Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog : Maryland Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Brian Wm. Higgins : Serving Baltimore, Columbia, Frederick

          On August 2, 2011, Harry Reid, along with several other senators, moved to bring to a close in the Senate any debate on the motion to proceed to calendar  H.R. 1249, the previously passed "Leahy-Smith America Invents Act" (originally the Patent Reform Act when its companion bill started out in the Senate).  According to the Congressional Record, on September 6, 2011, the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 87, H.R. 1249. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     On March 12, 2008, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) issued a press release outlining possible amendments to S.1145, the Patent Reform Act of 2007. As stated in the press release:

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Committee Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), have been working for months with a bipartisan coalition of senators in preparation of floor consideration of the Patent Reform Act, which would make the first reforms to the country's patent laws in more than 50 years. The Judiciary Committee passed the legislation last July, and Leahy, Hatch and Specter have held dozens of meetings and briefings in the months since, listening to concerns from stakeholders, and working to address the concerns of the wide cross-section of interested parties."

     Apparently, at least some of the Judiciary Committee members and other Senators have been "urging consideration of the legislation in the full Senate for months, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has signaled the chamber could take up the bill in April."

     The major proposed amendments to the bill are summarized below and contained in detail here (zip file):

• “Best Mode” – eliminates ‘best mode’ as a ground for invalidating a patent, but maintains it as a requirement to obtain a patent
  
  
• Ex Parte Provision – restores third party ex-parte reexamination
  
  
• Federal Circuit Judges – ensures that any Federal Circuit judge who does not reside within a 50-mile radius of Washington, DC, must use the chambers of an existing courthouse in the district where they reside
  
  
• Interference – provides technical amendment to allow for appeal to the Federal Circuit of USPTO board interference decisions commenced prior to the date of the Act; and amends the bill to delete interference-related provisions and replace with new derivation-related provisions
  
  
• Interlocutory Appeals – limits interlocutory appeals of claim construction orders to those for which the District Court determines there is a reasonable basis for disagreement and the appeal may advance the ultimate termination of the litigation
  
  
• Marking Provision – deletes the marking provision in the bill and maintains the current law
  
  
• “Objective Recklessness” – codifies the Federal Circuit court’s ruling in Seagate, holding that infringement is only willful if the infringer acts with objective recklessness of the patent
  
  
• Patent and Trademark Board Judges – ensures that the appointment of patent and trademark judges is consistent with the Appointments Clause
  
  
• Patent Board Judges – technical amendment to clarify that the Patent Board’s duties include the conduction of derivation proceedings
  
  
• Post-Grant Review – provides technical amendment to delete a redundancy in sec. 338 as created in S. 1145; corrects an inconsistency between S 337 (1) and (2), to preclude requesting or maintaining a post-grant review proceeding after a final decision in litigation on the same patent, based on any issue that was raised or could have been raised, in the litigation; defines “final decision” in the estoppel provision; and provides for technical amendment to delete a redundancy
  
  
• Severability – establishes a severability clause in the bill 
   

    Several sources have reported in the last few weeks that proponents of the bill may not have the required votes to invoke the Cloture Rule, which limits the amount of debate on the floor prior to a vote (thereby blocking any filibuster).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

     Below is a summary of the IP-related cases filed in the the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland during the week beginning October 1, 2007 (source: Justia), beginning with an IP NIMBY case: 

• Invenergy Wind North America LLC v. John Doe Numbers 1 Through 10, 07civ02643, filed Oct. 1, 2007. 

     According to the complaint, this case arises from an email that plaintiff Invenergy, a Delaware entity based out of Chicago, alleges that opponents to its proposed Moresville Energy wind turbine energy project sent to landowners and leaseholders of land Invenergy needs for its project. The complained of email, which included Invenergy's logos and trademarks, was allegedly designed to look like it originated from Invenergy itself. The complaint includes claims of trademark and copyright infringement, trademark dilution, tortious interference, and libel.

     Although the planned facility is to be located in Delaware County, New York, Maryland was chosen as the venue for the litigation, apparently because the permit applicant for the wind energy facility is Rockville, MD-based Moresville Energy LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Invenergy), and because the email was allegedly sent by ten unidentified "John Does" (or "Jane Does") over networks owned by Hughes Network Systems , LLC, which is a Germantown, MD-based company.

     Thelen Reid's DC office filed the complaint, which did not identify local Maryland counsel.

     In the "old days," someone with a NIMBY (not in my backyard) issue would simply lie in front of a bulldozer, chain themselves to a Redwood, maneuver a boat in front of a fishing vessel, organize a protest rally, or file a lawsuit against the federal or state agency that issued a permit for a project they disagreed with (or all of the above). Apparently, if the above complaint is true, surreptitious emailing can now be added to the list of protest tactics.

     Three more interesting cases after the jump...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link