USPTO Notice to Correct Application Papers -Patent Law

Notice to Correct Application Papers

What is a Notice to Correct Application Papers?

The notice means United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has found an issue with the  filing (the way the paperwork looks, or what’s included in, or a clarification is needed your application) and is asking you to correct them and resubmit. Your time in which to do so is limited, if you want to retain the original filing date (and we know you want to keep that earliest date!)

A Notice to Correct Application Papers can be issued anytime during the pendency of a Nonprovisional Patent Application, but it will usually be sent shortly after your Patent Application is filed.

Your Filing May Be Considered “Informal”

Section 506 of the USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure reads:

“III. INFORMAL APPLICATIONS

An application is informal if it is typed on both sides of the paper, or is not permanent, legible, or reproducible. If such informalities are timely corrected, the application is given the filing date on which the original informal papers were filed.

OPAP accords a filing date, as of the date indicated by the “Office Date” stamp (see MPEP 505), to application papers which include a specification containing a description and at least one claim (nonprovisional applications filed under 37 C.F.R. 1.53(b) prior to March 18, 2013 and design applications), and a drawing, if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) and 37 C.F.R. 1.53(b), but are informal because they do not comply with the rules or notices. In such applications, OPAP will send a Notice (e.g., Notice to File Corrected Application Papers) requiring correction of the informality. Failure to correct the informality within the specified time results in abandonment of the application.”

Case Study: The Situation

  • Our company’s Dallas R&D department filed a US Provisional Patent Application for one the company’s electromechanical gadgets. Before the expiration of the Provisional Patent Application, our company filed a US Nonprovisional Patent Application claiming the benefit of the US Provisional Application. Our in-house patent attorney located at our principal office in Houston had previously used this strategy to procure several US Patents.
  • Among other things, the Nonprovisional Patent Application included: an Abstract, Claims, a Specification and black and white line Drawings.
  • After filing the Nonprovisional Application, the USPTO generated a Notice to File Missing Parts because one of the inventor’s Declarations was missing from the as-filed Application. After receiving the Notice to File Missing Parts, our in-house counsel timely supplied the missing inventor’s Declaration to the USPTO.
  • Over the subsequent three and one-half years, our in-house counsel argued back and forth with the Patent Examiner, and eventually, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance for our electromechanical gadget Nonprovisional Patent Application.
  • More than a month after receiving the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner issued a Notice to File Corrected Application Papers.

Our Company’s Notice to Correct Application Papers

The Notice, in part, read:

“Notice of Allowance Mailed

This application has been accorded an Allowance Date and is being prepared for issuance. The application, however, is incomplete for the reasons below.

Applicant is given two (2) months from the mail date of this Notice within which to respond. This time period for reply is extendable under 37 CFR 1.126(a) for only two additional MONTHS.

The informalities requiring correction are indicated in the attachment(s). If the informality pertains to the abstract, specification (including claims) or drawings, the informality must be corrected with an amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121…

Figure numbers are missing or duplicated. FIGS 21-24.”

Notice to Correct Application Papers: Our Next Steps

Since our company had never received a Notice to Correct Application Papers, we looked to a law firm to manage this matter for us. Amended Drawings were filed and the Patent issued in due course.

Do You Need Help From a Lawyer Specializing in Patent Law?

If you have received a Notice to Correct Application Papers, or have other questions or concerns about filing and protecting your intellectual property, we are here for you. General or in-house counsel is great for many of the legal questions or tasks your company may need, but questions about working with the Patent and Trademark Office and responding to their notices, may require someone with more specialized experience.

Protect Your Valuable Intellectual Property

If your enterprise needs legal assistance procuring/managing/enforcing your Patent Applications, Patents of Trademarks/Service Marks, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Racing to the Patent Line - Priority Date Filing USTPO

What is a Priority Date for Patents?

The priority date, under US law, is the filing date of the first Patent Application (Provisional or Nonprovisional) to which a Nonprovisional Patent Application claims benefit. Depending on the facts of each case, the claim of priority must be established prior to the expiration of the Provisional Application, abandonment of the Nonprovisional Application, or the grant of the Patent.

Why is a Patent’s Priority Date a Big Deal?

Among other things, the USPTO can only use references that were available prior to the priority date to reject the claims of the Nonprovisional Patent Application.  In other words, the USPTO cannot use inventions filed after this priority date to reject the claims of a Nonprovisional Patent Application. So if a competitor invents something while you are waiting for the Patent Office’s review, the earlier the filing date or priority date, the less prior art the Examiner can use to reject your Patent Application.

This matters because it may be two, four, or more years after you file your Nonprovisional Application before the USPTO starts detailed examination of your application.

What If I Made Earlier Filings?

A Nonprovisional Patent Application can claim the benefit of an earlier Provisional Application or a previously filed Nonprovisional Application. If a Nonprovisional Patent Application doesn’t claim the benefit of a Provisional Application or priority based on a previously filed Nonprovisional Application, the priority date is the filing date on the original Nonprovisional Patent Application.

What the US Code Says

35 United States Code (U.S.C.) 120

35 U.S.C. 120, in part reads, “An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application…”

35 U.S.C. 119(e)

35 U.S.C. 120(e), in part reads, “(1) An application for patent filed under section 111(a) or section 363 for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in a provisional application filed under section 111(b), by an inventor or inventors named in the provisional application, shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the provisional application filed under section 111(b), if the application for patent filed under section 111(a) or section 363 is filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the provisional application…”

Examples: How Priority Date for Patent Applications Works

  • Our Provisional Application was filed July 4, 2020 and on January 15, 2021 our company files a Nonprovisional claiming the benefit of our Provisional Application. The priority date is July 4, 2020.
  • Our company filed a Nonprovisional Application on March 15, 2020. We opt to file a PCT Application. The priority date is March 15, 2020.
  • The Provisional Application was filed on September 15, 2019. Our company filed a Nonprovisional Application on September 12, 2020 claiming the benefit of the Provisional Application. Our engineers invented an improvement to the invention that was disclosed in the Nonprovisional Application but not in the Provisional Application. We opted to file a Continuation Nonprovisional Application. The priority dates are September 12, 2020 for the improvement and September 15, 2019 for the remainder of the invention disclosed in the Provisional Application.
  • Our company filed a Provisional Application directed to a mousetrap on January 12, 2017. On January 9, 2018, we filed a PCT Application directed to the mousetrap. In March 21, 2019, our engineers invented a device for use with the mousetrap. The device is used for sampling the DNA of the mouse restrained in the mousetrap. On May 15, 2019, the company files a US Continuation-in-Part Application claiming both the mousetrap and the device for sampling DNA. The priority dates are January 12, 2017 for the mousetrap and May 15, 2019 for the device for sampling DNA.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies. If you need legal assistance in preparing Patent Applications, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Copyright Registrations and Copyright Protections

Copyright Registrations

What are Copyright Registrations?

Copyright Registrations are defined in Title 17 of the United States Code (U.S.C). In part, 17 U.S.C. 102 reads:

“(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device….

 

Works of authorship include the following categories:

      • literary works
      • musical works, including any accompanying words
      • dramatic works, including any accompanying music
      • pantomimes and choreographic works
      • pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
      • motion pictures and other audiovisual works
      • sound recordings
      • architectural works”

A Competitor Published our Copyright – What can We do?

Our advertising manager had lunch with a competitor’s public relations manager. Unfortunately, over lunch, our advertising manager discussed the focus of our advertising campaign. He also discussed our new audiovisual commercial for our third most profitable product line. Before we could publish our new commercial, our competitor launched its own commercial. Their commercial included every focus point from our advertising campaign.

According to our accounting estimates, their use of our ideas reduced our sales by $500K. Can we sue our Competitor for Copyright Infringement?

The answer is… it depends.

What is Required to Prove Copyright Infringement?

Among other things, a Copyright Registration requires, a work “…of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression…”

  • If your company had filed an Application for Copyright Registration, prior to the advertising manager’s disclosure to the public relations manager, then Yes, you can probably prove copyright infringement. (The work of authorship was fixed in a tangible medium of expression.)
  • If your company can provide a written document, audio recording or audiovisual recording of what the advertising manager disclosed to the public relations manager then Yes. It may be worthwhile to pursue a claim of copyright infringement, since “the work of authorship was fixed in a tangible medium of expression.”
  • If your company relies only on oral testimony of the advertising manager to prove existence of a Copyright then No. The likelihood of a successful suit is very low since the focus concept was an idea and not “a work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.”

Advantages of Copyright Registrations

  • Evidence of ownership of the registered work of authorship
  • Public notice of ownership of the work
  • Federal District Court jurisdiction for an infringement suit
  • Possibility of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees

If your enterprise needs legal assistance procuring, managing and enforcing your Copyrights, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Precise Patent Claims

Patent Claims Must Be Written Precisely

Overcoming the Examiner’s Rejection

The Patent Examiner stated that our claims did not particularly point out and distinctly claim our invention. Can we overcome the Examiner’s rejection?

Whether Applicants can overcome the Examiner’s rejections of the claims, depends on the evidence.

35 U.S.C. 112, in part, reads:

(a)      In General:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

(b)      Conclusion:

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.

Be Precise

35 U.S.C. 112 requires Applicants’ claims to precisely claim the subject matter of the invention. When the Examiner argues that the Applicants’ claims failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventors regard as the invention, in effect, the Examiner argues that the claim language is unclear or uncertain.

An Unfixable Rejection

Example of an unfixable 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejection: Applicants’ claimed subject matter is not disclosed and enabled in the Specification and Drawings. By way of illustration, Applicants claimed a chair with arms and the Application does not disclose a chair with arms.

A Potentially Fixable Rejection

Example of a potentially fixable 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejection: Applicants used terminology in the claims not utilized in the Specification.

Other examples of fixable 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections:

    • Applicants incorrectly numbered the claims
    • Applicants failed to provide an antecedent basis before associating the word “the” or “said” with a claimed structural element
    • Applicants erroneously referenced element 1 of the invention as element number 2 and referenced element number 2 as number 1
    • In a third claim, Applicants referenced a second claim that depended from more than one previous claim
    • Applicants over utilized the conjunctions “and”, “but” or “or”
    • Applicants claimed structural elements are not interconnected

If you need legal assistance procuring your Patents and other intellectual property rights, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

When is a Patent Obvious

What is an Obvious Patent Claim?

What does it mean when a Patent Examiner or Adverse Party argues that the Claim is Obvious?

Since the United States’ legal system is adversarial, winning an obvious-type Patent case can be difficult. In view of shifting burdens of persuasion, American jurisprudence requires admissible evidence, testimony and arguments to prove a case before a court or an administrative agency such as the Patent Office.

Under the US legal system:

  • When a Patent Examiner argues that a Patent Application’s claim is obvious, the Examiner argues that the claim is not patentable.
  • When an adverse party argues that the Patent’s claim is invalid, the adverse party argues that the Patent’s claim is obvious and, therefore, invalid.

35 United States Code 103 – Statutory Obviousness

35 U.S.C. 103 reads:

“A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.”

The US Supreme Court’s Standard for Determination of When a Claim is Obvious

“Obviousness is decided as a matter of law based on four basic factual inquiries, as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1…(1966), and elaborated in KSR International, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398…”  Those inquiries are:

  1. The scope and content of the prior art
  2. The level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention
  3. The differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
  4. Any objective indicia of unobviousness, such as commercial success or long-felt need, or failure of others.

In a Pharmaceutical Composition, is the Replacement of a Carbon Functional Group with a Sulfur Functional Group Obvious?

  • In the case of In re Rousuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F. 3d 511, (Fed. Cir. 2012), the defendants argued that replacement of the known simple hydrophobic carbon functional group with a lesser known simple hydrophilic sulfur functional group was obvious.
  • The Patentee argued that at the time the pharmaceutical compound was invented there was no reasonable expectation of success for use of the simple hydrophilic sulfur functional group in reducing cholesterol levels.

On page 518 of the Rousuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Patent appellate court) affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the Patentee’s claim was not obvious and that the Patent was valid and enforceable.

If you find the “obviousness” legal standard confusing and need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Patent law, popcorn dispenser and anticipated patents

Anticipated Patent Claims – 35 U.S.C. 102

When Your Patent is “Anticipated by a Prior Reference”

The Patent Examiner argues that one or more claims of my Patent Application are anticipated by a prior reference. What does this mean?

In short, it means that the Examiner argues that someone else invented your invention before you did.

Let’s expand on that:

35 United States Code (U.S.C.) 102, in part reads: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication…before the effective filing of the claimed invention…” 35 U.S.C. §102 requires that the prior reference must have existed before your Patent Application was filed. When the Patent Application’s claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102, the Examiner argues that the rejected claim is “anticipated.”

When a Patent Examiner argues that one or more of your Patent Application’s claims defining your invention are anticipated, the Examiner is saying that a single prior reference discloses all of the structures of your invention.

The Patent Appellate court[i] has held, “For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. §102, every element [structure] of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference…These elements [structures] must be arranged as in the claim under review.”

How Can I Counter the Rejection?

One way to counter the Patent Examiner’s anticipation rejection is to amend the claim.

Therefore, you can amend the anticipated claim by deleting structure or adding structure to your invention. Additionally, you should add the changes to the wording of the Patent Application’s claims. For instance, if the alleged anticipated claim required a piece of furniture with four legs, you could exclude one of the legs from the claim to create a table with three legs. Similarly, you could add a back support to the claim to create a chair.

In addition, you can argue that the Examiner’s prior reference fails disclose every structure of your invention as claimed in the Patent Application.

How Similar in Structure and Use Does the Anticipated Claim Have to Be?

For instance, can the Patent Examiner use a prior reference that is unrelated to my invention’s use to successfully argue that my claim is anticipated? Can you give me an example?

Sure! Let’s take the question “Can an Oil Can’s Nozzle Anticipate a Popcorn Dispenser?” which was the basis of an actual case!

Yes. An oil can’s nozzle does anticipate a popcorn dispenser. Here’s how it was argued:

In the case of In Re Schreiber, 128 F. 3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Patent Examiner argued that Swiss Patent No. 172,689-Harz  disclosed a “spout for nozzle-ready canisters” that anticipated Schreiber’s claim for a popcorn dispenser.

On Page 1447 of Schreiber, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wrote:

    • Schreiber argues…that Harz [Swiss Patent No. 172,689] does not disclose that such a structure can be used to dispense popcorn from an open-ended popcorn container.
    • Although Schreiber is correct that Harz does not address the use of the disclosed structure to dispense popcorn, the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not defeat anticipation.
    • It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.

In conclusion, according to Schreiber, the function of the invention is irrelevant to the Patent Application’s claims in the United States. So an existing patent on an oil can did, in fact, prevent the patent of a popcorn dispenser with a similar shape, despite the completely different function.

Patent Law Can Be Confusing

If you need legal assistance with responding to a USPTO Office Action, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLCBusiness Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

[i] In Re Bond, 910 F.2 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

US Patents Held By Foreign Companies

Foreign Companies and US Patents

Can Companies Outside the United States Obtain US Patents?

Yes. The United States has the largest Gross Domestic Product on earth. Foreign Companies that do not have a physical presence in the United States can sell their goods or services in the United States.

For most foreign companies, sales in the US market improve earnings for the foreign businesses.

Advantages of US Patents for Foreign Businesses

  • The United States has a long history of enforcing domestic or foreign Patentees’ rights
  • Granting a US Patent gives the Patentee the right to file a legal action to stop third parties from making, using or selling their patented invention
  • Under Title 35 of the United States Code, a foreign Patentee can sue an alleged infringer in a United States District court and win damages

Options for Foreign Companies

Foreign Companies filing a US Patent Application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may:

  • Initially file the US Patent Application in the USPTO
  • File a Patent Application in their company’s jurisdictional Patent Office followed by the subsequent filing of the US Patent Application (prior to the expiration of the treaty deadline)
  • Initially file a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Application in the USPTO followed by the subsequent filing of the US National Stage Application (prior to the expiration of the PCT Treaty deadline)
  • File a Patent Application in your company’s jurisdictional Patent Office followed by the subsequent filing of a PCT Application claiming priority to the initially filed jurisdictional Patent Application
  • Prior to the PCT Treaty deadline, file a US National Stage Application in the USPTO which claims priority to the PCT Application filed by your company that claimed priority to the initial Patent Application filed by your company in its jurisdictional Patent Office

Basic Requirements for Foreign Company Patent Filings

  • English language translation/transliteration of the jurisdictional Patent Application or PCT Application – if the language of the as-filed jurisdictional Patent Application or PCT Application was not English
  • Pay USPTO Processing Fees
  • Submit Specifications and Drawings
  • Claims – usually presented in an “Americanized” preliminary amendment format to increase clarity and minimize USPTO Processing Fees
  • Provide Inventor(s) Declaration(s)

If all this sounds a bit complex, we can help. Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.

If you have questions about filing your company’s US Patent Application, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC and we will discuss possibilities for your business.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Warranties as Effective Marketing Tools

Warranties: An Effective Marketing Tool

Warranties May Be Automatic

When a business sells goods, under the various State versions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), implied warranties attach to the goods sold – unless the UCC’s implied warranties are specifically disclaimed in writing. If your company sells goods to customers in various States and some defective goods were discovered subsequent to the sale, one or more State’s version of the UCC’s implied warranties will apply. In the event of litigation, attorneys for each party will argue for the most favorable jurisdiction and venue. You, as the seller, could be forced to defend a legal action in the buyer’s home venue.

As a general rule, warranties are not applied to services supplied by the company supplying the service. For instance, no warranty is implied by law for a business that assists customers with the purchase of insurance policies, unless that business makes a warranty to the customer.

The Legal Aspects of Implied Warranties

Merchantability

The UCC’s Implied Warranty of Merchantability, in part, reads: “(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section, the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale…”

Fitness for a Particular Purpose

The UCC’s Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose reads: “Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.”

Warranty of Title and Against Infringement

The UCC’s Warranty of Title and Against Infringement reads, “(1) Subject to subsection (2) there is in a contract for sale a warranty by the seller that (a) the title conveyed shall be good, and its transfer rightful; and (b) the goods shall be delivered free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance of which the buyer at the time of contracting has no knowledge.  (2) A warranty under subsection (1) will be excluded or modified only by specific language or by circumstances which give the buyer reason to know that the person selling does not claim title in himself or that he is purporting to sell only such right or title as he or a third person may have.  (3) Unless otherwise agreed a seller who is a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like but a buyer who furnishes specifications to the seller must hold the seller harmless against any such claim which arises out of compliance with the specifications.”

How to Eliminate Implied Warranties

In the majority of instances, the only way to eliminate the application of the various States’ versions of the Uniform Commercial Code to the sale of your company’s goods is to specifically disclaim the UCC’s implied warranties in writing.

Warranty Use as a Marketing Tool

Patented Product vs. Generic Product

As CEO of your company, you believe that invention is the lifeblood of the company and you have budgeted ten percent of annual sales for development, improvement and Patent procurement for the company’s new products. The company’s engineers have developed the third-generation widget which is patented and has also just received FDA approval. The company’s second-generation widget’s Patent expired years earlier and is currently manufactured by generic company competitors. Users of the second generation widget love the operation of the second generation widget manufactured by your generic competitors. Those users also like the price that is several thousand dollars less than what your company sold the second generation widget for before the Patent expired. Other than the UCC’s implied warranties and any other warranty required by law, the generic manufacturers offer no other warranties.

Competing with Generics

Your company’s patented third-generation widget includes radio frequency capabilities, memory, processing means, sensors, etc. not included in your second generation widget. FDA testing revealed that over a span of years, the patented third-generation widget is more durable than the second generation widget. The third generation widget performs healthcare functions impossible for the second generation widget to perform. Costs of the patented third-generation widget to the user are thousands of dollars more than the generic second-generation widget. Your company struggles to have its patented third-generation widget regain and improve its former market share previously achieved with its second generation widget.

Improving Market Share With Warranties

To improve the company’s market share of its patented third-generation widget, the CEO took instruction from the motor vehicle industry. The CEO opted to provide a ten year “bumper to bumper” warranty and commenced advertising that the patented third-generation widget was sold under warranty. The advertisement touted a limited ten-year warranty and superior performance compared to other widgets. Over the years, the marketplace has revealed that for high “price point” goods, generous warranties can improve sales.

Limited Warranties in Lieu of UCC Warranties

A business can offer a limited “bumper to bumper” warranty for its new product while expressly disclaiming the States’ Uniform Commercial Code’s implied warranties and other conditions. Depending on the type of goods and other facts, it is also possible for a business to expressly place limits on liability.

If you have questions about intellectual properties, warranties, and disclaimers, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC and we will discuss possibilities for your business and intellectual properties.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

 

Physician Sunshine Laws and Your Business

Physician Sunshine Laws And Your Business

Physician Sunshine Laws and Small Businesses

Does 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7h, known commonly as the “Physician Sunshine Laws-Open Payments” apply to a small business?  Maybe. If Physician Sunshine Laws (Open Payments Laws) are applicable to your business, you may also be surprised how these laws can be applied to your company.

Some States have their own version of physician sunshine laws. In some cases, the State version may apply when the federal version does not.

Many Business Patent Law, PLLC’s clients are involved with the provision of medical devices, supplies, etc. For most Business Patent Law clients, the Physician Sunshine Laws apply to an “applicable manufacturer” that “provides payment or other transfer of value” to a “covered recipient.”

Who Administers Physician Sunshine Laws?

CMS.gov (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the Federal Agency that Administers Physician Sunshine Laws (Open Payments). 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7h (b) sets forth penalties for failing to file a required report to CMS.gov.

Who Needs to Report to Under Physician Sunshine Laws?

Subchapter S Company Examples

Does a Subchapter S Company that Manufactures Surgical Sponges for Use in Operating Rooms and Gives Samples of the Surgical Sponges to Medical, Surgical and Dental Practices Need to Report to CMS.gov?

Yes, according to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7h (e) which reads:

(2) Applicable manufacturer

The term “applicable manufacturer” means a manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply which is operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States.

(4) Covered device

The term “covered device” means any device for which payment is available under subchapter XVIII [Medicare] or a State plan under subchapter XIX or XXI [federal or state plans for medical assistance] (or a waiver of such a plan).

(6) Covered recipient

(A) In general…“covered recipient” means the following: (i) A physician [is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, a dentist, a doctor of podiatric medicine, a doctor of optometry or a chiropractor – as defined by 42 U.S.C. 1395x (r).] or

(ii) A teaching hospital.

LLC Examples

Does a Limited Liability Company (LLC) Manufacturing and Selling Scalpels Need to Report to CMS.gov?

  1. If the LLC makes quid pro quo sales to dentists, physicians and hospitals? No. (There is no transfer of value or gift.)
  2. If the LLC supplies lunches for the surgical office and the employees? Yes. (The lunches were a transfer of value.)

Does an LLC (having one or more covered recipients holding a minority equity ownership interest) that manufactures radio frequency devices for treatment of the human body need to report equity ownership Interests to CMS.gov? 

It depends.

  1. If a dentist owns 5% equity in the LLC? Yes.
  2. When the wife of a surgeon owns 10% equity in the LLC? Yes. ***
  3. If a pharmacist owns 5% equity in the LLC? No.
  4. When a physician’s assistant owns 5% equity in the LLC? No.

***42 U.S.C. 1320a-7h (a) reads:

(2) Physician ownership

In addition to the requirement under paragraph (1)(A), on March 31, 2013, and on the 90th day of each calendar year beginning thereafter, any applicable manufacturer or applicable group purchasing organization shall submit to the Secretary, in such electronic form as the Secretary shall require, the following information regarding any ownership or investment interest (other than an ownership or investment interest in a publicly traded security and mutual fund, as described in section 1395nn (c) of this title) held by a physician (or an immediate family member of such physician ([immediate family member] as defined for purposes of section 1395nn (a) of this title)) in the applicable manufacturer or applicable group purchasing organization during the preceding year:…

Determining what you need to do in these situations, and what you are legally required to do, can be difficult. If you have questions about your whether your company needs to file reports with CMS.gov, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC and we will discuss possibilities for your business and intellectual properties.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Patent Ownership Determination

Who Owns Patents – It Depends

Ownership – Patents

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution reads: [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” The Constitution does not, however, address who owns the Patent or Copyright.

When an inventor invents a novel and non-obvious composition, device or method, who owns the Patent?

That depends.

Patent Rights Are Federal, But Patent Ownership Rights…

Under the United States Constitution and Title 35 of the United States Code, the granting and enforcement of Patents are exclusively matters of federal jurisdiction. However, unless owned by a federal entity, the ownership of Patents is a matter of State Law. Intellectual property ownership rights flow from Patents and who owns property rights is usually a matter determined by State Law,

Who Owns The Patent?

The following examples show how different situations impact or can impact the determination of Patent ownership:

Illustration 1

The Inventor is self-employed, invents the invention and is domiciled in State A.

The Inventor owns the entire interest in the Patent’s Intellectual Property Rights.

Illustration 2

The Inventor is an employee of Company B. The Inventor invents the invention while at work on the premises of Company B. Both Company B and Inventor are domiciled in State A.

In most jurisdictions, Company B owns the entire interest in the Patent’s Intellectual Property Rights.

Illustration 3

The Inventor is an employee of Company B and Company B is domiciled in State A. In the Inventor’s garage located in State Z, the Inventor invents the item related to the products sold by Company B.

Some courts would hold that Company B owns the Patent’s Intellectual Property Rights while other courts would hold that the Inventor owns the Patent’s Intellectual Property Rights.

Illustration 4

The Inventor is an employee of Company B that is located in State A. In the Inventor’s garage located in State Z. The Inventor invents an item not related to the anything manufactured or distributed by Company B.

Most courts would hold that the Inventor owns the Patent’s Intellectual Property Rights.

Illustration 5

The Inventor is an Independent Contractor who has worked onsite, on and off, at Company B’s plant located in State P for more than a year. Company B’s headquarters are located in State A. The Independent Contractor invented an improvement to Company B’s patented product in State J.

Some courts would hold that Company B owns the Patent’s Intellectual Property Rights. Other courts would hold that the Independent Contractor owns the Patent’s Intellectual Property Rights. Some States would not have any case law corresponding to this scenario.

Illustration 6

Company B is domiciled in State A and displays its patented product line at a trade show in State N. The chief engineer of Competitor X takes photographs/videos of Company B’s patented product line at the tradeshow. The chief engineer returns to Competitor X’s headquarters with the photos/videos. At the headquarters, located in State Q, Competitor X’s engineering staff invents several improvements to Company’s B patented product line which ultimately results in Improvement-Type Patents for Competitor X.

Courts would hold that Competitor X owns the Improvement-Type Patents – However, a federal court could also determine that Competitor X’s Improvement-Type Patents infringed Company B’s patented product line.

How to Control Ownership of Patents

What can a business do to limit its Intellectual Property from flying out in many different directions?  Next month’s blog will address some of these issues.

If you have questions about your company’s ownership of its Intellectual Properties, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC and we will discuss possibilities for your business and Intellectual Properties.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your Intellectual Property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.