So What Happened Today in Patent History?

November 13, 2011

In 1805, a Viennese butcher Johann Lahner invented a new sausage — he called it a frankfurter.

In 1914, New York debutante Mary Phelps Jacob was granted a patent for her invention, which became known as the brassiere.

In 1969,  I was born!

Apart from the date and intellectual property, it is difficult to see a common theme linking these auspicious events.


Israel Patent Office Publishes Report on 2010 Activity

July 29, 2011

The Israel Patent Office has just published a report covering its activity in 2010.

The report, in Hebrew, is available from here: http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/C6ACFC67-FFF0-4D16-A8C3-DCFD0154D82E/0/2010.pdf

There are 45 pages of statistical data that contains few surprises, bound in a blue cover with a slightly corny lightbulb image.

Much of the comparative material, showing how the IPO compares with patent offices in other jurisdictions, and the number of patents filed per GDP and per population are found in the OECD report, on WIPO’s website, and in a paper I wrote together with Jeremy Ben David and which was published in WIPR a couple of months ago. Nevertheless, the report is comprehensive and compares favorably to the odd table or graph that the patent office has traditionally published.

There is some data on oppositions that has never been presented before and also comprehensive ranking tables showing where incoming filings originate.

The document carries two introductions, one from newly installed commissioner, Adv. Asa Kling, and one from his predecessor Dr Meir Noam. We weren’t surprised to see that each commissioner has lauded his predecessor / successor. However, since the document relates to the end of Dr Noam’s tenure, and before Adv. Kling took over as commissioner, this seems appropriate, if a little tiresome. Actually to be fair, 2010 was a good year for Dr Noam, whose achievements were many.

Of note, there is apparently on going consultation between the patent office and the Ministry of Justice regarding a Design Law to replace the 1924 Ordinance inherited from the British mandate, which is still in force.

We were surprised to learn that Brazil is a major filer or design registrations in Israel. Indeed 109 of the 423 design registrations originating from abroad came from Brazil, ahead of everywhere else including the US. Apparently, this is due almost exclusively to H Stern, a Brazilian jewelry firm with many outlets in Israel. Apart from jewelry, Israel design registrations were filed mostly for clothing, building materials, ornaments and food containers. In total, 1622 design applications were filed, which is, however, less than in any of the years 2005-2009.

There were a total of 8017 trademark applications filed into Israel in 2010, which is less than any of the years 2005-2009 and nearly 2500 less than 2008.

Protocol Madrid for the multi-national registration of trademarks came into force in Israel in September 2010, and in the last quarter of the year, some 463 filings were made into Israel via the protocol, and 37 international applications originating in Israel were filed.

In total, some 7266 patent applications were filed in Israel in 2010, which is up from 6780 in 2009, but still below the 2006-2008 levels which peaked, in 20o7, at 8064.  Most of these applications were Paris/PCT filings or divisional applications, claiming priority from earlier applications. The number of new applications first filed in Israel was 1044, which is the smallest number for a decade. It seems that more and more Israeli applicants are first filing in the US, either as regular applications, or are filing US provisional applications.

There was a lot of patents examined and allowed, but problems in publication delayed them issuing and probably contributed to the low number of oppositions filed, which, at 22, is up from 2009 when only 20 were filed, and from 2001 when 21 were filed, but much lower than the other years of this millennium.  We suspect however, that a number of cases examined in 2010 only published in 2011 and there will be some additional oppositions (indeed, I am handling one such case together with Adv Lewin from our office).

Some 41% of patent filings into Israel are computer/electronics related. 31% are chemistry (mostly pharmaceuticals), 17% biotech and 11% mechanical or telecommunications related. (I am not sure why telecommunications is related to mechanical and not to computer/electronics. I suspect it is an anomaly dating back to the mechanical telegraph or to the telephone made of two cups connected by a taut string). The Israel Patent Office receives a disproportionate amount of high-tech and pharmaceutical patent filings compared to those in traditional industries. This seems to reflect the fields where Israeli industries are perceived by competitors as being a threat.

In the end of 2009, Dr Noam initiated a fast track for ‘green’ patent applications. Some 22 attempts to have applications recognized as green were made during the year, and of these, 16 were accepted for the fast track, and 6 were refused. In the pie-chart summarizing this information, the 262 degree slice was coloured green, and the remaining 98 degrees was coloured orange. The significance of this colour was not apparent.Israel is a noticeable user of the PCT system in absolute terms, and is the largest user in terms of population. I suspect that this is because of the small local market, and Israel’s favorable trade relations with the US, Europe and the far East.

It seems that IP activity in Israel, both from local entities and from foreign applicants was down in 2010 in patents, designs and trademarks. This does not come as a surprise,  as we’ve felt the drop in work. It is little comfort to know that Israel weathered the recession better than many other economies, and that patent, design and trademark filings are down everywhere, except for China.

However, we note that the patent office has been aggressively attacking backlogs and examination pendencies are down as well.

We hope that the 2011 data will be more positive!


Frank Neuhauser Passes Away

March 23, 2011

Frank Neuhauser, a patent attorney of 71 years, passed away, aged 97, on 22 March 2011.

Despite an illustrious career that included working as in-house patent attorney at General Electric, Neuhauser is best known for having won the first ever US National Spelling Bee back in 1925, aged 11, by spelling the word gladiolus.

I find this fascinating. A tremendous but rather pointless achievement.

Coincidentally, my greatest academic achievement was also aged eleven, when I scored 100% in the Inner London Education Authority standardized test – the 11+, consisting of reasoning, maths and English comprehension. 

My colleague, Yaakov Schatz, a highly competent patent attorney, was apparently a late developer. He was a teenager when he won the Israel National Independence Day Bible Quiz, which the popular satirist Ephraim Kishon famously compared to memorising and being tested on the numbers and addresses in the phone book.

Eran Liss, an upcoming Israeli IP litigator, was the World Under 16 chess champion. 

Not all patent attorneys peak in the early years though. Apparently, an Australian patent attorney won the Master Chef competition on television last year.   

For more on Neuhauser, see the obituary in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/us/23neuhauser.html


Israel Patent Office to allow no more than two independent claims of each type

February 3, 2010

In the latest of a series of reforms, the Israel Commissioner of Patents, Dr. Meir Noam has decreed that a patent application may include up to two independent claims in the following categories:

  1. Methods of manufacture
  2. Claims for a device or system
  3. Claims for a tool for manufacturing
  4. Swiss type use claims

Comment

This decree follows and formalizes a decision by the Commissioner in an Appeal regarding Metronix, relating to a robot for cleaning swimming pools, which was considered as lacking in inventive step.  I have a problem with the decision and now with this decree: I respectfully submit that it is both arbitrary and illogical.

The Israel Patent Law, like other laws around the world, requires unity of invention. A single patent can claim one invention only.

Broadly speaking, in the United States, there is no limit to the number of independent claims and unity of invention is decided substantively. One has to pay additional fees for more than 3 independent claims, but provided the independent claims are classified as being in the same art group and apparently relate to the same invention, one can usually avoid a Restriction Order or requirement to elect a species for examination. 

In Europe, on the other hand, essentially one can have one independent claim for a device or system and a second independent claim for an associated method. If there is more than one claim of a single type, the examiner will argue that there is uncertainty as to the scope of the invention.

Both the US and the European models have an inherent logic. Deciding on a maximum number of independent claims other than one, seems to be arbitrary.

Section 17c of the Israel Patent Law allows one to conform claims of an Israel patent application to that of an allowed patent from one of a list of examining jurisdictions abroad having substantive examination. The list includes the US. Once allowed and published for opposition purposes, unity of invention is not considered grounds for opposition. One assumes that the provisions of the Law as legislated by the Knesset trump circulars of the Patent Office. Unless the Patent Office disagrees with this statement, applicants will be able to choose between more than two independent claims of the same type via Section 17c, or up to two claims via substantive examination. This seems somewhat arbitrary.


Electronic filing; PCT, US and Israel

January 19, 2010

The PCT has announced that its Online Document Upload Facility became fully operational on Monday, 18 January, 2010. This facility permits PCT applicants and/or their agents to submit documents relating to international applications in PDF format, via the WIPO website.

One advantage claimed for this development is that post-filing electronic documents can be submitted quickly and efficiently to the IB, thus avoiding the costs and delays relating to paper mailing whilst overcoming image quality problems that can result from fax transmissions or paper scanning.

However, the service is not to be used for the initial filing of PCT international applications online to WIPO Geneva as a Receiving Office, only for subsequent submission of later-filed documents that are normally addressed to WIPO in its capacity as International Bureau only. Furthermore, the process only works if the International Bureau has already received the Record Copy from the receiving Office and started processing the application.

The long list of documents that may be uploaded includes amendments to the claims under PCT Article 19,requests for recording change of person, name, address, etc., notices of withdrawal, requests for Supplementary International Search (SIS), and where applicable, translations of international applications and sequence listings under PCT Rule 13ter for SIS purposes, informal comments on the written opinion of the International Searching Authority and general correspondence for the attention of the IB. Further guidelines are to be found at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/

 Comment

All the submissions listed are text based submissions that I routinely fax and in addition to the fax receipt generated by my system, I get an acknowledgement from WIPO by return. I’ve never had a problem with the faxed document being considered unclear. Thus I am not sure that this development is in any way significant, except for the possible eventual reduction in paper usage.

**********************************************

 On 14 January 2010 President Barack Obama told technology executives at the Forum on Modernizing Government:

 ”Believe it or not, in our patent office — now, this is embarrassing — this is an institution responsible for protecting and promoting innovation — our patent office receives more than 80 percent of patent applications electronically, then manually prints them out, scans them, and enters them into an outdated case management system…This is one of the reasons why the average processing time for a patent is roughly three years.”

It’s a great quote. So what if Barak is apparently wrong and the USPTO stopped doing that back in 2006???

**********************************************

Another great quote: Dr. Michael Bart, the Head of the PCT Receiving Office in Israel told me that a colleague at the EPO stated that “A paperless patent office is like a paperless toilet. “

Incidentally, the Israel Patent Office is also gearing up for electronic filing.

What of the ecological issues? Well the following story is absolutely true: whilst working at the UK National Physics Laboratory, NPL, in the early Nineties, I used to receive the internal newspaper of the Department of Trade & Industry. Then secretary of State for Trade & Industry Michael Hesseltine requested ideas for minimizing the paper-chase to be submitted on the requisite form in triplicate.

And finally, the ultimate all-in-one machine – one of my inventions, that I considered filing - the combined fax, printer, photocopier with shredder and bin. Does the whole process without human intervention.


Israel Patent Office Issues Draconian Duty of Disclosure Directive

January 17, 2010

In yet another Israel Patent Office Circular (M. N. 77) designed to increase productivity, to minimize duplication of resources and to shorten the examination process, the Israel Commissioner of Patents, Dr. Meir Noam has decreed that in addition to filing details of citations in corresponding applications abroad as required under Section 18 of the Law (Duty of Disclosure), henceforth, applicants are required to submit a copy of all responses made in corresponding cases as far as Novelty and Inventive Step is concerned. This response may include claim amendments submitted to overcome the Official Actions made elsewhere, however the applicant must explain how the claim amendments overcome the prior art objections. 

Failure to submit such arguments will be considered as failure to fulfill the Duty of Disclosure. Furthermore, the applicant is required to submit all prior art directly relevant to the invention that is known to the applicant.

The new ruling applies to all applications for which a Notice Prior to Application has not yet issued.

Appended to the Circular is an amended Notice Prior to Examination which also states that applications filed after 23 January 2010 having more than 50 claims will incur additional filing fees.

The new disclosure rules were suposed to be effective immediately, but after lobbyign from the AIPA and other representative bodies, a reprieve has been allowed to enable practitioners to reorganize. The new procedures will come into  effect as of 30 June 2010.

Comments

As with many efficiency measures adopted by the USPTO, it is not clear whether this development will actually increase or decrease Examiner’s workloads and affect pendency time. However, it certainly will increase the work load of the patent practitioners and presumably result in more expensive prosecution for the applicants. On the other hand, we can assume that fewer invalid patents will issue, and there could be a corresponding decrease in oppositions and litigation.

There has been a difference of opinion within the profession as to the exact Duty of Disclosure requirement and the necessity and advisability of submitting prior art not cited against corresponding applications abroad but nevertheless known to the applicant. The current circular renders such arguments moot, and details of all prior art known to applicant, including, inter alia, that submitted in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) should now certainly be submitted.

The appended amended Notice Prior to Examination appears to be an implementation of the Notice of 10 December 2009 wherein the Commissioner of Patents  and Trademarks, Dr. Meir Noam announced that the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Knesset have decided to issue a surcharge of 500 NIS for excess claims beyond 50. It is not clear when the excess claim fees are due, but from the Notice, it seems that they are due on filing, and failure to pay will hold up examination. Presumably there will be a follow-on Circular that clarifies the issue, but I suspect that the excess claim fees will be incurred on responding to the Notice Before Examination, not on filing. At present, Israel examiners tend to relate to the independent claims only. One hopes that this excess claim requirement indicates that all claims will henceforth be examined on their merits.


Economist Report Ranks Israel 10th in Terms of Innovation

April 27, 2009

A recent report published by the economist and sponsored by Cisco, ranks Israel 10th in the world in terms of innovation.

The report is to be found here:

http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20090420190749/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Cisco_Innovation_Complete.pdf

Israel is generally one stage up in 2004-2008 than in the previous four years and is expected to overtake Holland and rank 9th over the next four years.

Various indices are presented in the report. For a Levantine country Israel doesn’t do badly, outstripping her neighbors. However, in addition to the US and Japan, there are many European countries with better results per capita. Israelis are inventive, but less so than Israeli journalists and politicians would have them believe and than many Israelis think.


Israel Patent Office Adjudicator Awards Costs for Forcing Patentee to Amend Claims

April 16, 2009

In Patent voiding proceedings brought by Bromium Compounds Limited against IL 97620 to Albemarle Corporation, the patentee filed a voluntary amendment to Claim 10, thereby rendering the oposer’s case moot, causing the voiding procedure to be withdrawn. Since the Arbitrator at the Patent Office did not rule in the case and the claim wasn’t cancelled, the patentee argued that there were no grounds for awarding costs to Bromium Compounds. The adjudicator, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi was not swayed by this and considered that the voluntary amendment was the direct result of the voidance proceedings brought by Bromium Compounds, and awarded 4000 NIS is costs – about a thousand dollars.


Patent Application for Human Eyebeam Detection System Publishes

March 9, 2009

The psychiatrist and author Colin A. Ross, M.D.has announced his patent application for a system to detect the electromagnetic energy emitted by the human eye. The patent application,USSN 20090046246 titled “ELECTROMAGNETIC BEAM DETECTION SYSTEM” Read the rest of this entry »


Japan Supreme Court rules that Recycling Canon Ink Cartridges Infringes The Patent

November 10, 2007

The Japan Supreme Court has upheld a high court ruling that states that the sale of recycled ink cartridges violates Canon Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers