Net Metering

By Pablo N. Garcia Rodriguez Nowadays renewable energies are a popular topic due to the benefits that they provide for our environment and our health. Moreover, 15 years ago, a new mechanism was implemented in the United States which enables people to get money from using alternative ways of energy. This is Net Metering. Its first implementation was in 2003 but, as it was a new technology, it was not allowed in several states. Today, considering that this system has improved people’s lives economically, new regulations allow its use in 38 states plus D.C. The chart below shows Net Metering increasing since 2003 to 2010. Chart from Eia.Gov, 2018, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=6270. The following presentation is to provide an understanding of the basics of Net Metering and to present some existing policies that regulate this mechanism in the states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington D.C.

Lost Profits Arising from Foreign Sales: WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.

By Alex Rhim Summary: The US Supreme Court held in favor of Petitioner WesternGeco LLC (“WesternGeco”) on the issue of whether 28 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) (2010) and 28 U.S.C. § 284 (2012), taken together, entitled damages award for lost foreign profits against Respondent ION Geophysical Corp. (“ION”). Since the Court found that the combined focus of the two statutory provisions recognizes inclusion of foreign lost profits resulting from a domestic infringement, WesternGeco was entitled to damages award.  Facts: ION manufactured and shipped components to companies abroad. The shipped components were assembled by those foreign companies after shipment into a system used to survey the ocean floor. This system was indistinguishable from patents owned by WesternGeco.  Procedural History: WesternGeco sued ION for patent infringement under §§ 271(f)(1) and (f)(2) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The jury found ION liable and awarded WesternGeco damages of $12.5 million in royalties and $93.4 million in lost profits

read more Lost Profits Arising from Foreign Sales: WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.

PCT Collaboration Search and Examination Pilot Effective July 1, 2018

By Michael Stein A new pilot program, the Collaborative Search and Examination (CS&E) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty began effective July 1, 2018, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), and the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIP), collectively known at the IP5 offices, participating in the program. Instead of other similar pilot programs, applicants will select international patent applications to be handled under the CS&E.  A first, only international applications filed in English will be accepted.  After some time, international authorities that work in languages other than English will begin to accept patent applications in those other languages into the pilot program. Under the pilot program, an examiner of the IP5 office selected as the International Search Authority (ISA) will perform a search and examination, to generate a provisional international search report and written opinion.  Examiners

read more PCT Collaboration Search and Examination Pilot Effective July 1, 2018

Are 102, 6th Paragraph and 102, 2nd Paragraph the New 101 in Patent Eligibility? Williamson v. Citrix Online Makes One Wonder: Part 2 of a 2 Part Series – Possible Strategies

Are 102, 6th Paragraph and 102, 2nd Paragraph the New 101 in Patent Eligibility?  Williamson v. Citrix Online Makes One Wonder:  Part 2 of a 2 Part Series – Possible Strategies By Michael Stein, Stein IP LLC   This is part 2 of a 2 part series addressing the growing use of 112, 6th and 2nd paragraphs to invalidate claims in the USPTO and the courts, and what the standards are for implementation and application of these sections of 35 USC.  Part 2 explores possible strategies to minimize the impact of 112, 6th and 2nd paragraph, and likely assist in avoiding 101 rejections as well.   So, what is a patent attorney to do when faced with the difficult task of preparing a new patent application, whether from scratch or based upon foreign priority, and hopes to avoid either having limitations interpreted as being means plus function limitations under 112, 6th paragraph or being declared indefinite under 112, 2nd paragraph

read more Are 102, 6th Paragraph and 102, 2nd Paragraph the New 101 in Patent Eligibility? Williamson v. Citrix Online Makes One Wonder: Part 2 of a 2 Part Series – Possible Strategies

Update on Implementation of American Invents Act Effective As of September 16, 2012

By Dennis Clarke and James McEwen On September 16, 2011, the “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act” (AIA) was signed into law. The AIA makes the most substantial changes in U.S. patent law in decades and sets various dates on which these changes are to take effect. The most profound of those changes is the switch to a first-inventor-to-file system, in place of the current first-to-invent practice in the U.S. This change takes effect only for applications originally filed on or after March 16, 2013. However, on September 16. 2012, other major changes will take effect, including the possibility of requesting inter partes review and other post-grant trial procedures before the newly renamed “Patent Trial and Appeal BoarcL” This paper will predominantly relate to the new requirements relating to declarations and assignments and other miscellaneous provisions that have an effective date of September 16, 2012. The new trial proceedings are discussed briefly hereinbelow.

USPTO Issues Proposed Rules for Implementing the America Invents Act

Charles Pierce and James G. McEwen On July 25, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced proposed rules as a result of changes in the America Invents Act (AIA) converting the U.S. patent system from a first to invent to a first to file system.  These changes will take place on March 16, 2013. The proposed rules are intended to promote consistency caused by the changes in the AIA for pending applications, and to implement the AIA for future applications.  Comments on the proposed rules are open until October 5, 2012.  Below is a summary of significant elements of the proposed rules. The proposed rules will treat commonly owned or joint research agreement patents and patent application publications as having the same inventive entity for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102(c) of the AIA.  35 U.S.C. §102(c) of the AIA essentially broadens the current 35 U.S.C. §§

read more USPTO Issues Proposed Rules for Implementing the America Invents Act

Per se legal? The Eleventh Circuit Rejects FTC’s “Unlikely to Prevail” Antitrust Challenge to “Reverse Payment” Patent Settlements

By Meera El-Farhan In F.T.C. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 677 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) antitrust challenge to “reverse payment” patent settlements. Under the terms of the “reverse payment” (or “pay-for-delay”) agreement, the patent owner of AndroGel, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Solvay”), agreed to make over $20 million annual payments to the generic challengers Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Paddock Laboratories, Inc. In return, the generic challengers agreed to stay out of the market until 2015, unless another generic version was to enter the market before then.   The FTC brought suit against all parties to the agreement. The FTC challenged the “pay-for-delay” settlement on the basis of unfair restraint of trade (the settlement allegedly being an “unlawful agreement not to compete,” in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act[1] (“FTCA”)). The FTC argued that such monopolies allow both generic and

read more Per se legal? The Eleventh Circuit Rejects FTC’s “Unlikely to Prevail” Antitrust Challenge to “Reverse Payment” Patent Settlements

Introducing Stein IP LLC Fall 2012 IP Training Program October 1-19, 2012

 Stein McEwen LLP is pleased to announce that it will be hosting an intellectual property training program from October 1-12 with an add-on session from October 15-19, 2012 in Washington DC.  The purpose of the Stein McEwen LLP Fall 2012 IP Training Seminar is to provide an overview of U.S. Intellectual Property Law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. The lectures will cover fundamentals of patent procurement, with optional sessions extending to the scopes of trademarks and copyrights, IP licensing, and IP litigation. A series of lectures will be presented by Stein McEwen LLP attorneys regarding these subjects, including workshops for the participants to receive hands-on experience.  These workshops will include activities such as reviewing disclosures of an invention and drafting sample claims to cover the subject matter of the invention. Tours of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a U.S. District Court will allow the participants an opportunity

read more Introducing Stein IP LLC Fall 2012 IP Training Program October 1-19, 2012

Breach of Consent or EPIC Fail?

By Dan McPheeters As we touched on in our prior post, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed a lawsuit against Google alleging that the controversial new privacy policies that were implemented on March 1st violated the consent decree Google entered into with the FTC last October. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed when a District Court judge agreed with the FTC that Courts lack the authority to force a federal agency to take action under a consent decree; however, since EPIC is appealing the ruling, the legal question posed by the lawsuit is still relevant. Interestingly, while the FTC has yet to take any formal action against the search giant, key officials have made their feelings known and they are not favorable to the once-beloved tech icon. Moreover, an analysis of the consent decree itself can help shine a light on whether Google has actually done anything wrong in implementing its new privacy policy. The consent decree at the

read more Breach of Consent or EPIC Fail?

Much Ado About Google

By Dan McPheeters Google has been taking flak recently for its “new” privacy policy, which rolled out on March 1st. From tech bloggers calling the company “evil” (and showcasing their graphic design skills in the process) to accusations of illegality from European and American regulators, the company has surely taken a PR hit of late. But that simply begs the question: has the company actually done anything wrong, or have they merely completed the metamorphosis from lovable David to hated Goliath? On a personal level, as someone who grew up in the 90’s it is interesting to see Bill Gates viewed as a beloved philanthropist and Google as an evil, invasive company hell-bent on eviscerating its users’ privacy in the unholy name of profit. The juxtaposition is somewhat jarring. Meanwhile, there are those in the media who have pointed out that the privacy policies have not actually changed, and that if anything the policy has been made more transparent and

read more Much Ado About Google