Patent Clutter

Patent claims are supposed to clearly and succinctly describe the patented invention, and only the patented invention. This Article hypothesizes that a substantial amount of language in patent claims is in fact not about the core invention, which may contribute to well-documented problems with patent claims. I analyze the claims of 40,000 patents and applications, and document the proliferation of “clutter”—language in patent claims that is not about the invention. Although claims are supposed to be exclusively about the invention, clutter appears across industries and makes up approximately 25% of claim language. Patent clutter may contribute several major problems in patent law. Extensive clutter makes patent claims harder to search. Excessive language in patent claims may be the result of over-claiming—when patentees describe potential corollaries they do not possess—thereby making the patent so broad in scope as to be invalid. More generally, it strains the comprehensibility of patents and burdens the resources of patent examiners. After arguing that patent clutter may contribute to these various problems, this Article turns to reforms. Rejections based on prolix, lack of enablement, and lack of written description can be crafted to dispose of the worst offenders, and better algorithms and different litigation rules can allow the patent system to adapt (and even benefit from) the remaining uses of excess language. The Article additionally generates important theoretical insights. Claims are often thought of as entirely synonymous with the invention and all elements of the claim are thought to relate equally strongly to the invention. This Article suggests empirically that these assumptions do not hold in practice, and offers a framework for restructuring conceptions of the relationship between claims and the invention

Claim Re-Construction: The Doctrine of Equivalents in the Post-Markman Era

In the post-Markman era, the Federal Circuit has focused attention on the public notice function of patent claims in equivalents cases, and it has come to emphasize precision and accuracy in claim drafting. This Article argues that recent judicial emphasis on the public notice function of patent claims is an inappropriate innovation policy. The demand for highly refined patent claims increases patent acquisition expenditures that are unlikely to increase social welfare, cause patent rights to be distributed unevenly, and are inconsistent with the structural features of the patent system. This Article presents two mechanisms to accommodate the doctrine of equivalents in the post-Markman era. One is the reinvigoration of the reissue proceeding. The other is allowing judicial amendment of patent claims during infringement litigation proceedings, much like the longstanding British practice. This shift would allow courts to pursue the policy goals of Markman for literal and equivalent infringement alike

The Interpretation-Construction Distinction in Patent Law

The ambiguity of claim language is generally considered to be the most important problem in patent law today. Linguistic ambiguity is believed to cause tremendous uncertainty about patent rights. Scholars and judges have accordingly devoted enormous attention to developing better linguistic tools to help courts understand patent claims. In this article, we explain why this diagnosis is fundamentally wrong. Claims are not often ambiguous, and linguistic ambiguity is not a major cause of the uncertainty in patent law today. We shall explain what really causes the uncertainty in patent rights, how the erroneous diagnosis of linguistic ambiguity has led the literature off-track, and what will get us back on track to solving the uncertainty problem

The Impact of Exempting the Pharmaceutical Industry from Patent Reviews

This paper analyzes the impact of an amendment to Senate Bill 1137, offered by Senator Thomas Tillis, which would exempt patents related to pharmaceuticals and biological products from the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process. The IPR process was established in the America Invents Act, which was passed and signed into law in 2012. The process is intended to provide a quick and low-cost way in which dubious patent claims can be challenged by those who might be affected. In the first two years in which it was in place, almost one-third of challenged claims were canceled or removed according to data from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).Based on this data, the paper argues that the IPR process appears to be an effective mechanism for quickly removing dubious patent claims before they impose major costs on the economy

Something more is necessary: are genes and genetic diagnostic tests statutory subject matter for US patents?

In a recent decision (AMP v. USPTO) from the US District Court, patent claims directed at DNA sequences corresponding to human genes and to diagnostic tests based on such genes have been found to be invalid, primarily on the basis that the DNA molecules claimed, which included cDNA, primers and probes, are 'products of nature' and are thus unpatentable. If upheld, this decision will have considerable impact on the ability of biotechnical companies and universities to patent the results of their research. In this article, we will explain the basis for this decision and discuss the appropriateness of patenting discoveries and their (obvious) uses in the light of this fascinating case. While our focus will primarily be on the product claims, diagnostic method claims were also revoked in AMP v. USPTO on the basis that they were for mental acts or did not involve any 'transformation of matter'. This will be discussed in the light of the recent US Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos, which focused on the patent-eligibility of process claims

Technology Worth Patenting

Inevitably scarce resources are better invested in deciding which [patent] applications are worth filing and seeking the broadest defensible claims for those that are chosen. Whether a patent can be obtained for less than, say, $10,000 is the wrong question. Whether a patent is worth having is the better question—particularly from the standpoint of prospective licensees

Compliance of Canada’s Utility Doctrine with International Minimum Standards of Patent Protection

This article analyzes the Canadian court case of Eli Lilly v. Novopharm and the utility doctrine in Canada, and international standards of patent protection including TRIPS and NAFTA. The ‘‘promise of the patent’’ doctrine in Canada seeks to ensure that firms do not obtain a legal monopoly on the basis of speculative claims about increased utility — especially claims about therapeutic efficacy — that were unsubstantiated at the time of filing. Under this test, some of Eli Lilly’s patented pharmaceutical products have been invalidated retroactively

Beta-Testing the “Particular Machine”: The Machine-or-Transformation Test in Peril and Its Impact on Cloud Computing

This Issue Brief examines recent cases addressing the patent eligibility of computer-implemented method claims and their implications for the development of cloud computing technologies. Despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to endorse the machine-or-transformation test as the exclusive patent eligibility inquiry, lower courts have continued to invalidate method claims using a stringent “particular machine” requirement alongside the requisite abstract ideas analysis. This Issue Brief argues that 1) post-Bilski v. Kappos cases have failed to elucidate what constitutes a particular machine for computer-implemented methods; 2) in light of substantial variance among Federal Circuit judges’ Section 101 jurisprudence, the application of the particular machine requirement has become subject to a high degree of panel-dependency, such that its relevance for analyzing software method claims has come under question; 3) notwithstanding the unease expressed by practitioners and scholars for the future of cloud computing patents, the courts’ hardening stance toward computer-implemented method claims will do little to deter patenting in the cloud computing context. Instead, clouds delivering platform and software services will remain capable of satisfying the particular machine requirement and supporting patent eligibility, especially given the possible dilution of the particular machine requirement itself

The Unresolved Interpretive Ambiguity of Patent Claims

Claims are at the heart of every major patent related issue. Most importantly, they determine a patent\u27s potent rights of exclusion. Yet, we cannot predict how courts will set the exact boundaries of claims. This renders smooth operation of the patent system near impossible. For some time, scholars have theorized that a basic policy disagreement is a source of this uncertainty. Some judges favor narrower patents, some favor broader and judges will naturally tend toward their policy preference. Policy disagreements result in claim uncertainty. Recently, scholars Tun- Jen Chiang and Lawrence Solum have taken this view further arguing that this policy debate is the only problem preventing clear and consistent understanding of patent claims. That position is premature; there is another unnoticed and somewhat antecedent source of confusion. Patent law has not made clear what a patent claim (for lack of a better verb) claims. Patent applicants are surely delineating a boundary with their claims but patent law has not made clear what we are drawing the boundary around. When we write claims, exactly what question are we supposed to be answering? It is not clear whether a claim in a patent application is the statement I claim to have invented the following things or instead the request I would like to claim exclusionary dominion over the following things. These are different in kind. Unfortunately both understandings have doctrinal support and both are operating simultaneously yet confusingly in patent law today. The proper way to handle patent claims depends on which view is correct. The uncertainty and disagreements that are plaguing patent law can be explained not just as a policy dispute but instead as confusion over this basic understanding of patent claims. This article outlines these two conflicting views, their implications for patent law and how we should resolve the ambiguity. Correctly understood, though claims are central in determining exclusion, we should nonetheless interpret initial patent claims as the statement I claim to have invented the following things