Robert Plotkin

Monique (Nikki) Bhargava was quoted in Law360 in an article on California Gov. The article discusses how California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 1047, a sweeping AI regulation proposal aimed at ensuring safe AI deployment, citing concerns it could hinder the state's AI industry. While Newsom acknowledged the need for AI regulation, he criticized the bill's broad approach, which imposed stringent requirements on large-scale AI systems without considering specific risks. Instead, he favored targeted regulations addressing misinformation and transparency, among others. Nikki stated "There isn't a controversy around the need to regulate AI," and that "the question is what the approach to regulation should look like." The complete article can be found below:

7

The Federal Circuit's Rule 36 practice of issuing summary affirmances without opinion in a significant number of patent cases, like ParkerVision v. TCL, has sparked debate. This practice, backed by multiple amicus briefs, raises concerns about judicial transparency, due process, and statutory compliance. Courts play a vital role in providing written explanations for decisions to ensure accountability, facilitate meaningful appellate review, and establish legal precedent. However, the Rule 36 practice bypasses this crucial aspect, leaving parties and the public uninformed. The implications are profound: - Statutory Violation: ParkerVision contends that 35 U.S.C. § 144 mandates the Federal Circuit to issue opinions in appeals from the USPTO. - Transparency & Precedent: The absence of opinions leaves practitioners and inventors without clear insights into the court's interpretation of patent law, creating ambiguity in a field reliant on precise guidance. - National Security Concerns: Amicus briefs underscore how this lack of transparency could impact U.S. innovation, especially in pivotal technology sectors like wireless communications, where foreign entities might exploit patent vulnerabilities. Beyond individual cases, the Federal Circuit's reliance on Rule 36 hampers Supreme Court scrutiny by concealing the legal rationale behind rulings. This opacity affects inventors, businesses, and policymakers and undermines confidence in a system designed to safeguard innovation and economic progress. #PatentLaw #DueProcess #Rule36 #IP #Innovation #USLaw #TechLawyer

1

1 Comment

Don't get caught up with manual processes or sub-standard software. File Republic Productivity has everything you need to get court ready. ➕ E-discovery tools ➕ Powerful document and metadata search ➕ Auto-pagination ➕ Auto-numbering ➕ Customisable design preferences ➕ Real-time collaboration ➕ Version control and roll-back ➕ 24/7 digital access ➕ Drag and drop interface ➕ Secure cloud storage ➕ And much more If you'd like a demo request one at the bottom of our profile or send us a direct message, and find out how we can save you time, money and make you look like a superhero. #legaltech #law #lawyer

15

Offline LLMs can work great for patent drafting, but they also have their limitations compared to ChatGPT. This video gives a quick comparison. Are you on team "offline LLM" or team "ChatGPT" for your patent drafting work? 🙋 The video is a snippet from the Powerclaim Seminar where we address exactly the question of model selection and many more. The next seminar is on April 30th, so get your ticket quickly: https://lnkd.in/djeMZKUc

16

1 Comment

The USPTO has disclosed a software error affecting Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculations for patents issued between March 19, 2024, and July 30, 2024. You should check your patents to ensure that the proper PTA was awarded. Read more on Patently-O: https://lnkd.in/gbgcBX38 Key points: * USPTO estimates about 1% of patents issued during this period have a miscalculation. * USPTO will not automatically correct the PTA * Request for reconsideration must be filed within 7 months of patent issuance (For some impacted patents, that deadline is 3-weeks away). * USPTO is offering a fee waiver. This would normally be expensive to file both the request for reconsideration ($210) and 5-month extension of time ($3,160).

66

18 Comments

The USPTO has quietly used the MPEP revision process to alter Office of Patent Quality Assurance's mission and procedures. The MPEP Foreword states that "[t]his guidance document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law and agency policies." The Change Summary indicates that MPEP section 1308.03 was revised to "clarify review of applications under the Quality Assurance program." Because the MPEP no longer provides track changes to easily identify alternations, and because the use of "clarify" is vague and indefinite, I created the attached document to identify the exact *clarifying* changes made to MPEP 1308.03. Clarifications include: (1) Change of OPQA's purpose and mission from: improve patent quality and increase the likelihood of patents being found valid to: collect patent examination quality data used to report patent examination quality metrics and to inform decisions for continuous patent quality improvement. Note that OPQA is now relegated to a data collection and information producing department. Fiscal Year 2023 stats indicate that 16.5% of the reviews actions are not compliant under one or more statutes. (2) Change of OPQA's randomly selected sample from: allowed applications from each examiner to: Office actions on the merits mailed throughout the fiscal year Note this change broadens OPQA review to include Office actions containing rejections and ones containing allowances and appears to include reviews for those end of the year September Office actions. This clarification also means that there is no plan to review work for each individual examiner and that the review is focused on the Office action, instead of a review of all the documents in the application. (3) Change in scope of review from: determining whether any claims may be unpatentable to: determining the action's compliance with patent statutes Note this new review standard does not involve determining whether any claims are properly allowed or rejected under obviousness type double patenting, since that judicially created doctrine is not a statutory requirement. To be clear, this new review standard would identify improperly rejected claims in addition to impurely allowed claims. Other changes: OPQA no longer excludes from their sample applications in which there is a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or by a court. The Technology Centers are now to promptly decide what action is to be taken and inform OPQA at the nature of that action. This should help "close the loop" so that examiners will be held accountable to addressing any OPQA identified errors and mailing a corrected Office action. #USPTO, #patent, #allowance, #quality, #inventor, #Congress, #GAO, #OIG

21

4 Comments

Beginning 6/2/24, GS13-GS15 patent examiners will get a 9% pay increase. https://lnkd.in/gEDfhjET Next challenges identified by patent examiners: the crumbling IT infrastructure, need for functional work tools, fixing patent application routing issues https://lnkd.in/gWTdX5Y2

3

1 Comment

Listen in to this podcast with our Tradespace CEO Alec Sorensen to see how we can help you with context-enabled decision making for your IP strategies. Exciting content!

2

1 Comment

Debunking Patent Myths: Separating Fact from Fiction Ever wondered what's true and what's not about patents? The Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (C4IP) has released a compelling report: "Addressing Patent Myths" Top 5 Patent Myths Busted: 1. Patents stifle innovation (False: Patents encourage innovation by protecting IP) 2. Only large companies benefit from patents (False: SMEs and individuals can also benefit) 3. Patents are only for tech (False: Patents apply to various industries) 4. Patent trolls are rampant (False: Most patent holders are legitimate innovators) 5. Patents hinder competition (False: Patents promote competition by encouraging R&D) Key Takeaways: - Patents foster innovation and economic growth - IP protection is crucial for businesses and individuals - Education and awareness can combat patent myths Send a DM Download the full report Share Your Thoughts! Have you encountered patent myths in your industry? How do you think we can promote IP awareness? #PatentMyths #IntellectualProperty #Innovation #C4IP #PatentProtection #SME #Startups #IPAwareness

16

Excellent article and research by Ms. Kasznik in which she reports that over 70% of "unicorns" (pre-exit startup valued at $1B or more) hold no patents. In the 26 years I've been practicing patent law, I've seen software go from "not very patentable" to "very patentable" and now to "but should we patent it?" Several factors have changed to shift the decision points. First, the change in which all (by default) patent applications are published to the public even if a patent isn't granted shifted the decision point considerably. Second, the self-inflicted invalidation rate of the USPTO of it's own products (patents) has seriously over-corrected for the old troll problem. Expense has always been a consideration, so when you mix the three factors, other options sometimes win out. One option that wins out is to simply out-pace the competition, to commit to continuous, rapid innovation, which drives even higher R&D budgets. Patents can be very slow to issue, and sometimes by the time they do, the technological leading edge has moved way beyond what they represent. Another option is to simply try to keep trade secrets, which is very concerning given the mobility of the global tech work force, lack of practical enforceability of NDA's and non-compete agreements especially in some countries where outsourced R&D is prevalent, and the expense of attempting doing so. When we counsel our clients, we put all the options on the table. Not selling a patent service is part of our consulting service. Patenting is not always the best approach for every situation, but when it is, we are positioned to be the best patent drafting and prosecution service available. https://lnkd.in/gWTa8nWv

1

1 Comment

New on the IPCLJ Blog: Ivette Rodríguez Nieves discusses how the USPTO is establishing a framework for patent applicants and examiners in cases where the inventor is listed as a Generative AI system in response to Executive Order 14110. https://lnkd.in/gQVJ2nkd (opens in a new tab)

11

6 Comments

Optimizing attorney workflows is what we do. We develop features that attorneys love to use because they make working easier. One of those features is in-app annotation. As one attorney at an AM Law 100 firm shared, “The annotation capability in LINK is great - I can annotate directly and save without having to jump between apps.” To learn more about what LINK has to offer, request a demo at https://lnkd.in/eSKc7MSK. ____________________________ LINK provides lawyers and knowledge professionals with easy workflows in a single, encrypted app. LINK is the app for lawyers. ____________________________ Discover more on mobilehelix.com #mobilehelix #workflows #linkforlawyers #amlaw100 #legaltech #legaltechnology #legalit #legal #law #lawyer #attorney #legalinnovation

5

Many software inventions are about user interaction flows. It's good patent drafting practice to focus on method claims for these. They typically have less "clutter" than apparatus claims, and make it easy for the examiner to understand the gist of the invention. Are you on team "method claim" or team "apparatus claim"? #patentingAI #softwarepatent #UX #UI #AI #IP

20

4 Comments

Using Generative AI to summarize deposition and hearing transcripts is one of the clearest ways to win in the discovery world. I did hundreds of deposition summaries manually during my 20 years in practice. I never enjoyed even one of them. GenAI can do a better job in minutes at 10% of the cost. Send me a transcript and I will show you what our system can do.

25

5 Comments