In this episode of "Ask The Patent Attorney," Martin Schweiger interviews Craige Thompson, JD, EE, PE. Craige explains the golden key to avoiding multiple office actions.   

Litigation Quality Patent PatentCast

LQP Ask The Patent Attorney: What is the key to avoiding office actions?

Summary:   ​In this episode of "Ask The Patent Attorney," Martin Schweiger interviews Craige Thompson, JD, EE, PE explains how to  secure IP rights for a series of inventive concepts.   The Patent Offense Book: Portfolio Manager's Guide to 7 Steps to a Safe, Secure Patent Portfolio

LQP Ask The Patent Attorney: How do you secure IP rights for a series of inventive concepts?

Summary: In this episode of "Ask The Patent Attorney," Martin Schweiger interviews Craige Thompson, JD, EE, PE explains his thoughts on the America Invents Act.  This show was originally posted in full here: ip-lawyer-tools.com Martin Schweiger´s firm Schweiger & Partners

Ask the Patent Attorney: Thoughts on the America Invents Act

Summary: What is the R&D Tax Credit?  Welcome to this special edition of the Litigation Quality Patent PatentCast. I’m Your Host Craige Thompson of Thomson Patent Law. This is a very special podcast because we're joined by Jeff Holmberg who's a manager a CPA with Froehling Anderson, out of the Minneapolis Minnesota office. He's going to teach us something very important for in the inventors and innovators who are seeking patents and are doing R&D.  We are going to talk about the very important R&D tax credit program. Jeff is an expert in he has been doing this for a long time in his career and specializing in the area and on this R&D Tax Credit. The R&D Tax Credit is especially important to people who get patents, because you know, we want to pay as little to the government as possible. That's the idea here when you're doing research and development.

LQ PatentCast: R & D Tax Credit

Although ZeroClick's finger gesture patents were temporarily brought back to life on appeal, Apple has ample avenues to kill it off permanently on remand back to the trial court in the Northern District of California.  The patent, which was drafted pro se by a doctor who wanted to improve the patient charting process without having to click on a pointer, was not invalid on the ground that it should be interpreted in means plus function form (if it were so interpreted, it would likely have stayed dead).  Apple does not appear worried.  Apple appears to have simply used the opportunity on a relatively weak patent to try to undermine a huge swath of all software patents that might have been subject to means plus function rules.  Had Apple been successful, many more software patents would have been put on life support.  However, the Federal Circuit reversed Apple's win below, and the result is that software patent claims are more likely to survive if they recite terms like "User Interface Code" or "Program Code," which makes them more likely to be considered sufficiently definite structure (like "circuit" is for hardware), and less likely to fall under the more challenging means plus function rules.

LQ PatentCast: ZeroClick, LLC v. Apple Inc.

As the CEO of a technologies company, have you thought about what would happen if your top engineers walked out the door with a patentable idea and started a very profitable business? Every employment agreement these days should have a clause obligating employees to assign their rights and invention to your company. However, this doesn’t always happen. Every engineer will leave their current position at some point, and some of them will leave with extremely valuable ideas in their heads that they have been moonlighting on. In today’s PatentCast, discover how an engineer walked out with valuable patentable ideas when his company was focused on GPS technologies for surveying applications. This former employer lost out on the “Big Win” when they could have had a very profitable idea without expensive or risky litigation.  

What would happen if your top engineers walked out the door with a patentable idea?

Is Your Patent Attorney Getting You the Right Claims? The first episode was about Litigation Quality Patent Claim Criteria. We went through the twelve, high-level claim criteria areas that you can use as a checklist to assess Litigation Quality Patent claims. Whether you’re getting those claims that have been through those considerations or not. And today, we’re going to ask the other half of that question: what about claim scope? Am I getting Litigation Quality Patent Claim Scope when I’m filing my patent application? How can you tell?   If you missed it, click here to listen to episode 1.

Ask The Patent Attorney: Is My Attorney Getting Me The Right Claims? (Part 2)

Today we have a special Ask the Patent Attorney two-episode edition, answering the question: "Is my patent attorney getting me the right claims?" To answer that question, we’re going to break this up into two parts. The first part is the Litigation Quality Patent Claim Criteria, and the second part is the Litigation Quality Patent Claim Scope. You need to have both to assess and give you a proper answer to the question that maybe isn’t frequently asked but should be asked. If I were a client of a patent attorney, this is the top of my asked questions.  

Ask The Patent Attorney: Is My Attorney Getting Me The Right Claims? (Part 1)

This is an important case from 2014. It is part of our post-Alice software series of Litigation Quality PatentCasts because it’s about an important decision that’s often cited in prosecution literature, in IPRs, and in litigation in favor of patent eligibility for software claims in certain circumstances. Alice is the Supreme Court decision, and it has set the bar and the two-step Alice test for analyzing whether claims are patent-eligible subject matter, or whether they’re too abstract, to be patentable.

LQ PatentCast: DDR Holdings v Digital River

In this installment of the Post-Alice Software Series, the Federal Circuit burns off some of the fog surrounding software claims at Step 2 of the Alice inquiry.  The case of SAP vs. Investpic appears to directly answer, for the first time, whether a claim can lack the “inventive concept” needed to survive Alice, even though the claims are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant” as well as non-obvious.  Now we know that an “inventive concept” cannot be found in the non-abstract realm, e.g., the claimed improvement can’t be an improvement to merely abstract “math.” 

LQ PatentCast: SAP America v. Investpic

In this enlightening review of Microsoft's successful non-infringement defense against Mastermine's software patent relating to pivot tables, Craige exposes the 4 layers that must be considered to properly interpret a patent claim.  Craige provides crucial insights into the subtleties of each layer that make the difference between successful patent enforcement and just getting close but falling short, as Mastermine did with their claims.  As a bonus, Craige takes this case as a rare opportunity to explore hybrid claiming techniques, showing the factors that courts look at to decide when to permit both method and apparatus elements to be recited in the same claim - which can produce very powerful claims, for example, to protect software! 

LQ PatentCast: Mastermine Software V Microsoft

When is software that automates a human task patentable? When is it too abstract to be patentable? In this special edition of the post-Alice software PatentCast series, Craige explains how the automation software claims were indeed patentable. Craige extracts key themes that pop up in many software litigations, and explains how to apply the lessons learned to create and enforce Litigation Quality Patents®

LQ PatentCast MCRO v. Bandai Namco

No! Common sense or ordinary creativity cannot substitute for reasoned analysis and evidence! This puts a bar, albeit a low bar, on the PTO’s ability to waive their hands and find patent claims obvious. Listen to Craige explain how Apple and the PTO could not get over this bar to invalidate an early “IOT” claim. Visit us at https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/

IPR PTABCast: DSS Technology v. Apple

Disaster befalls a patent owner whom they decided not to tell the Patent Office about 61 sales using the claimed intervention before the patent’s critical date. Craige explains how they hurt themselves in the patent office, which led to them losing their patent, getting sued for tortious interference, and paying the competitors legal fees on top of damages!

IPR PTABCast: Energy Heating V Heat on-the-fly

Did you know... fear from being sued and future business losses does not give you the right to sue a patent owner to get their patent declared invalid/ not infringed? Craige explains how manufacturers can defend themselves by a “DJ” (declaratory judgment) attack under some facts, but not others

LQ PatentCast: Allied Mineral Products v. OSMI

The Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, hosted by Craige Thompson (a.k.a., “The Examiner Whisperer”) contains substantive discussion designed to keep you current with what’s going on in the world of patents, encompassing everything from patent prosecution and re-examination to patent licensing and litigation.

hubhopper

Litigation Quality Patent PatentCast

hubhopper