not accurately reflect the total number of patents granted to Broadcom.? Eventually, I suspect that Broadcom?s patent applications will eventually be assigned to Avago Technologies, not Broadcom.? Just as an FYI, in 2017, Avago was granted 874 patents.

Broadcom primarily innovates in electric communication techniques.? As shown in Table 4, They were awarded 53 patents in 2017 in this area of technology.? This represents 64% of the total number of patents granted to Broadcom.? This is aligned to their core business as a supplier of semiconductor technologies within four primary markets: wired infrastructure, wireless communications, enterprise storage and industrial and others.

CPC Subsection Title Number of patents categorized in CPC section % of total number of patents

H04: Electric Communication Technique

53

64%

H01: Basic Electric Elements

8

10%

H03:? Basic Electronic Circuity

6

7%

H02: Generation: Conversion or Distribution of Electric Power

4

5%

G01:? Measuring; Testing

4

5%

Y02

2

2%

G10:? Musical Instruments; Acoustics 1 1%
G11:? Information Storage 1 1%
G02: Optics 1 1%
G05: Controlling; Regulating 1 1%
B60:? Vehicles in General 1 1%
A63:? Sports; Games; Amusements 1 1%
Grand Total: 83

Table 4

On average, 2.3 inventors were listed on each patent.[3]? Broadcom and Allergan reflect the same level of teamwork to innovate between departments and innovators within the company.

Table 5 lists the top 3 inventors based on the number of patents for which they were included as part of the inventive entity.

Inventor Number of Patents
Xuemin Chen 10
Ahmadrez (Reza) Rofougaran 6
John Walley 5

Table 5

As noted above, Broadcom was granted the most number of patents in CPC subsection H04.? In particular, they were granted 53 patents in this subsection.? H04 relates to Electric Communication Technique.? To get a feel for the specific types of invention in this subsection, below is a sampling of the Broadcom patents in this section.

9537684 Adaptive transmit beamforming for frequency division duplexing systems
9538199 Data transmission across independent streams
9544074 Time-shifting distribution of high definition audio data
9544095 Channel estimation for phase-only feedback and methods for use therewith
9544117 Adaptive reference signal mapping in wireless multi-access communication networks
9544586 Reducing motion compensation memory bandwidth through memory utilization
9544638 Method for reconstructing system time clock (STC) without carrying PCR
9544665 Providing multiple ABR streams using a single transcoder

Top Broadcom inventors in CPC Subsection H04 are shown in Table 6.

Inventor Number of Patents
Xuemin Chen 9
Rajesh Shankarrao Mamidwar 4

Table 6

Edwards Lifesciences Corp.

Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (NYSE: EW) is a global leader in patient-focused medical innovations for structural heart disease, as well as critical care and surgical monitoring.

Edwards Lifesciences innovates in the same technology area as Allergan because its primary area of innovation is in CPC Subsection A61, as shown in Table 7.? However, it does not appear that the two companies are direct competitors.? Moreover, Edwards Lifesciences is highly focused in its pursuit for patent protection. As shown in the table below, Edwards Lifesciences received 90% of its patents in the CPC Subsection A61, whereas Allergan received 62% of its patents in this area.

CPC Subsection Title Number of patents categorized in CPC section % of total number of patents
A61: Medical or Veterinary Science; Hygiene 44 90%
Not categorized 4 8%
A01: Agriculture; Forestry; Animal Husbandry; Hunting, Trapping; Fishing 1 2%
Grand Total: 49

Table 7

On average, 2.5 inventors were listed on each patent.[4]? The data suggests that Edwards Lifesciences has the greatest level of cross pollination of ideas between departments and innovators within the company compared to Broadcom and Allergan.

Table 8 lists the top 5 inventors based on the number of patents for which they were included as part of the inventive entity.

Inventor Number of Patents
Manouchehr A. Miraki 5
Scott Heneveld, Sr. 4
Louis A. Campbell 4

Table 8

As noted above, Edwards Lifesciences was granted the most number of patents in CPC subsection A61.? In particular, they were granted 44 patents in this subsection.? A61 relates to Medical or Veterinary Science and Hygiene.? To get a feel for the specific types of invention in this subsection, below is a sampling of the Edwards Lifesciences patents in this section.

9675452 Artificial heart valve with scalloped frame design
9675453 Methods of identifying and replacing implanted heart valves
9675455 Method of positioning a minimally-invasive heart valve with cusp positioners
9693862 Holders for prosthetic heart valves
9707074 Method for treating an aortic valve
9707078 Expansion device and method for treating vascular passageways
9717591 Prosthetic valve for replacing mitral valve

Top Edwards Lifesciences inventors in CPC Subsection A61 are the same as the list above because Edwards focuses their patenting efforts to be narrowly tailored into their niche area of innovation.

Universal Electronics, Inc.

Universal Electronics Inc. (NASDAQ: UEIC). is a worldwide leader in universal control and sensing technologies for the smart home.? They have four main innovative areas of technology: connectivity, device discovery and control, voice control and advanced navigation and integrating smart devices into home entertainment, as shown in Table 9.? According to the USPTO database, their primary area of innovation is in CPC Subsection G06 which is related to Computing; Calculating; Counting.? 50% of their patents in 2017 where related to this field.

CPC Subsection Title Number of patents categorized in CPC section % of total number of patents
G06: Computing; Calculating; Counting 17 50%
????????????????? G08: Signalling 8 24%
G05: Controlling; Regulating 4 12%
None 4 12
G11: Information Storage 1 3
Grand Total: 49
Read Full Article

Read for later

Articles marked as Favorite are saved for later viewing.
close
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview