Some Extract point from GlobalIP Convention 2014

As a Patent Analyst & Patent Attorney, I have attended the Global IP Convention that was held at Hyderabad. It was a good opportunity to meet clients and other industry professionals from worldwide.

Three day convention had more than 50 sessions from experts. Me having a habit of taking notes, I thought to share the extract keywords. Hence, pasting it here as bullets. You have any doubts to specific keyword, you may write to Lpo@pgnwissen.com 

Global IP Convention Extracts of sessions

 

Theme:

Leveraging and Optimization of the IP Assets

 

Mr. Pravin Anand,

 

Creating an Asset, Leverage , Optimize

Statutory Law,Contract Law, Regulatory Law

Jurisprudence by an Inch

Recent Trends in Intellectual Property

Time Revolution

Court of Civil Procedure amended

2005 – IP Laws

2010 SC IP Litigation is 4 months – Evidence in Affidavit.

Remedies Resolution

Criminal Justice system in Civil

117 Trademark

Few in Patents

Technical Issue to Merits

10000 reported decisions

Territorial

Peculiar

Joinder – Mis Joinder

Less Technical,

Merits

Judges

Contempt

Moot Curt Order

They don’t like Suppression

Shortcut, Short order

Merk- Glenmark

 

Use of Technologies

Video Conference

 

Specialization

– Delhi Court, IPAB Revocation of Patent), Bangalore Court(District Courts),Politics at Law, Subjective, Court fees, Law Commission, Finer order  gets struck. 

 

Dr. Vivekanandan

Patent pooling, Consortium, Singer (1856 – 1877) – Sewing Manufacturer Association,1908-1918 – Wright Brothers – Aircraft Manufacturers Association, 

1997-2001 MPEG, 1997-2014 CD ROM RFID, 

Medical –  UnitAid

 

Joint Licensing, Dumping, non-essential patents,Price fixing,Unreasonable Royalty,Grant back, Regulated fight

 

 

Mr.Narendara Sabharwal

– Licensing

– Sale

– Optimize value from IP

– Commercialization

– IP as a security and collateral

– Incentive

-Global Index from 6th position 2011 to 66th position in 2013

– Supply (Government), Network,Venture Capital, Incubators)

– 8000 Incubators

 

Mr.Mustafa Safiyuddin, Legasis Partners

Pre -1991 Government discouraged foreign brands

– Economy imperialisation

– Disadvantage of Indian Brands

– Hybrid Markets

– Mumbai High Court

– No Violation

-Assignment with dual ownership

– Assignment of Industrial Registration of Foreign Marks

 

R.K.Dewan

 

– Negative right

– Asset is missed(infringed)

– Strong as possible

– Different Strategy for every Country

Specialization claims according to Indian Standards

– Nirma register series of whole trademarks

– Diligence Section

– Audit

– Licensing opportunity

– What other Competitors doing around you

– Revocation for IP

– Cancellation of IP

– Litigation

 

Section 8

Novartis

Roche vs Cipla

Pfizer, removed, reinstated

Enercon

 

NRDC

Department of Information Technology

 

D.P.Vaidya

Goals, Threats, Strategy

  • – Enforceability
  • – Attacks of Invalidation
  • – Length and Breath of Invention
    • – Strategy Stated or Practiced
  • Defensive or Offensive
  • Exclusive or Monetization
  • Important market
  • Lower cost

 

Quality of Drafting

“You live with what you draft and die with the draft”

 

Invalidity, Infringement, Novelty, Inventive step

PHOSITA Vs P.SITA, 

PHASAKITA(Lower standards for enablement)

 

Section 3

PHOSITA(US)

P-SITA (Personal skill in the art)

 

-Ambiguous claims or Claims without support

-Willful non-complaint to Section 8

Non-Compliance to Section 39- Secrecy provision

 

Section 6

Non–Compliance

(Inventor – Owner)

– Disclaimer, Correction, Explanation

– Changes in the claims should be as filed claims, original claims

– Any amendment to the as filed claims

– Amendment can be made at any stage, before or after the grant

– Amendment subject to clean hand doctrine

– Interpretation as formal

– What drives

– Baseline Draft, based on Target

– Research the subject 

– Feel the subject matter

– Drafting Approach( 3-4 years learning required)

– Claims

(Broad scope to prior art)

(Different scopes)

(Cover value chain)

– Dependent Claims

– Embodiments Provide

– Describe  noun of the claim

– Enable each verb of the claims

– Provide mere details

 

 

Dr.Ekkehard Heinze LL.M

U-Turns by the EPO

Greater safety in Patents

 

1) Multiple indépendant Claims (EPO)

–  More value for PCT in Europe

– EPO Search schedule

– Non Searchable Subject matter

– Search report/Opinion and Substantive examination

– Timely restraints Divisional

– Pay additional search fee, Complete search, Divisional Billing 

– Focus on just part of your claims

– Relevance of prior art

– Lack of unity

– Post hearing can happen

– Admitting device and method claims

 

Single Invention- Multiple Claims

– Method Claims co-exit with device claims

– But typically plural device

– PCT filed with EPO

– Pay for Argue intentional Phase

– Pay PO for additional searches within due term for all EP 

– EPO Search

– Different

– Beginning only

– Argue Convincingly (Preferred) or be prepared for divisional

– EESR- 1st Substantive action

– Provide arguments

– Proceedings n writing (Actual response)

– Amendments after intention for grant

 

 Divisional

-“Total reset” for search problems

– No way to extend the original 

– High cost burden

– Time limits disappear

– Additional searches for PCT

– Claim structure

– Multiple Independent Claim

– Avoid length and complex explanation separated

– Wording Generalize

– Money for Additional Search

 

  • Jonathan Morrall, Killburn and Strode

 

-Article 52

  • ⁃ An inventions involve a inventive step
  • – No discoveries, scientific theories, and mathematical methods
  • -Closest prior art
  • – Claim and closest Prior art
  • – Technical effect
  • – Technical Problem  vs Claimed Inventions
  • – Technicality
  • 1986 ( T208/84)
  • 1998(T1173/97)
  • 2000 T931/95
  • 2002 T641/00
  • 2004 248/04
  • – Multi file Dependencies can be used.
  • Aerotel Vs Telco Holding 
  • EWCA – 45% signpost
  • Ravi Bola
  • – K & S Partners, Biotechnologist
  • – Myriad vs AMP
  • – Genetics
  • – BRCAI Under Section USC 101
  • – Monsanto
  • – Mahyco case vs Bio-Deversity Law
  • – Conserve
  • – Sustainable Use,
  • – Equitable sharing of benefits
  • – IPO
  • – Section 40 
  • – Bio Diversity Law
  • Section 5
  • Section 7
  • Opposition outside India
  • Novartis
  • Section 3(d) Mere discovery of new form of a known substance without any enhanced efficacy is not patentable
  • Shyam S Policetti, CPA Global Solutions
  • US Prosecution and Policy
  • Carp-et Bombing Vs Cherry Picking
  • NPE problem
  • Cycle and Gorging
  • Post Grant Option
  • Pre-Grant Option
  • Post Grant
  • Post Grant review
  • Inter Parties Review
  • Re-Examination
  • Expensive 9000 to 18000 USD
  • Higher Standard 35 USC 122
  • $180
  • 37 CFR1.56
  • 35USC 257
  • Fees Large 4400, Small 2,200 to 1100 Micro
  • Howard B Miller
  • – US Supreme Court
  • – 9th year to review
  • – Myraid
  • – Patents eligibility
  • 101 Composition of matter
  • NAture isolation of DNA in nature
  • cDNA was Patentable
  • ASLU 
  • Dominant player
  • 4 new grants

 

  • Bryan Vogel
  • RKMS
  • US Circuit & District Circuit
  • Decisions & Trends in Paragraph 
  • Reverse Payment
  • – Safe Harbor
  • Pleading Requirement

– FTC Vs Actavis

eBay Vs Merc Exchange LL.C

-Irreparable Injury

– Inadequate Monetary Relief

– Balance of hardships lean towards

– injunction

– further public interest

– International Trade Commission ITC

-Domestic Industry

-Demonstrate Infringement

 

ALJ blunted Samsung

CLAIMS 75, 76, 82,  348 PATENT

337(D)(I)(F)

PUBLIC INTEREST

INCLUDING MY EVIDENCE THE SEP HOLDER IS TRYING TO ENGAGE IN A HOLD UP OR THAT THE IMPLEMENTER IS ATTEMPTING ENGAGE IN A HOLD OUT.

 

Patent Issues

Anti Trust Issue

Technical Issues

Contract Issues

 

5 USC 271(e) (1)

Pleading requirement

Fed R Cir P.8

S C 2007

 

Ashcroft vs Iqbal S.C. 2009

Novartis vs Wockhardt DNJ 271(e)(2) 

Cumberland vs Innopharma D.Del

Sunovion V Teva Fed Cir

BMS V Teva

 

 

Dr Anthony Proctor (Potter Clarkson)

– EPO Patent & Trademark Attorney

– Central Court for Litigation 

– The Unified Patent

– Unitary Patent

– 2016/2017 Realistic Start date for new system

– EP, GB, FR, IT, DE

– R71(3) IFC Communication

 

Ranga Sourirajan

-Recent Agency decisions

-US, ITC, PTO, FTC

– File a complaint products that are being imported

-Supreme metalics

-Apple Vs Samsung

-Samsung vs Fractis

-Pre merger notifications, classification, we are in the line of new invention in type

 

Dr. Saiful Khan

-EPO and UKITPO

-Drafting Tips

-Office Action Responses

-125th Year

 

Computer Implemented Inventions

– Inventive Step

– Excluded Subject matter

– Legislation case law

– UK & EPC are the same

– Not patentable

– Novelty, Non-Obviousness(Industrial, Applicability)

– Board of Appeal in EPO

– Recent Changes in Practice

– 1986- Viacom Vs Digital Image

– Calculations in Image processing.

– Technical Process

– 1987, Koch & Stezel ( X-Ray Apparates)

 

 

-2004 Hitachi 

-online dutch auction system

-2009 Nintendo

-Random number generation is technical

-2008 Symbian

– Halliburton – Drill bit design

– Traffic fulfillment

2006 Aerotel vs Telco 

Construe

Contribution

DLL Patentable

 

– A technical effect outside the computer

– Architecture of 

– Operating in new way

 

– Think Technical 

– Hardware Difference

 – Technical Operational Difference.

 

– Reliability, Securing one Drawing, Commercial Interest

Modeling,Simulation.

 

IP Innovation, IP Acquiring

Patent Information in Emerging Markets

 

Jurgen Dressel

Access to Medicine

Affordability

Political issues

Secondary Innovations

BRIC- (Brazil, Russia, India, China)

Research > Develop > Regularize) 3 years 

Filing to Expiry – 20 years

 

1 Billion Dollars.

Compound (Genus) first medical use

Compound (Species)

Solid forms, solvates, Poly

Formulation, Rlease, Profile

Manufacturing, Processing, Intermedication

Additional Indication

Patient- Sub- Populations

Biomarkets

Combination

Improved formulation(Neoral)

Over Burden at Patent Office

Patent Expiry

Little case law

 

Barzil

Damage Specialized Appeal Court

Fast DEcisions

Independent Claims

Vode- Nov- REview

 

Good :-

Court Descretion

PIS Granted

 

Bad:

Section 8

 

Sec 3(d) Enhanced Therapeutic Efficacy requirement for Pharmaceuticals, working requirement, Compulsory License, Non-Emerging situation

 

China

– Ex Parte PIS granted

 

Bad:

No Post filed

Burden of Proof

Low Capital Statutory

 

Gary Speier, Schwegman- Lundberg, Voessner

Value Discovery

Patent Steps

Ready to answer those questions

Technical

Legal Status

 

Who, What, When, Where and How Much?

 

Claim Scopes, Analytics, Value, Portfolio

Pending days by Examiner

 

 

Kalpana Reddy

 

PPH

Patent Prosecution Highway

US Korea, Japan, China, EPO (IP5)

 

William H Manning

Without Trial or Appeal

Experts 40%

 The art of Precision > Art of Persuasion > Art of Quantification

 

Juries

10th Grade 

Practical Decision possible

Make Decisions based on 30% of the information

Intergraph Vs DELL, HP & Others

Pioneering

 Rare, Innovative, Leaps, Transistor, Laser

Fundamental 

Embedded and Adopted

Incremental

Distinct enough prior Art 99.9%

Simplicity, with Questions

 

Patent 5091846

Quality

Mediation vs Counsel

Hide and Seek no.

Take Now and Pay Later

1000 USD/Hour

 

Defendant Damage Expert

Laser Dynamics Vs Quanta

Apple vs Motorola

Put them into negotiation

 

Matthew L Woods

 

SEP, FRFM, ITC, the Phone wars

– What in What as

– Injunction relief

– Smart Phone Wars

– Whats Next

 

Consortium Info

Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminating.

 

Renew

Time Limit

Country – Region – PCT – Counsel

Sec 39

Convention applicant 135

Commercial availability

Translation

Work hard

 

 

Dr. Agarwal 

 

Building business

Patent does not create Value

What needs you are meeting

Proprietary Patents to Protect

Innovation and Overall Business Plan

Building Business

Culture that create value.

 

ASEAN

Marks & Clerk

 

Dependent

Independent

Multiple Repeated

Narrow

Wide

Roche Vs Cipla

 

Patent Laws

Substative Law

Procedure Law

 

Just beginning to recognize the importance of IP

 

Knowledge Engineering

Eligibility

Competitive Law

Small Companies play globally to extract the full potential

Strong IP Plan

Strong Innovation

 

Finnegen

New Drug

Method using drug to treat deceases

Process for Manufacturing drug

Equipment used to Manufacture drug

 

Dennise Defranco

Section 101

Abstract Ideas

Natural Phenomena

Laws of nature

 

2010 Blsk

2012- Prometheus

2013 Myriad

CLS Bank

 

 

J Hallen

Server/Backend

Method, Medium, System

 

Functional claims

Method, Computer Readable

System

Section 112 (g)

Means-Function-Claims

Re-Donaldson[Fed 1974]

Functional Element

Lack in Ennoblement

Surviving post grant challenges

Expert Challenges

Respond quickly

US Counsel

Early Review

Litigation

 

Joanna Uchanska

Inventive Concepts

Standardized/Objective/Precise/Clear

Terms may be different from those used by their disclosures, specifications or claims

A Scientific Amendment 

 

Invention

   Disaggregation

  Disclosures

  Definitiveness

  Enablement

  Independence

  Non-Equivalence

  Novelty

 

Article 25/ Article 54

-Minimal number of Independent thoughts

To be Invested into creating the innovation

When Independence

Non-Equivalence of Inventive

Patent Eligibility

Matter Interpretation

 

FSTP Analysis

Semi Automatic

Innovation Concept

Exclusions 3 & 4

Well Definedness(1-4)

 Novelty/Non-Obliviousness(5-7)

Patent Eligibility (8-10)

 

1) Elementary Inventive Concepts

2) Completeness of Invention

3) Clarity about the means

4) Enablement should be possible for persons skilled in the art to carry out invention

5) Sufficiency of Disclosure

 

Lawfully – Definitively -Enabling

Step 10 and Rule 13

Complete Disclosure of Specification

(Lovotogas)

Sec 10(4)

The limits of Claims clearly and distinct

 

Novelty Check on all

-With prior Art, Published Anywhere

Prime date of filing

Limitation

Independent

Non-Equivalent

Novelty and non-obiviousness(Nano) Test 7

Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs Hundustan Metal 

Nano test formerly called as FSTP test

Creativity and Semantic

Patent Eligible Subject matter Sec3 IPA

Frivolous Invention

 

Argubale Assets

User Interface Entities

(Knowledge Represented)

Human Interactions

Legal Concept

Legal Concern

Legal Justiification

Legal Argument facts

 

Semantic

Computational; Independant

Platform Independent model

Platform Specific Model

Claimed Invention

Inventive Concept

Patent is described by Inventive concepts

Lawfull disclosure

Inventive Concept

 

Dr. Ayel B Berger, 

Supplementary Protection Certificate

How can SPC be obtained?

The product is protected by a basic patent in force

CJEU

Glaxosmithkline

Liechtenstein

 

South Africa Patents

 

Vonseidels.com

ARIPO

OAPT

National Law

Lack of Definitive case Law regarding

 

OAPI

ERIC Robinson, Patent Counsel

Qualcomm 

Consistency

Little Predictability

US Clearly allows patents on software

Indian Patent System is yet to define clear Guidelines but Software patents 

 

Note: Notes were taken from Audio presentations, I shall not be responsible for spelling mistakes are order the presenter of bullet points. 

Leave a Reply