IPO TO PUBLISH TOP 300 PATENT OWNERS LIST
IPO is delighted to announce that for the seventh year in a row, we are partnering with Harrity Analytics to produce the Top 300 Patent Owners list, our annual list of the 300 companies that received the most U.S. patents in the previous calendar year.
Upon request, we will combine patents granted to a parent company with those granted to the parent’s majority-owned subsidiaries. If you wish to share a list of subsidiary companies whose patents should be attributed to your parent company’s total, send your list to ROCKY BERNDSEN no later than May 29. If you submitted a list of subsidiaries in previous years, you must submit a new list this year.
Submit company names exactly as they appear on issued patents, including misspellings, variations in punctuation and spacing, etc. Patents are attributed to the company listed as the assignee on the cover of the patent.
HOUSE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES BILL MAKING REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS A PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEE
Yesterday the House Committee on House Administration approved H.R. 6028, the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act, by a vote of 11-0. The bill would make the Register of Copyrights a presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation but leaves the Copyright Office in the legislative branch. During a transition period the USCO could continue using Library of Congress support services and must consult the Librarian before taking actions affecting copyright deposits.
Rep. MORGAN GRIFFITH (R-VA), the bill’s sponsor, noted that the Copyright Office performs executive-type functions and that its leadership structure should reflect those responsibilities. Ranking Member Rep. JOE MORELLE (D-NY) agreed but stressed the importance of preserving an institutional relationship with the Library. He also flagged pending USCO reports on artificial intelligence as a reason to ensure the office remains well-supported. A video of the markup is available on the committee website.
USPTO ISSUES PRECEDENTIAL DECISION ON DIRECTOR DISCRETION; DESIGNATES THREE INFORMATIVE DECISIONS ON INCONSISTENT POSITIONS IN PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS
This week the USPTO issued a precedential decision in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., explaining that the AIA affords discretion in instituting inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews based on weighing public interest factors including the economy, efficient administration of the Office, timely completion of AIA reviews, and integrity of the patent system. Applying those principles, the Director denied institution, explaining that the petitioner was seeking a repeat challenge after litigating the same issues in district court and losing, rather than using IPR as an alternative to litigation.
Three opinions involving petitioners advancing inconsistent positions in parallel proceedings were designated informational: Ford Motor Co. v. AutoConnect Holdings, LLC, Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., and TikTok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc.
JOIN THE IPO INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK COMMITTEE FOR A PRESENTATION ON WIPO CURRENT ACCOUNTS
The IPO International Trademark Law & Practice Committee will host a presentation by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Customer Experience Project Manager VALÉRIE LEONE DE MAGISTRIS on WIPO’s Current Account system and how IPO members may use it to streamline all payments for WIPO services during the committee’s monthly meeting on Tuesday, May 19, at 10:00am ET. Contact Astrid Roe (aroe@ipo.org) for information on how to attend.
 |
“SHALL” AND “INFORMATIVE” ARE IMPERFECT WORDS IN IP
“Shall” — This word is ubiquitous in contracts and statutes. In law it usually means “is required to.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary, however, individual courts decisions have created a mess by finding four other meanings: “should”, “may”, “will”, and “is entitled to.” For clarity, some authorities recommend “must” instead of “shall.” Another approach is to stick to the present tense. E.g., “irrelevant evidence is inadmissible,” not “shall be inadmissible.”
“Informative” PTAB Decisions — On Wednesday, the USPTO designated three more PTAB decisions “Informative.” In USPTO parlance, selected decisions that are not precedential but provide guidance on recurring issues are Informative. Linguists cringe. Informative is not an apt word for the meaning the USPTO wants to convey. Informative means imparting knowledge and every decision imparts knowledge. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas identifies selected decisions as “Notable.” That might be the apt word the USPTO needs.
Click on “Curmudgeon” at the bottom of this column for my email address. Click here for the Curmudgeon Archives.
Your friend,
The Curmudgeon