Archive for the ‘Patents’ Category

How Do You Measure Innovation?

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
By: Fernando Torres, MSc

That is one of the questions United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) director David Kappos asks himself – and the intellectual property community at large – in a brief but important interview granted to Fast Company. It is a particularly important these days of open innovation, open source, creative commons, and patent reform to bring to the foreground this type of interrogatories.

Are Patents the Answer?

For a long time, the number of patent filings has been widely quoted as a prime indicator of innovation. For the last few years, for example, IBM has been credited with the highest number of patent filings and grants of any US-based corporation, at a rate of 2,500 patents issued per year (See IBM’s Patent Portfolio). That number does not necessarily reflect innovation because, among other issues, it does not correlate with the number or value of actual products or services brought to market, or new technologies deployed and, most importantly, it does not consider innovations that are not patented.

Innovation in Mobile

As Director Kappos points out in the interview, large parts of the clearly innovative technology industry are powered by open-source software. Consider the prime example of the Android operating system for mobile platforms, which these days is the operating system behind the fastest growing segments of the smart phone and tablet computing segments (See iSuppli Press Release). On the other hand, many companies seek patents to stifle competition and, to that extent, innovation. A clear example of this problem is also the current environment in the mobile phone/computing segments where a veritable web of lawsuits links most players in the industry, including Apple, Motorola, HTC, Microsoft, Oracle (Java), RIM, and Nokia (See e.g., Wired).

Innovative Alternatives

In part as a consequence of the type of environment illustrated by the mobile industry, the open innovation movement has emerged in recent years as an alternative to foster decentralized and collaborative efforts to bring innovations to market. Re-born out of Henry Chesbrough’s 2003 book, Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology
(Boston, Harvard Business School Press), the open innovation paradigm aims to foster the transfer and dissemination of ideas first, rather than prioritizing patent licensing and exclusive research.

An Open Question

If the promotion of research and development efforts aiming at prompting innovation leading to new sustainable technologies and improved consumer products is important, then the question of measuring innovation is more than an academic or rhetorical one. From our perspective, identifying the key indicators of the scope and speed of innovation is relevant if we are to optimally allocate effort, people, and resources to accelerate not just an economic recovery, but the continued improvement of the standard of living in all areas of the globalized economy.

 

 

 

Patent (partial) Reform Passes Senate

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

As we have been watching recently, e.g. Reforms to Be Considered and First to File, two specific areas of damages in the proposed reforms to the Patent System, the False Patent Marking provisions (35 USC §292) and the Patent Infringement Remedies (35 USC §284), had mixed results as several sections were stricken along the way to a 95/5 vote.  The First-to-File system overhaul did pass, however, and will change corporate IP management strategies if the modified bill makes it through the House of Representatives.

False Marking

Current law allows “Any person” to sue for the “$500 for every such offense” penalty (35 USC 292(b)) and this has created a veritable cottage industry of “patent marking chasers,” particularly ever since the $500 penalty has been applied to each item so marked, creating windfall profits to the filers (and the US Treasury).

The reform bill as passed did change this subsection with the following language: ”(b) Any person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation of this section may file a civil action in a district court of the United States for recovery of damages adequate to compensate for the injury.” Consequently, the reform on this issue aims at limiting recovery to compensatory damages to persons with actual damages, restoring rationality to this niche of patent litigation.

Damages Determination

The proposed reform included, for Section 284 – Damages, adding a subsection specifying the procedure for determining damages.  It did not make it into the bill as passed. In fact, there is no instance of the number 284 in the whole document.

For the complete bill as passed by the senate, see this download from the GPO.