The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) posted an update on its official website yesterday with information about its activities during the shutdown. Up until this point, the USPTO has been operating through the use of prior-year fee collections. The USPTO now expects that patent operations will continue to function normally until “at least the second week in February”, while trademark operations will continue normally until “at least mid-April 2019”. Applicants and registrants should plan to comply with all outstanding deadlines in pending matters – even if the USPTO is forced to limit activities as a result of the shutdown. While the expectation is that the USPTO website and electronic filing system will continue to function normally and will accept submissions after this timeframe, applicants and registrants should be prepared to make other filing arrangements if necessary.
On October 23, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) invalidated a design patent over the shape of an aircraft lavatory, because it had been on-sale prior to the filing date. U.S. Design Patent No. D764,031 S (“the ‘031 patent”) concerned the ornamental design of an aircraft lavatory where the walls were slightly recessed.
Whereas a utility patent covers the way an invention is used and how it works, a design patent solely protects the ornamental appearance of an invention.
The On-Sale Bar
Under 35 U.S.C.A. § 102(a)(1), an inventor is not entitled to a patent if the claimed invention was “described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” This is known as the “on-sale bar.” Here, the PTAB invalidated the ‘031 patent because the patent holder B/E Aerospace, Inc. (the “Patent Owner”) was selling the design prior to the filing date of the patent.
The patent challenger, C & D Zodiac, Inc., specifically pointed to a slide show presentation created by the Patent Owner, as evidence that the lavatory design was on sale and in public use prior to the date of filing. The Patent Owner’s presentation noted that it had received an $800 million contract to sell its lavatory design to Boeing. Photographic evidence showed the lavatory which was being sold to Boeing was virtually identical in design to the ‘031 patent.
Thus, the PTAB found, based on preponderance of the evidence, that the design claimed by the ‘031 patent was embodied by the product that the Patent Owner was already selling, prior to the filing date of the patent. Accordingly, the ‘031 patent was invalidated pursuant to the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C.A. § 102(a)(1).
This article was originally published in the New York City Bar Association’s Aeronautics Committee Newsletter. The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily of the City Bar.
The decision of the PTAB is available at: C&D Zodiac Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., No. PGR2017-00019, 2018 WL 5298631 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018).
The U.S. Copyright Act permits, but does not require, registration of copyright-protected works with the U.S. Copyright Office. Nevertheless, under the U.S. Copyright Act, registration by the Copyright Office (or ruling by the Copyright Office refusing to register) is, among other things, a prerequisite to bringing a copyright infringement action. The federal courts have long disagreed about whether an application for registration satisfies the rule. In other words, does the copyright owner have to wait for the Copyright Office to rule on the registration application before suing?
The United States Supreme Court has now agreed to hear a case that could resolve this long-disputed issue. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, LLC., Case No. 17-571. The appeal is from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which held – recognizing the disagreement among the courts – that a registration application is insufficient to sue.
Whichever way the Supreme Court rules, early registration has distinct advantages for the copyright owner. Advantages includes easier proofs at trial on liability and damages and the possibility of collecting attorneys’ fees for registration applications filed before infringement begins or, for published works, within three months of publication.
In the globalized economy, it can be hard for businesses to know what country’s laws apply. The stakes can be especially high in patent cases, which often involve millions and even billions of dollars.
The United States Supreme Court gave patent owners a victory on one aspect of this controversy last week. In Westerngeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Slip Op. No. 16-1011 (June 22, 2018), the Court held that an owner of a United States patent can be awarded lost profits that a competitor earns outside the United States.
Westerngeco owned U.S. patents for a system used to survey the ocean floor. A competitor, ION Geophysical Corp., began selling competing systems. ION made some of those competing systems in the United States; they were found to infringe Westerngeco’s patents, and a trial jury awarded Westerngeco $12.5 million in royalties. That award was not at issue before the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court did consider was the jury’s additional award of $93.4 million in lost profits for sales outside the U.S. ION made some specialized components inside the U.S. and then shipped them overseas, where there were assembled into systems that would infringe Westerngeco’s U.S. patents if made or sold in the U.S. ION sold these systems to foreign customers who, presumably, would otherwise have purchased from Westerngeco.
Patents are issued on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. Generally, an owner of a U.S. patent cannot recover for conduct in a foreign country, even if that conduct would infringe the U.S. patent. In other words, conduct outside the U.S. generally cannot infringe a U.S. patent because the U.S. patent owner’s rights are limited to the U.S. To recover for conduct in a foreign country, that conduct generally must infringe a valid patent issued in that foreign country and the patent owner must sue the infringing party in that foreign country.
The Patent Act, however, has a section that arguably gives U.S. patents “extraterritorial” effects in specific circumstances. One of those circumstances is when someone “especially make[s] or especially adapt[s]” components of a U.S.-patented invention “for use in the invention” knowing it will be used overseas in a way that would infringe the U.S. patent if made or used on U.S. soil. 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2). Under this provision, a person who makes a specially designed component in the U.S. with the intention that it be used outside the U.S. in a way that would infringe the U.S. patent is an infringer of the U.S. patent. That is what the jury found ION did.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether Westerngeco could recover lost profits that the infringer, ION, earned from sales abroad. The Supreme Court held that it can. The Court reasoned that the infringing activity – the manufacture of the specially-made components on U.S. soil – was a domestic, not a foreign, act. The Court held the statute permitted recovery of lost overseas profits for that domestic act of infringement. The Court therefore affirmed a $93.4 million foreign lost profits award that dwarfed the $12.5 million in royalties awarded for ION’s sales on U.S. soil.
The Supreme Court’s decision was arguably narrow. It turned on a particular section of the Patent Act that seeks to redress clear efforts to evade U.S. patent law. It remains to be seen whether the decision will be given a wider interpretation. Nonetheless, as Westerngeco itself shows, the dollar consequences of splitting otherwise infringing conduct among multiple jurisdictions can be substantial.
One little-publicized part of the new tax law (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017) may negatively affect the value of some patents and other intellectual property. It does so by changing the tax treatment of income from sales of “patents, models and secret formulas or processes” from capital gains to ordinary income.
Prior to the amendment of Tax Code Section 1221(a)(3), income from sales of (1) “patents, models and secret formulas or processes,” (2) held by the IP creator, (3) for more than one year, was taxed at the capital gains rate. This resulted in lower tax than the ordinary income tax rate that applied to other types of IP, such as copyrights, literary, musical, and artistic compositions. Congress has now taken this tax advantage away.
The change in the law affects those that sell or license IP in the “primary market” only —in other words, the original creators of the IP. It generally does not affect those that have paid to own the IP, including the IP creators’ employers.
There still remains an exception under Tax Code Section 1235 providing for lower tax on sales and licensing of all rights to patents, secret formulas and trade names (but only these types of IP). For other types of IP, adjustments in sale prices and license royalties will need to compensate for the higher tax under the new law.
Our tax and IP groups can help you assess the new law’s impact on these valuable assets.