600px-US-PatentTrademarkOffice-Seal.svg-780190.png

Can the Innovation Act's Fee Shifting Slay the Patent Trolls?

May 11, 2015

by Alex Lee, Penn Law ’17

By now, we've all heard the media recount the story of the patent troll. Patent trolls, or non-practice entities (NPE’s), are typically companies that don’t make products, but instead operate by licensing and enforcing patent rights against accused infringers. Since an NPE’s success hinges on its ability to draw profits from litigation and licensing fees, its incentives for filing claims and threatening infringement suits often do not mirror those of companies who are trying to protect their products on the market. Figures from United Patents, an organization whose goal is to reduce NPE litigation, report that 61% of all patent cases in 2014 involved NPE’s. Because litigating these suits costs billions of dollars on the economy each year, many organizations across industries and government see these suits as frivolous and burdensome on innovation. As a result, they are clamoring for changes to the system.

For KFC's New Edible Coffee Cup, the IP Rights are Worth Chewing Over

March 23, 2015

by Thomas Chisena, Penn Law '16

Photo: KFC.

Last month, beloved fast-food restaurant KFC announced that they are unveiling a new product – edible coffee cups, which are set to make their debut in the U.K. this summer. This new innovation, dubbed the “Scoff-ee” cup, was the brainchild of KFC and British “food futurologists,” the Robin Collective. According to KFC’s press release, the cup is formed from a special cookie coated with a paper sugar, and lined with a layer of heat-resistant white chocolate. The white chocolate prevents the cookie from getting soggy and the cup from dissolving. As you sip and savor the coffee, the white chocolate lining slowly melts and adds flavor. Even better – these cups are not just delicious, but are also aromatic. The cups are infused with fragrances of coconut sunscreen, flowers, and freshly cut grass. KFC claims the scents are designed to "evoke the positive memories we associate with warm weather, sunshine and summer holidays."

Does the Decision in Alice Leave Software Patents in Wonderland?

November 30, 2014

By Alex Lee, Penn Law '17

Suppose I create a new computer program that gathers all the data on the personal computer of every student at Penn and uses a highly accurate matchmaking algorithm to pair students with their ideal Penn mate. I call it “PENNty of Fish.” For PENNty of Fish to work, students install the program on their personal computer, run the program, and discover their perfect match. Privacy and creepiness issues aside - is PENNty of Fish patentable? The recent Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l provided some guidance, but left many questions unanswered.

Photos from the 2014 Symposium

March 20, 2014

Photos from the 7th Annual PIPG Symposium

Patent Law: The New, the Disruptive, & the Debate

Inter Partes Reviews – How Will They Affect the Future of Patent Litigation?

March 6, 2014

When the America Invents Act (AIA) went into full effect on March 16, 2013, it brought along with it some major changes to American patent law. The most significant change was to switch the American first-to-invent patent-filing system to align with the system used around the world, first-to-file. Along with this major change came a new kind of “post-grant” proceeding called inter partes review, or IPR. Post-grant review proceedings are used to allow parties to challenge the validity of recently granted patents outside of federal court – in the Patent and Trademark Office.

Deterring Patent Trolls: A Small Voice for the Trolls

November 23, 2013

By Weining Bai, Penn Law ‘16 In the event that you’re not fluent in I.P. law jargon, and for some reason happen to be reading this, how does the term “patent assertion entity” grab you? Most will probably find the term neutral or perhaps even constructive, and have no idea what it means. Google it, and one of the top results you will see, is the link to the Wikipedia entry for “Patent Troll.” Now that probably sounds much more familiar.

Deterring Patent Trolls: SCOTUS Cases to Watch

October 30, 2013

By Kaiyi Xie, L’16, USPTO Reg. No. 70381

Non-practicing entities (a more sanguine term for patent trolls) most directly burden small and medium-sized companies with litigation and settlement costs. This cost totaled $29 billion in 2011, according to Boston University School of Law researchers. That’s more than the government shutdown’s $26 billion cost to the U.S.