The White House Moves Against "Patent Trolls"

Today the Obama Administration announced “five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in our system.”  The announcement is here.  The recommendations are below.  The recommendations that seem especially interesting include: expanding challenges to computer enabled patents at the PTO; changing the standard for issuance of injunctions at the International Trade Commission; incentivizing public disclosure of demand letters; increasing efforts to identify the real parties in interest; and making new rules concerning functional claiming in the software context. 

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

In that spirit, the Administration recommends that Congress pursue at least seven legislative measures that would have immediate effect on some major problems innovators face.  These measures would:

1. Require patentees and applicants to disclose the “Real Party-in-Interest,” by requiring that any party sending demand letters, filing an infringement suit or seeking PTO review of a patent to file updated ownership information, and enabling the PTO or district courts to impose sanctions for non-compliance.
2. Permit more discretion in awarding fees to prevailing parties in patent cases, providing district courts with more discretion to award attorney’s fees under 35 USC 285 as a sanction for abusive court filings (similar to the legal standard that applies in copyright infringement cases).
3. Expand the PTO’s transitional program for covered business method patents to include a broader category of computer-enabled patents and permit a wider range of challengers to petition for review of issued patents before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).
4. Protect off-the-shelf use by consumers and businesses by providing them with better legal protection against liability for a product being used off-the-shelf and solely for its intended use.  Also, stay judicial proceedings against such consumers when an infringement suit has also been brought against a vendor, retailer, or manufacturer.
5. Change the ITC standard for obtaining an injunction to better align it with the traditional four-factor test in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, to enhance consistency in the standards applied at the ITC and district courts.
6. Use demand letter transparency to help curb abusive suits, incentivizing public filing of demand letters in a way that makes them accessible and searchable to the public.
7. Ensure the ITC has adequate flexibility in hiring qualified Administrative Law Judges.

EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

Today the Administration is also announcing a number of steps it is taking to help bring about greater transparency to the patent system and level the playing field for innovators.  Those steps include:

1. Making “Real Party-in-Interest” the New Default.  Patent trolls often set up shell companies to hide their activities and enable their abusive litigation and extraction of settlements.  This tactic prevents those facing litigation from knowing the full extent of the patents that their adversaries hold when negotiating settlements, or even knowing connections between multiple trolls.  Today, the PTO will begin a rulemaking process to require patent applicants and owners to regularly update ownership information when they are involved in proceedings before the PTO, specifically designating the “ultimate parent entity” in control of the patent or application.
2. Tightening Functional Claiming.  The AIA made important improvements to the examination process and overall patent quality, but stakeholders remain concerned about patents with overly broad claims — particularly in the context of software.  The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field.
3. Empowering Downstream Users.  Patent trolls are increasingly targeting Main Street retailers, consumers and other end-users of products containing patented technology — for instance, for using point-of-sale software or a particular business method.  End-users should not be subject to lawsuits for simply using a product as intended, and need an easier way to know their rights before entering into costly litigation or settlement.  Today, the PTO is announcing new education and outreach materials, including an accessible, plain-English web site offering answers to common questions by those facing demands from a possible troll.
4. Expanding Dedicated Outreach and Study.  Challenges to U.S. innovation using tools available in the patent space are particularly dynamic, and require both dedicated attention and meaningful data.  Engagement with stakeholders — including patent holders, research institutions, consumer advocates, public interest groups, and the general public — is also an important part of our work moving forward.  Roundtables and workshops that the PTO, DOJ, and FTC have held in 2012 have offered invaluable input to this process.  Today, we are announcing an expansion of our outreach efforts, including six months of high-profile events across the country to develop new ideas and consensus around updates to patent policies and laws.  We are also announcing an expansion of the PTO Edison Scholars Program, which will bring distinguished academic experts to the PTO to develop — and make available to the public — more robust data and research on the issues bearing on abusive litigation.
5. Strengthen Enforcement Process of Exclusion Orders. Once the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds a violation of Section 337 and issues an exclusion order barring the importation of infringing goods, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the ITC are responsible for determining whether imported articles fall within the scope of the exclusion order. Implementing these orders present unique challenges given these shared responsibilities and the complexity of making this determination, particularly in cases in which a technologically sophisticated product such as a smartphone has been successfully redesigned to not fall within the scope of the exclusion order. To address this concern, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator will launch an interagency review of existing procedures that CBP and the ITC use to evaluate the scope of exclusion orders and work to ensure the process and standards utilized during exclusion order enforcement activities are transparent, effective, and efficient.

German sublicensees enjoy protection even after termination of main licence

The German Federal Court BGH issued two decisions today aimed at protecting investors in intellectual property licences. Both decisions concerned copyright issues in which the copyright owner licensed the copyright to a licensee, but later terminated the license. The licensee had in the meantime sub-licensed the rights to others. The question in both cases was whether the sub-licensees still had a right to use the intellectual property. The court decided yes - the investments made by the sub-licensees justified the continuation of the licence. The court made it clear that its decision also applied to other IP rights, such as patents, trade marks and design rights.

The first decision concerned a software licence. The owner of the copyright had given a company its exclusive rights to a software program. The licensee in turn sub-licensed a further company to use the software. The main licence was cancelled due to non-payment of licence fees. The copyright owner sued for copyright infringement due to continued use of the software. The court decided that the termination of the main licence did not lead to a resultant termination of the sub-licence agreement. The sub-licensee had a continuing right to use the software.

The second decision concerned the rights to the jazz piece “Take Five” from Paul Desmond. The copyright owner assigned the European rights to a music publishing house, which in turn licensed these rights for Germany and Austria to a sub-licensee. The original licence was terminated in 1986 and the court was asked to rule on whether the sub-licensee still had the rights to the music in Germany and Austria. The court agreed that the rights were still in existence, despite the termination of the main licence.

The court came to its decisions by reviewing German Intellectual Property Laws relating not only to copyright, but also to trade marks, design rights and patents. It concluded that there was a principle under German law according to which licences remained in existence, even if the underlying IP right was assigned to another owner. The sub-licensee would have invested on the basis of the existence of the licence. It could normally neither influence nor foresee the termination of the main licence. It might suffer great economic damage or even be threatened in existence if the continued existence was in doubt.

The owner of the copyright (in this case) would not be adversely affected since it could usually require its former licensee to assign the proceeds from the sub-licence to the copyright owner.

Tax allowance for cost of acquiring right to use software

Via this blogger's friends on the UKSC Blog comes this link to the news of a forthcoming hearing by the United Kingdom's Supreme Court. The case is Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Tower MCashback LLP and another (Respondents).  According to the UKSC Blog,

"The Supreme Court will consider ... a substantive issue (whether expenditure on the acquisition of a right to use software, which was funded by non-recourse loans from the owner of the software, can qualify for an allowance under section 45 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (the “CAA”))".

The two-day hearing in this case will begin on 21 February 2011.

Software: Precautions Against Supplier Insolvency

What would you do if the supplier of your critical systems went insolvent?

In times of economic uncertainty, industries associated with software and technology services are highly likely to suffer. They are heavily reliant on solvent customers themselves, and on those with a sufficient degree of disposable budget to spend on non-essential work, such as software developments and updates (as opposed to rent, bills, wages, etc...). If the software companies are vulnerable, so too are their clients; and -- like it or not -- almost every business is the client of a software company.

Computer software is commonly used and found in most businesses and for every software program there is a source code without whch the software cannot be sold. Importantly this code enables the software to be revised and maintained. Source code is mostly protected by copyright.

Software may be developed by a third party for a client exclusively, or it may be licensed. More often than not it is leased or purchased ‘off the shelf’ and not owned by the business using it. As most of a business’s software is licensed, it will not be transferable and it will probably not available for assignment by the official receiver as liquidator or trustee. Further, as discussed in my previous articles [see note on Tuesday articles in the right hand side-bar], companies should be aware that the official receiver can disclaim onerous property under the Insolvency Act 1986; and that includes licences which may be a critical part of your business.


“But wait”, I hear you say “I own the IP in my software because it was developed for me. That means I’m safe doesn’t it?”. Not necessarily; even when bespoke software is developed exclusively for a company, the software company may still own the IP rights to some or all of the code behind the product. In such circumstances the official receiver should consider the agreement entered into with the supplier in light of both restrictions on assignments and the ownership of copyright. If a software supplier has 'invented' the software for the insolvents use it is likely that they will own it and not the insolvent.

If the software has been developed within the business this may give rise to problems as the individual designing the software may be a contractor rather than an employee. If that is the case the agreements by which that contractor is engaged should be carefully examined to determine who owns any IP rights created.


As a business you should establish at a minimum: (1) who holds the IP rights for your critical software; and (2) where would you find that source code should the company that developed it go bust. Number 2 is easier said than done. The owners or creators of software should not be relied upon to provide information on the location of software they have developed for you after they have gone into liquidation and it is unlikely that the official receiver will know where to begin.

One way of ensuring you know exactly where your code is and how to get to it is to have an escrow agreement built into any software agreement you enter into. Escrow agreements allow code (and other property) to be held upon agreement of the parties by a neutral third party. Code subject to the agreement will they only be released according to the agreement upon the fulfilment of its terms.

You should ensure that the conditions which stipulate the release of source code are looked at in order to determine when and in what way they can be enforced. You should also ensure the agreement allows the beneficiary to request a third party verify the code subject to the escrow is complete and this right should be exercised! You may view verification as an unnecessary expensive, but it can be invaluable. If the escrowed code is defunct it is essentially worthless and by the time you find out it is worthless, the liquidated company may not be in a position to help you locate the correct code.

Many businesses value critical transactions and contracts by value. However, this can be fatal when reviewing your software contracts for criticality. You may find that a critical software package that controls you payment systems cost almost nothing to develop, but consider for a moment wht would happen if that software stopped working and the company which developed it went into liquidation; it may have huge knock-on consequences to your business revenue.

In fact a low value contract is likely to be related to a smaller vendor and smaller vendors are more likely to be impacted by the economic downturn and have insufficient safety mechanisms when they do. Therefore your low value contracts may be the critical ones when reviewing your software safeguards in the economic downturn.

So it is not just the criticality of your contracts that you should be managing; you should also ensure that you are aware of the financial state of your suppliers. This way you can direct your resources to deal with the suppliers controlling your critical IP that are financially exposed.

Before a company goes into liquidation, look out for the warning signs that they are in trouble. For instance, has there been a drop in service provided by the company to your business? Have their accounts and annual returns been posted late? In times of financial difficulty, the accounts department will often be distracted by other pressures and overlook accounts filing deadlines. Often when a business is getting into financial difficulty, VAT and PAYE/NIC payments are regularly made late as available cash is being used to pay suppliers to keep the business running. In such cases HMRC will often apply for a business to be wound up if crown debts are continually left unpaid. To protect your interests make sure that if you are aware your supplier of software may go bankrupt ensure you follow the company closely and involve yourself in the insolvency proceedings.

And finally, a note to those dealing with insolvent companies. It has recently been reported that former employees of Factor 5 Inc in the US, who declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May, are being sued by former employees for fraudulently hiding assets before declaring bankruptcy in order to avoid paying employees and other debtors. The company ran into trouble when Brash Entertainment, whom it had signed a publishing deal, fell victim to its own financial difficulties and went under, which ended funding for Factor 5's project and eventually forced it to close down as well. The suit alleges that prior to the bankruptcy, the founders of Factor 5 created a new company called Blue Harvest, to which they "fraudulently transferred assets, including source code and other intellectual property," including a partially-completed version of Star Wars: Rogue Squadron for the Wii. It is alleged in the complaint that Factor 5 and White Harvest are essentially the same company. When dealing with an insolvent's estate it may be worth checking, have the rights to code and other IP rights been transferred ‘on mass’ just prior to liquidation? This is easy enough to see when directors transfer houses to their spouses, but may not be as apparent with unregistered rights such as copyright.


Tomorrow I’ll be popping along to give a talk at Winston & Strawn’s Bootlaw Session with my colleague Ian Silcock from Hardwicke Building. It’s free of charge to attend and if you would like further details you can have a look at Bootlaw’s Meet Up page.