LexisNexis Offers IP.com Prior Art Database

To ensure success in the Intellectual Property (IP) world, attorneys need to access and incorporate the most relevant, comprehensive and up-to-date information available. LexisNexis® today announced in this press release that it is expanding the content offerings available through lexis.com® and unveiling enhancements to its PatentOptimizerTM and Global IP Law Service solutions. Additionally, LexisNexis unveiled three new online law centers to help attorneys keep abreast of the latest news in patent, trademark and copyright law.

“Intellectual property is one of the hottest, fastest-moving areas for corporate counsel and law firms alike,” said Peter Vanderheyden, vice president of Global Intellectual Property at LexisNexis. “LexisNexis continues to add content and functionality to its growing suite of IP services to ensure customers have the best tools available to protect their valuable assets.”

Consolidating two important prior art sources, LexisNexis allowed customers to have full-text access to defensive publications from both IP.com and Research Disclosure available through lexis.com. Consistent with LexisNexis prior art collections, these sources will be directly accessible in full text from TotalPatent via the lexis.com toolbar.

Research Disclosure is an international defensive publication service that’s considered one of the most significant non-patent prior art databases in the world. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) list Research Disclosure’s content on its “minimum documentation required” list.

IP.com provides companies with the tools and solutions to better manage IP and innovation records. In fact, lexis.com customers will have access to IP.com’s exclusive list of all IBM disclosures dating back to 1957.

“The integration of Research Disclosure and IP.com content allows customers to minimize the time and expense with researching, writing and registering patents on similar ideas,” said Vanderheyden. “In addition to this valuable content, we offer unique insights and interpretations through our world-class suite of authors. In fact, we’d like to recognize one of our prestigious authors, Paul McGrady, who was recently named to IP Law & Business' List of ‘Top 50 IP People Under 45.’”

LexisNexis unveiled three IP-related law centers providing news and analysis about patent, trademark and copyright law. To provide select and timely content, LexisNexis has aligned with a number of leading IP experts to provide podcasts, news and information, commentary and blogs. The law centers can be accessed at:

Patent Law Center
Trademark Law Center
Copyright Law Center

We've added these links to the IP Resources listed in the left sidebar of this blog along with many other great intellectual property blogs and websites.

EFF Report: Patents and the Public Domain

EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, announced on their blog today the release of Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination a report finding that there are at least three ways to work toward improving patent quality, including through reexamination:Download a PDF version of this whitepaper

1. Encourage Organized Efforts to Have a More Thorough Review of Patent Applications

* Increase third party efforts to improve prior art searches and to facilitate a stronger understanding of the world of prior art.

2. Support Organized Efforts After Patents Have Been Issued

* Reexaminations should be limitless in time and with no financial harm limitations (in many countries, public interest organizations like EFF are only allowed to challenge issued patents for a short period of time after they have issued, even though often a patent’s threat to innovations may not be immediately obvious).

* Don't Streamline. Maintain a variety of options for reexamination requesters.

3. Increase Access to Information in the Patent Office

* Update information in the patent office’s online databases regularly.

* Conduct and publish regular evaluations of effectiveness and performance within the Patent Office.

In addition to providing an organized effort through the Patent Busting Project in furtherance of the second goal, EFF is working in conjunction with Mozilla, Yahoo, and the Internet Archive to create a database that will work to achieve the first goal. This Prior Art project is still under development.

The wiki page set up for this contains the project plan for a software prior art initiative under consideration and welcomes constructive input. At the bottom of that wiki page, they point to four related projects:

  1. Software Patent Institute
  2. Open Source as Prior Art
  3. Patent Commons
  4. Peer to Patent Project
The Software Patent Institute Database of Software Technologies is contained exclusively in the IP.com Prior Art Database. While limited searching can be performed for free as a "guest", robust and unrestricted searching along with all-inclusive document downloads is available in weekly, monthly, and yearly intervals. Get started searching SPI data today - click here for more information.

Peer to Patent Project YouTube Video

Produced by IBM, this short movie with interviews with Chief Intellectual Property and Patent Counsel from IBM, GE, HP and others explains the Peer-to-Patent process, how it works and why an inventor will want to participate.

How To Really Protect Your Invention

In an article posted on Ohio.com, the official website of the Akron Beacon Journal offers some advice for inventors that is misguided, or limited, at best.

If you have an invention or idea, it is essential that you protect it or run the risk of losing your rights and any future rewards. Here is what you need to do:

First, start a diary/journal in a bound notebook. Include the date of the invention (when the idea was initially conceived) and a description. This is important in connection with filing for a patent in the future as the United States is a ''First-to-Invent'' country. Keep the journal updated as you develop prototypes, make modifications, etc.

Second, prepare a one-page nondisclosure agreement. If you want to tell anyone (relatives, friends, plant personnel, others), the receiver of the information should sign the agreement and keep the invention confidential. This way, you keep your idea protected and have a record of when and to whom the information was disclosed.

Now, that's all well and good, if you think you're "protecting your invention" by papering your relatives, friends and co-workers with non-disclosure agreements, to set up a cause of action in contract law for breach of that agreement if those people closest to you somehow disclose that which they have agreed specifically not to disclose, and you can prove those facts in court. Good luck getting "your future rewards" that way.

And the notion that keeping a secret diary/journal in a bound notebook (including the date of the invention) will "protect your rights" as the "first to invent" is delusional. Who's to say when those dated entries were actually written in your bound notebook? Can you imagine how you might prove those entries were written on the dates specified? And how is anyone else to be dissuaded from applying for a patent for an invention noted in your diary/journal notebook, however nicely bound.

In the real world, what is required to really protect an invention from anyone else gaining patent rights to that idea in the United States, is irrefutable evidence that the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent (US Patent Act, Section 102a). That is "prior art" in the language of patent law. In this modern digital world, there are accepted methods of recording creative work that could be regarded as prior art to prevent someone from getting a patent on something you've already invented.

The IP.com Creative Registry is a web-based registry that allows you to upload your documents and creative work for legal safeguarding. IP.com digitally fingerprints and date-stamps your work while placing it into a private archive for your personal access. IP.com then publishes the fingerprint and date into the public domain as a testament to the existence of your work. Your actual document is NEVER exposed to anyone else, yet you have irrefutable proof of its content at the precise time it was safeguarded!

When your invention is defined sufficiently that you'd like to ensure that USPTO examiners discover your "prior art" when examining any application for a patent that should not be granted to anyone else because of the disclosure of your prior art,  you may want to publish a technical disclosure of the invention in the Prior Art Database, which is searched by the USPTO examiners and many other patent agencies around the world as part of the patent review process. Defensive publishing is a widely-used tactic as an alternative to the expensive patent application process, which an inventor should consider as part of a comprehensive innovation management strategy with the advice of a patent attorney retained to consider the law and facts of specific cases.

Peer-to-Patent Project Awards "Prior Artist"

The Peer-to-Patent project announced that expert, volunteer reviewers from the general public have cooperated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to identify “prior art” that has been used in Office actions to reject at least one claim in each of five applications.

The Peer-to-Patent project is an initiative of New York Law School in cooperation with the USPTO aimed at opening the patent examination process to public participation, and improving the quality of patents. Under the Peer-to-Patent pilot program, inventors agree to have their patent applications posted for up to four months on the www.peertopatent.org Web site. Expert volunteers from the public then discuss the applications and submit prior art they think might be relevant to determining if an invention is new and non-obvious, as the law requires.

The program’s first 19 patent applications—including applications from GE, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems Inc., all companies that volunteered to be part of this pilot—have been examined. For every 500 patent applications published in 2007, the USPTO received only one third-party prior art submission. In the Peer-to-Patent pilot, volunteer reviewers supplied nearly four prior art references for each pilot application - a trend which could significantly help the USPTO if Peer-to-Patent expands beyond a pilot phase.

So far, of the first 19 first office actions sent by the USPTO, five patent applications received non-final rejections that relied specifically upon prior art submitted through Peer-to-Patent. In these instances, submissions of prior art from the public enabled the USPTO to reject claims the examiners believe fail the novelty and non-obvious requirements that prohibit patents on inventions that have already been invented or would have been obvious. The USPTO response time on these office actions is notable. Because the USPTO agreed to examine patent applications in the pilot ahead of other applications, the time between application filing and the onset of examination shrank from four to two years.

USPTO’s Commissioner for Patents John Doll noted, “I hope other patent applicants look at the processing statistics from this pilot program and realize that Peer-to-Patent review might be a win-win situation for them. We are encouraged by the initial success of the pilot, and we believe it holds potential as a source of relevant prior art.”

In sending the program’s first non-final rejection, the USPTO examiner used prior art and commentary submitted by Steven Pearson, a senior software engineer at IBM, to reject claims of an HP application. The second non-final rejection relied upon prior art and commentary submitted by Rob Cameron, a Professor of Computer Science at Simon Fraser University, to reject claims of an IBM application. As a result, Pearson and Cameron have been awarded the title “prior artist” on the pilot Web site.

“It is a privilege to participate in this important project,” Steve Pearson, IBM software engineer, said. “I’m confident these early results will help validate that this community approach can have a meaningful impact on the examination process and the quality of patents. Hopefully this will encourage the participation of more domain experts in this pilot program.”

Professor Cameron believes “it is to everyone’s benefit—inventor, investor and the public at large—to make the best possible effort to ensure that issued patents are properly placed in the context of related prior art. In the future, I think that an open, mediated review process following the trail blazed by Peer-to-Patent should become an integral part of best practice patent examination.”

HP and IBM will now have the opportunity to respond to these first office actions and persuade the examiners their claims are new and non-obvious.

“We’re very pleased with this initial outcome,” Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property at IBM said. “Patents of questionable merit are of little value to anyone. We much prefer that the best prior art be identified so that the resulting patent is truly bulletproof. This is precisely why we eagerly agreed to sponsor this project and other patent quality initiatives. We are proud of this result, which validates the concept of Peer-to-Patent, and can only improve the quality of patents produced by the patent system.”

Launched in June of last year, Peer-to-Patent opens the patent examination process for the first time, enabling the public to contribute prior art and commentary relevant to the examination of pending patent applications assigned in TC 2100 technologies with the goal of improving patent quality. On average, each posted application has garnered a community of 14 reviewers who have submitted five instances of prior art per application.

See also: www.peertopatent.org

Eco-Patent Commons Technical Disclosures

In her Strategic Thinking column on GreenBiz.com, Nancy Edwards Cronin recommends Growing the Eco-Patent Commons to Truly Promote Green Innovation. While lauding the objectives of this green initiative, she suggests that the Eco-Patent Commons itself is in need of some innovation if it truly hopes to accomplish its goal: sharing useful environmental technologies for "the greater good."

The problem is that the project includes only "patents" and not the undisclosed innovations and trade secrets within the intellectual property of companies and independent inventors that have not yet been patented. Many of those inventions might better be published now to promote the progress of science and the useful arts for a sustainable environment and ecology for the future.

To compensate for these drawbacks and make the Eco-Patent Commons as useful and powerful as it can be, the initiative requires expansion to offer truly recent inventions that have not spent years in the patent application process. This involves widening the scope of the initiative to include non-patented inventions that have yet to be marketed and made public.

One way to make these inventions available is through enabled invention disclosures. An enabled invention disclosure (also called “defensive publication” or “technical bulletin”) is a written description of an invention that ideally has the same degree of detail as an issued patent. Therefore a well-written invention disclosure provides sufficient information to the reader to understand and use the invention.

Many companies successfully use enabled invention disclosures as part of their intellectual property (IP) strategies. Companies frequently have inventions that they do not wish to patent because the patent process is so expensive, including invention development costs, legal preparation and patent prosecution fees. However, companies also wish to prevent competitors from patenting those same inventions.

By using enabled invention disclosures to publish the invention, companies accomplish both goals: they save the cost of patenting but they also establish a “prior art bar” to obtaining the patent and make it impossible for competitors to claim it the invention as their own. Several Web site forums exist for publishing inventions, including www.ip.com and www.researchdisclosure.com.

The Eco-Patent Commons should be expanded to include these enabled invention disclosures. Many inventions that companies deem non-strategic for patent application and instead decide to publish may be excellent candidates to be donated to the Eco-Patent Commons. These published inventions would be truly new, fresh and useful -- a good first step to creating the true springboard for green innovation that the Eco-Patent Commons was meant to be.

We couldn't agree more.

As indicated in our original post about the Eco-Patent Commons, IP.com would really like to contribute to this very worthwhile initiative by providing the publishing platform to broaden the scope of the project to include innovations and inventions useful to the environmental movement well beyond those patents that have been contributed by the project's founding companies, some of which are already using the IP.com Prior Art Database. We've got technologies available that could very quickly take this green initiative to a whole new level of global participation.

Let's discuss.

Zen and the Prior Art of Disclosures

This week, as the New York Times reported that writers blog till they drop dead, we were relieved to see IBM's technical disclosure in the IP.com Prior Art Database, promising a more relaxing experience for bloggers with the laptop of the future.

Method to use laptop generated heat for 'aromatherapy'

Often, certain smells can stimulate work productivity. Motivation and Healing by smell is a very common practice and long time tradition. How nice would be to be stimulated by the scent of Chocolate or a Coffee without have to digest it? Since one's convenience is sought after as a top priority in today's society, it is only fitting that it be addressed in respect to the integration of today's technology and the common practices or classic traditions of aromatherapy. 'Aromatherapy' via a fragrance gel/oil and your laptop's generated heat may be all you need to complete your daily tasks list more efficiently. This approach can result in enhance work experience and increased productivity.

Until that innovation finds its way into an IBM laptop of the future, technology bloggers should work on developing zen habits for haiku productivity.

Don't Trust IP to the Post Office!

I Have the Power! "the alternative energy and sustainable power blog written by an engineer for engineers" offers some ill-conceived "legal advice" for inventors.

In the business of intellectual property (IP) protection, the first rule is to establish the date on which a new idea was conceived. Conventional wisdom for establishing this date is to write up a short IP disclosure, seal it in an envelope, and mail it to yourself. The US Postal Service postmark legally establishes the date on which the IP within the envelope was created.


Conventional wisdom, or urban myth?

In an article headlined "Who's Idea Is This Anyway?" published several years ago, BusinessWeek discussed with intellectual property attorneys Nadine Jacobson and Allison Strickland the pitfalls of protecting ideas:

Q: How do entrepreneurs get into trouble with copyright, patent, or trademark issues?

Strickland: I think for one thing, they listen to the urban myths that circulate. There's one that says if you write out an idea and put it in an envelope and mail it to yourself, it's copyrighted, and anyone else who uses it is infringing. That's widely believed.

Another one says that as long as you don't take more than 25% or 30% of someone else's work, you're not infringing. But neither of those things is necessarily true.

The problem is that IP concepts are confusing and somewhat sophisticated. It's a very confusing part of the law and easy to misunderstand. The safest thing for entrepreneurs to do is to step back from what they think they know and consult reliable sources to get a reality check.

Jacobson: A lot of times, people who are starting up new businesses are concerned about keeping costs down, and they don't want to hire lawyers. So they go to a family friend or a corporate lawyer who dabbles in IP and get free advice, but it's not exactly accurate.


The blogging engineer is confused now, apparently applying an urban myth about establishing the earliest date of composition of song lyrics in which an aspiring songwriter claims copyright, and confusing that with defensive publication of a technical disclosure of a potentially patentable invention.

Patents are incredibly useful tools in that they give the inventor the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the patented invention. However, this exclusive right must be enforced. If someone is using an invention for which you have a patent, you can sue for infringement to reclaim damages, as well as force the offending party to stop. Unless you initiate the infringement proceedings (or the threat of infringement proceedings), there is nothing to make the offending party stop using your innovation. In essence, patents only have power if you are willing to stand up in court to defend them.

The problem is that obtaining patents is not a trivial process. Legal fees, filing fees, maintenance fees, and lost time by your R&D staff can be quite costly. Spending this kind of money on a powerful innovation that can return hundreds or thousands of times the investment is clearly worth it. Yet, only a small portion of the items from a typical invention review qualify as such. More often, the majority of ideas that result from an invention review are good ideas that, for one reason or another, do not end up patented.

Why?

Typically, there are a number of inventions on which you may already have partial patent protection. Inventions that improve upon an existing patented invention are good examples. Another reason you may not wish to obtain patent protection on a good idea is that you don't expect to ever gain back the money that would be spent pursuing the patent. This is highly typical for inventions that improve the operation of some aspect of your business, but are not part of your general business strategy. (A computer chip manufacturer that finds a better way of packaging would be a good example. Packaging sales are not part of the core business, and most likely patents in this area would never be pursued.)

So what happens to the innovation I don't patent?

Typically, nothing. You are free to use your invention without a patent ... until someone else patents the idea. That's when the problem occurs. At this point, they could force you into paying licensing fees, or to stop using the innovation altogether. In essence, forcing you to stop using an idea you had first, but never patented.

If I had the idea first, doesn't that give me the right to use it?

Unfortunately, having the idea first doesn't do anything for you. The only way to prevent another patent from issuing, or defeating one that has already issued, is by being able to prove not only that the idea already existed, but that it was available to the public as well. This is where technical disclosure comes in. Innovation you do not patent is at risk of being patented by others. Publishing that innovation establishes a clear trail of evidence that you had this idea, and made it available to the public. Therefore, it should be considered "general knowledge" by the patent examiners, and not be allowed to be patented. In effect, allowing you to retain your right to use your own innovation, without the hassle and expense of obtaining patent protection.

Mailing yourself a written record of an idea does not prove that the idea was available to the public. To establish that an idea was available to the public as of a date certain that can be accepted as evidence by a court of competent jurisdiction, an inventor can defensively publish a technical disclosure of the invention in the Prior Art Database, which is accessible by patent examiners at the USPTO and other patent jurisdictions.

Continue Reading...

Eco-Patent Commons Meets Open Innovation

The Eco-Patent Commons is an initiative to create a collection of patents that directly or indirectly protect the environment. The patents will be pledged by companies and other intellectual property rights holders and made available to anyone, free of charge. The Commons is a resource for connecting those who have had success with a particular challenge in a way that benefits the environment and those who are facing similar challenges.

With the launch of the Eco-Patent Commons earlier this week, four companies -- IBM, Nokia, Pitney-Bowes and Sony -- joined with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development to do something almost unprecedented: they agreed to relinquish their control over inventions that could benefit the planet in order to spur innovation for the greater good.


Thus begins the transcript of a very interesting podcast interview with IBM's Vice President of Environmental Affairs, Wayne Balta, on GreenBiz Radio.

Wayne Balta: The Eco-Patent Commons is a first of its kind initiative under which we at IBM and some other like-minded companies are partnering with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to create a place where patents related to the environment can be pledged by the patent holder so that others around the world can access them and use them free of charge.

The basic premise here is that in the environmental arena, sharing knowledge and technology has the great potential to better address the world's problems. That there exists no organized way today to do this on a global basis. That leading businesses may hold patents that are not an essential source of business income to them. And that by sharing them with others on a global basis, both developed and developing countries, it can help people develop in a more sustainable way. And for those who pledge the patents it might also need to lead to new opportunities for innovation and collaboration with others, whom you might not otherwise reach.

...you know, pledging patents for free use by others is not necessarily a common way companies think about their portfolio of intellectual property and we at IBM recognize that. Now, we at IBM probably have as much or more experience as anyone with this because we have also done prior patent pledges. So we recognize that as we've spoken to others about the idea that it isn't something that you're innately thinking of doing. But as people think through the best use of some of this IP and the opportunities that could come out of a commons like the one we're creating, many have realized and others I believe will realize that it can be a win-win situation.

It can be a win for innovators in other parts of the world, who might look at these ideas and further them and use them as the basis of additional solutions. And it can be a win for those who pledge because it could open up opportunities to collaborate with people that you might not otherwise have collaborated with.

In a joint press release, other member companies of the Eco-Patent Commons today issued the following statements:

Donal O’Connell, Director of Intellectual Property, Nokia, said, “Environmental issues have great potential to help us discover the next wave of innovation because they force us all to think differently about how we make, consume and recycle products. From Nokia we have pledged a patent designed to help companies safely re-use old mobile phones by transforming them into new products like digital cameras, data monitoring devices or other electronic items. Recycling the computing power of mobile phones in this way could significantly increase the reuse of materials in the electronics industry.”


Angelo Chaclas, Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Intellectual Property and Technology Law at Pitney Bowes, said, “The Eco-Patent Commons offers an effective framework to develop and make available technology that helps combat climate change and reduce the release of carbon dioxide. Our objective for the Eco-Patent Commons is to promote the spread of environmentally conscious technologies that make conservation and preservation a priority.”


Hidemi Tomita, General Manager of Sony Corporation’s Corporate Social Responsibility Department, said, “To more effectively protect the environment, it is time for business to join efforts rather than tackling the issue alone. We truly believe this joint effort with our peers will mark a significant step and help transfer innovative ideas and technologies across industries and beyond to developing countries. We are excited to launch this platform to share technologies that will bring about positive changes in the environment.”


These ideas are exemplary of a new wave of thinking described in a recent blog post on Open Innovators. "Companies need to get a lot better at bringing external ideas and knowledge in from the outside, while at the same time allowing internal ideas not being used to flow outside the organization."

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a CEO-led, global association of some 200 companies dealing exclusively with business and sustainable development. The Council provides a platform for companies to explore sustainable development, share knowledge, experiences and best practices, and to advocate business positions on these issues in a variety of forums, working with governments, non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations. Members are drawn from more than 35 countries and 20 major industrial sectors.

Get the FAQs and download the Brochure of the Eco-Patent Commons in pdf here.

At IP.com Inc., we'd like to get involved in support of the Eco-Patent Commons project to expand this initiative to include the sharing of innovative ideas and technologies that directly or indirectly protect the environment, which have not yet been patented but are otherwise in the prior art and knowledge of the member corporations, the scientific community, and academia.

IP.com's Prior Art Database technology could be made readily available, free of charge, as a customized repository of  global innovation in support of the Eco-Patents Commons. How amazing would that be?

Patent Office Professionals Oppose Bill

U.S. patent examiners and 13 other unions want the U.S. Senate to block patent reform legislation, reports InformationWeek.

The Patent Office Professional Association (POPA) issued a statement Thursday saying that the Patent Reform Act contains provisions that endanger American intellectual property. POPA, which represents nearly 6,000 U.S. patent examiners, including engineers, scientists, and designers, joined the other unions to sign a letter to members of the Senate, urging their opposition to the bill, S. 1145.

POPA president Robert Budens said the bill's requirement that applicants submit prior art searches, for all relevant patent and nonpatent literature, would "effectively outsource the search." He said that contracted searches would allow foreign entities to bypass legal protections.

He also said that instead of simply trying to hire 1,200 new patent examiners in 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office should try retaining skilled and experienced patent examiners, while providing them with the time and resources they need to search relevant prior art. Budens said the current attrition rate among trained examiners is in the double digits.

POPA said that despite growing volumes of prior art and an increasingly complex application process, the time allowed for examination of patent applications has not changed in 32 years.

"Now that S.1145 is heading into the final stretch, more and more position letters are being sent to congressional members and fellow practitioners, voicing support and opposition to specific provisions of the Act," notes patent attorney Peter Zura, who has posted links to from many of these letters with excerpts here on his 271 Patent Blog. Peter is also a former patent examiner with the USPTO.