Arrowhead Research Corporation, a nanotechnology company researching life sciences and semiconductor technologies, recently received a patent regarding therapeutic compositions and methods for delivery. U.S. Patent No. 7,018,609 ("Compositions containing inclusion complexes"), issued late last month, discloses "a composition containing a polymer, a therapeutic agent, and a complexing agent where the polymer interacts with the complexing agent in a host-guest or a guest-host interaction to form an inclusion complex," along with compositions to deliver the therapeutic agent to treat a number of disorders. The patent discloses the use of cyclodextrins as being "a preferred host," because they are "able to interact with a great variety of ionic and molecular species." The first claim of the patent is directed to a method of preparing such a composition, comprising a therapeutic agent, a cyclodextrin-containing polymer, and a complexing agent "comprising at least one functional group and at least one host/guest moiety that forms an inclusion complex with a host/guest moiety of said cyclodextrin-containing polymer to form the composition," wherein the three individual components are separate molecules. This patent states that it answers the need "for a more effective non-viral delivery systems exhibiting properties such as, for example, increased stability (e.g. under physiological conditions) and effective targeting abilities."

U.S. Patent No. 7,018,609: LINK
BusinessWire Press Release: LINK
Arrowhead Research Website: LINK

Earlier this week, Google Inc. received a patent regarding several methods and systems to provide search results directly from a voice search query. U.S. Patent No. 7,027,987 ("Voice interface for a search engine"), issued on April 11th, discloses methods and systems “for supporting voice queries in information retrieval systems. The first method that provides search results includes “receiving a voice search query from a user; deriving one or more recognition hypotheses from the voice search query, each recognition hypothesis being associated with a weight; constructing a weighted boolean query using the recognition hypotheses; providing the weighted boolean query to a search system; and providing results of the search system.” Aside from the addition of including one or more search terms regarding the aforementioned recognition hypotheses, the first independent claim is described in that fashion, with additional detail regarding the construction of the weighted boolean query including “determining a length of a shortest recognition hypothesis, pruning a length of each recognition hypothesis up to the length of the shortest recognition hypothesis, determining a length of a longest pruned recognition hypothesis, selecting a number of recognition hypotheses based on one or more query parameters, determining term weights, and forming a weighted boolean query.” This patent states that it addresses the need of a voice interface effective for search engines, addressing the problems of high word error rates and limited sets of word choices used in some voice interfaces.

U.S. Patent No. 7,027,987: LINK
ars technica News Article:LINK

It was announced in the March 28, 2006 Federal Register that the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress has proposed new fees for general services, special services, and Licensing Division services. According to the announcement, "[t]he proposed fees would recover a significant part of the costs to the Office of registering claims and provide full cost recovery for many services provided by the Office which benefit only or primarily the user of that service." Some of the proposed fee changes include the fee for Registration of a basic claim in an original work of authorship (increase from $30 to $45) and an increase of the filing fee for recordation of license agreements under 17 U.S.C. § 118 (from $50 to $125). A full list of the proposed fees is included in the Federal Register link below. Written comments received by April 27, 2006, will be considered.

March 28, 2006 Federal Register Announcement: LINK
Current Copyright Office Fee Listing: LINK

The USPTO recently announced the top ten college and university patent recipients for 2005. The University of California (sum of all campuses) held the top spot with 390, down slightly from the year before (424). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology swapped positions from the year before, with MIT receiving 136 patents and CIT receiving 101 patents in 2005, respectively. The university in the top 10 with the highest rank increase from 2004 was the University of Pennsylvania, receiving 43 patents in 2005 and entering the top 10 (tied for 9th) from 24th in 2004.

USPTO Press Release: LINK
University of California Office of Technology Transfer Website: LINK
MIT Technology Licensing Office Website: LINK
CIT Office of Technology Transfer: LINK

In the April 6, 2006 Federal Register, the USPTO announced its plan to eliminate the Disclosure Document Program. This Program, initiated in 1969, provided a mechanism for inventors to evidence conception of an invention as of a particular date by, for example, the mailing of a self-addressed envelope including an invention disclosure. The USPTO contends that this program provides little if any benefit to inventors, and that it causes some confusion to inventors as they may believe they are actually filing a patent application by using the Program. The proposed statutory modification is to remove 37 CFR § 1.21(c), the section that sets forth the $10.00 fee for filing a disclosure document, from the patent rules, reserving that section for potential future use. The USPTO is allowing comments regarding this proposed change to be considered if received on or before May 8, 2006.

Federal Register Notice (April 6, 2006): LINK
37 CFR § 1.21: LINK

Registration for the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) 2006 Spring Meeting is still open and available through the AIPLA website. This meeting, held at the Hilton Chicago from May 3-5, will cover items like electronic patent filing (U.S. and Europe), notice and cease and desist letters, new client development (corporate and law firm), open source software licensing, legal ethics, and several additional intellectual property law topics. The general registration fee for AIPLA members registering before April 18th is $535, with other rates and event fee options available.

AIPLA 2006 Spring Meeting Website: LINK
Full Program Agenda: LINK
Registration Form: LINK

On Tuesday, Netflix Inc. sued Blockbuster, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Blockbuster has infringed two of its patents related to DVD rental subscriptions. Netflix obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,584,450 ("Method and apparatus for renting items") in June of 2003, and was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,024,381 ("Approach for renting items to customers") on the same date it filed suit against blockbuster (April 4th). This more recent patent claims a "computer-implemented method for renting movies to customers," comprising the display of digital information regarding movie attributes, establish a "movie rental queue" including at least two movies associated with a particular customer, delivering a number of movies to the customer, allowing the customer to then select additional movies, thus updating the customer's movie queue. Netflix and Blockbuster are competitors in the DVD subscription service market, with Netflix offering its service since 1999 and Blockbuster since 2004.

U.S. Patent No. 6,584,450: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 7,024,381: LINK
Reuters News Story: LINK

I will periodically post case citations from the Federal Circuit along with the date of the opinion/order and a brief list of the legal topics discussed therein (specifically those with additional embedded case law citations). This posting covers the twenty-sixth through the thirtieth cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit in 2006. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.

Aspex Eyewear, Inc., et al. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., et al. (03/03/2006, non-precedential): claim construction (and appellate standard of review), prosecution history disclaimers

Fiber Optic Designs, Inc., et al. v. Seasonal Specialties, LLC (03/03/2006, non-precedential): preliminary injunctions, claim construction (and appellate standard of review), specification information impacting claim construction

Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc., et al. (03/03/2006): copyright & design patents (and appellate standards of review), copyright access and similarity, design patent claim construction, infringement, and novelty

Kwik Products, Inc., et al. v. National Express, Inc., et al. (03/13/2006, non-precedential): (dismissal of appeal not from final decision), standard of review for appeals in patent matters, ripeness

Microchip Technology v. The Chamberlain Group (03/15/2006): existence of actual controversy, covenants not to sue, adverse legal interests & legal risks, declaratory judgments

MusicIP, the California based digital music technology company, recently obtained a patent regarding audio fingerprinting. U.S. Patent No. 7,013,301 ("Audio fingerprinting system and method"), issued on March 14th, discloses several methods and systems for "automatically identifying unknown audio pieces, and more specifically, to a system and method for efficiently identifying unknown audio pieces via their audio fingerprints." The independent claim of the patent teaches a method for audio fingerprinting comprising the receipt of an audio signal, obtaining frequency measurements, building a matrix based on those measurements, and decomposing the matrix to generate a digital fingerprint to be stored and used for the identification of audio pieces. In its patent, MusicIP stated its invention as satisfying the need for "a fingerprinting system that provides a reliable, fast, and robust identification of audio pieces," whereby "[s]uch a system should be configured to reduce the search space in performing the identification for a better matching accuracy and speed."

U.S. Patent No. 7,013,301: LINK
PRWeb Press Release: LINK
MusicIP Website: LINK

I will periodically post case citations from the Federal Circuit along with the date of the opinion/order and a brief list of the legal topics discussed therein (specifically those with additional embedded case law citations). This posting covers the twenty-first through the twenty-fifth cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit in 2006. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.

MAG-NIF, Inc. v. Royal Sovereign Int'l, Inc., et al. (02/17/2006, non-precedential): settlement agreements & violations thereof, standard of review of patent case and settlement agreement

Forcillo v. Lemond Fitness, Inc., et al. (02/17/2006, non-precedential): inequitable conduct, exceptional cases, attorney’s fees and legal costs

Lawman Armor v. Winner International (02/22/2006): design patents, ordinary observer and points of novelty tests, summary judgment (and standard of appellate review)

M. Eagles Tool Warehouse (doing business as S&G Tool Aid Corp.) v. Fisher Tooling Co. (doing business as Astro Pneumatic Tool Co.) (02/27/2006): inequitable conduct (and intent to deceive element), Lanham Act, tortious interference, unfair competition

Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., et al. (03/02/2006): forum non conveniens, jurisdiction (and appellate standard of review), judicial estoppel