The Sedona Conference® Publishes International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure & Data Protection

The Sedona Conference® recently published the International Principles on Discovery, Disclosure & Data Protection (“International Principles”) through its Working Group 6 on International Electronic Information Management, Discovery and Disclosure. The Sedona Conference® launched Working Group 6 in 2005 to bring the most experienced attorneys, judges, privacy and compliance officers, technology-thought leaders, and academics from around the world to discuss the management, discovery, and disclosure of electronically stored information (“ESI”) involved in cross-border disputes. The publication of the International Principles comes in light of a number of U.S. court decisions over the last two years ordering the disclosure of information in U.S. litigation despite the existence of foreign privacy laws that otherwise would have prohibited such disclosure. See, e.g., EnQuip Technologies Group, Inc. v. Tycon Technoglass, S.R.L., 2010-Ohio-28, 2010 WL 53151 (Jan. 8, 2010).

Continue Reading...

Data Protection in Social Networks

 In a statement published on December 8, 2011, the Association of German Data Protection Agencies known as the “Duesseldorfer Kreis,” (“DK”) issued an opinion summarizing the minimum compliance criteria for operators of social networks in Germany:

  • Transparent privacy policy and informed consent are essential for protecting the right to data privacy
  • Opt-out solutions are insufficient, all privacy settings must be on the basis of opt-in selections
  • Users must have simple access to their stored personal data
  • Facial recognition features require express, confirmed consent
  • No tracking profiles without the informed consent of the user
  • Obligation to delete data after the termination of the membership
  • Social plug-ins on the websites of German operators are not compliant with data protection laws unless they are covered by informed consent and provide the opportunity for the user to prevent the data transfer
  • Social networks must protect user data through implementation of suitable privacy controls; operators must be able to demonstrate that such measures were taken
  • Minors require particular protection and information regarding the processing of personal data must be easily comprehensible to them
  • Social networks located outside the EEA must nominate an agent in Germany who serves as the contact person for the DPAs

The opinion, however, is not limited to this rather generic list of minimum requirements. Instead, it takes the opportunity to address two of the most pressing issues which have dominated the discussion of social networks and their commitment to data privacy over the past several months.

Continue Reading...

IMPACT: Measuring the Loss of Brand and Business Reputation after a Data Breach

Brand and business reputation suffer following a data breach. A recently released survey puts some numbers to the losses and shows just how much that damage can be, with breach of customer data being the most costly. The study, independently conducted Ponemon Institute LLC and sponsored by Experian® Data Breach Resolution, is believed to be the first study to compare the impact of the loss of confidential customer or employee information and sensitive business information with loss of brand and business reputation.

Continue Reading...

Will Facebook soon be privacy-friendly?

FTC Audit Agreement
According to various news reports, Facebook and the FTC are about to enter into an agreement which will subject Facebook to privacy audits for the next 20 years. The agreement will apparently require Facebook to obtain prior express consent before making public any information to which the user had granted limited access only. The agreement is a direct response to complaints over the changes Facebook made to its privacy policy in 2009, when previously private information became accessible to the public and users had to take active steps in order to return to their accustomed privacy settings.

Continue Reading...

Prioritized Examination of Patent Applications Under Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA") was enacted on September 16, 2011. The changes implemented by this Act are wide-ranging and significant, and different provisions have different effective dates, with many taking effect September 26, 2011, September 16, 2012, or March 16, 2013. We will be providing additional information in the coming weeks and months.

Continue Reading...

What's next in EU data protection?

The Article 29 Working Party outlined its agenda for 2012 at a recent plenary meeting in Brussels. Not surprisingly, the top priority is a new legal framework for data protection. But other topics, some of interest for US data protection developments, were discussed as well.

  1. Revision of the EU data protection framework: To ensure that EU data protection authorities can consistently apply the EU data protection rules, the revisions to the current Data Privacy Directive will emphasize harmonization efforts to advance the cooperation and coordination between the various authorities.
  2. WADA: The EU has ongoing concerns related to the current legal framework and the protection of athletes’ personal information. The EU Commission, supported by the Working Party, will provide comments to the proposed revision of WADA’s World Anti-Doping Code, which is planned for 2013.
  3. Cooperation with the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA): The Working Party and ENISA share common interests with regard to data breach notifications and will intensify their cooperation.
  4. EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA): While the discussion addressed projects of the near future such as redress mechanisms and the publication of a Handbook on European data protection case law, FRA has long been critical of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data transmissions and a cooperation with the Working Party may suggest that the use of PNR will come under scrutiny again.

Whether the newly harmonized EU data protection rules will be a curse or a blessing for US companies doing business in the EU remains to be seen. Frustration by certain EU member states over a lack of cooperation between the national data protection authorities is undoubtedly a driving force behind this recent development and, as a result, the current practice of concentrating business operations in the jurisdiction with the least onerous data protection laws may soon come to an end. But if the closing of national loopholes is mitigated by a uniform application of data protection principles, it may be a worthwhile sacrifice.

ISSA Social Media Summit - Social Media and Legal Risk

Porter Wright attorney Justin Root will present “Social Media and Legal Risk” as part of the Information Systems Security Association (ISSA) Columbus Chapter's Social Media Summit on October 19, 2011 in Worthington, Ohio. More information is available at http://centralohioissa.org/. ISSA is a not-for-profit, international organization of information security professionals and practitioners. It provides educational forums, publications, and peer interaction opportunities that enhance the knowledge, skill, and professional growth of its members.

Act now to prevent use of your trademark with the new adult entertainment industry TLD

A new top level domain will soon be available for use by adult entertainment providers. In order to address concerns from trademark owners not in the adult entertainment industry, a sunrise reservation period has been established to enable trademark owners to reserve or "block" the new adult entertainment industry domain names that correspond to their registered trademarks. The period for trademark owners to reserve such domain names runs through October 28, 2011.

Continue Reading...

Still think consent is easy?

In my last entry I stressed the importance of complying with the various consent requirements hidden in European data protection laws. To prove my point and to illustrate further the high standards imposed by the German Data Protection Law, a regional German DPA (das “Unabhängige Landeszentrum für Datenschutz” in Schleswig Holstein or “ULD”) has taken aim at Facebook’s data privacy practices by sending cease and desist letters to all website operators located in the area who incorporate the “like” button and other Facebook plugins on their pages. Operators have until the end of September to deactivate these features or face up to € 50,000 in fines.[1]

Continue Reading...

Basic Principles of European Union Consent and Data Protection

Any US company that receives data about individuals living in the European Union must be familiar with the basic principles of consent and data protection within the EU to avoid costly mistakes that are easily made in obtaining consent, should the validity of such consent be challenged by the EU data protection agencies. While certain exemptions may apply that allow receipt of data into the US without consent, companies need to analyze their receipt of such data in light of the new consent opinion discussed below.

Continue Reading...

Discovering Ensnarement

Ensnarement is a powerful defense in any patent case where the doctrine of equivalents is at issue.  It's time for defendants to "discover" this under-utilized defense.    Despite litigating numerous doctrine of equivalents cases, I've only litigated one case where an ensnarement defense was vigorously asserted.

Ensnarement, seminally set forth in Wilson Sporting Goods, prevents a patentee from claiming a range of equivalents that "ensnares" the prior art.  To make that determination, the original claim is redrafted as a hypothetical claim by replacing certain claim terms with the asserted equivalents.  As a result, the hypothetical claim literally encompasses the claimed product.  In DePuy v. Medtronic, e.g., the claim term "spherically-shaped portion" was replaced with "conically-shaped portion" in the hypothetical claim because the accused product included a conically-shaped portion.  The relevant question is then whether the hypothetical claim is allowable over the asserted prior art.  If the hypothetical claim is not allowable, then there is no infringement because the asserted range of equivalents "ensnares" the prior art.

Two features of ensnarement make the defense particularly powerful.   First, ensnarement is a question of law.   In DePuy, the district court held a separate bench trial on the issue of ensnarement after the jury trial (See DePuy, 526 F.Supp.2d 126).  The Federal Circuit affirmed the propriety of the court's ensnarement proceeding, holding that ensnarement is a question of law like any other limitation on the doctrine of equivalents.  Second, the defendant merely bears the burden of producing prior art to challenge the hypothetical claim; the patentee bears the burden of establishing that the hypothetical claim is patentable.  This is in stark contrast to the clear and convincing standard  that a defendant must meet to establish invalidity. 

Ensnarement, then, effectively allows a defendant two chances to win with its invalidity arguments.  A defendant should request a "DePuy Hearing" after the trial if there is a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.  At that hearing, defendant can re-raise its same basic invalidity arguments because ensnarement and invalidity have significantly different burdens and ask different questions (patentability of the hypothetical claim vs. validity of the original claim).  The second bite at the apple could prove invaluable.  As an example, a court is unlikely to grant defendant's JMOL on anticipation or obviousness if the question is close.  With an ensnarement defense, though, the "close call" should go to the defendant, and "close calls," of course, are far easier to assert post-KSR.  Further, from the Court's perspective, a finding of ensnarement may be a better option because it is more likely to withstand appeal than a grant of JMOL on a jury verdict of validity.  From a defendant's perspective, whether the patent is invalid or the prior art ensnared is typically of no significant consequence.  Thus, in any case where infringement is based on the doctrine of equivalents, defendant should assert an ensnarement defense and request a "DePuy Hearing" on the issue.

Best Mode Requirements Apply To Each Inventor

A decision issued by the Federal Circuit April 29, 2011 offers a lesson for patent prosecutors to talk to each named inventor about what they consider to be the best way of practicing their invention.  Though anti-intuitive, it is possible to have multiple best modes. In Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co. (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit has held that the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C §112 applies to each named inventor (as opposed the inventors collectively).  The statutory language on this point is less then clear as §112 requires disclosure of the best mode "contemplated by the inventor."  The issue is whether "the inventor" refers to a single best mode contemplated by all the named inventors or whether "the inventor" refers to each and every inventor, thereby allowing for the possibility of multiple best modes for a patent.  In addition, the term "best mode" suggests only one mode per patent.   Up to this point, Federal Circuit precedent was also unclear on the issue.  The only Federal Circuit decision addressing this issue supported the latter position, but did so in dicta in a footnote.  See Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1351 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1998).   However, multiple Federal Circuit decisions have used loose language that supports the former position, though those decisions weren't presented squarely with the issue.

In Eastman, the Federal Circuit adopted the dicta in Pannu and held that "best mode issues can arise if any inventor fails to disclose the best mode known to him or her."  In Eastman, one of the inventors had testified that a certain recipe for PET resins was, in his mind, the best resin available at the time the application was filed.  The patentees, however, choose to maintain that recipe as a trade secret rather than specifically disclose it in the patent application.  Instead, the patent "hides" the best mode by disclosing broad ranges for certain elements that technically encompass the best mode recipe, but which failed to enable a person of ordinary skill to practice the best mode.  Significantly, the patent actually "leads away" from one critical element through statements about "typical" and "preferred" properties within a range that the actual best mode compound does not have.

The lesson of Eastman for patent prosecutors is to talk to each named inventor about what they consider to be the best way of practicing their invention.  Though anti-intuitive, it is possible to have multiple best modes.  Further, if you're dealing with a chemical patent, it's much safer to directly disclose the actual best mode, but if you opt to use "ranges" to make the required disclosure, the best mode must be enabled.

Two final comments.  First, Chief Judge Radar found that "Wellman intentionally concealed the best mode."  Perhaps we will find out if intentional concealment of the best mode is a sufficient predicate for an inequitable conduct defense.  Second, Patent Reform (addressed in this post), removes the best mode requirement from 35 U.S.C § 112.  So, it's possible that this may be the last significant best mode decision.

Track One Expedited Patent Examination Program Postponed

According to a message to USPTO Employees from Director David Kappos, the Track One expedited patent examination program (discussed in this earlier post), scheduled to go into effect on May 4, 2011, is postponed until further notice.  As reported in Hal Wegner's newsletter, the cancellation is due to budgetary cuts and whether and when prioritized examination may be reinstated is unclear.

New Fast Track Examination at the USPTO

Beginning May 4, 2011, a US patent applicant can request prioritized or "fast track" examination at the USPTO under the newly promulgated "Track 1" procedure of 37 C.F.R. 1.102(e). To obtain the Track 1 prioritized examination, the following conditions must be met when the application is filed: (1) the application must be an original utility or plant non-provisional application (i.e., this procedure is not available for international national stage entry applications, design applications, reissue applications, provisional applications, or reexamination proceedings, but is available for continuation and divisional applications, including a continuation application of an international application designating the US); (2) the application must be filed with an executed inventor oath or declaration and all applicable filing and publication fees; (3) the application must not contain more than four independent claims, more than thirty total claims, or any multiple dependent claims; and (4) a request for prioritized examination must be filed together with a $4000 filing fee and a $130 processing fee. Currently, there is no reduction in the $4000 fee for small entity applicants.

The USPTO indicates that it will only grant a maximum of 10,000 application requests for prioritized examination in fiscal year 2011, which concludes September 30, 2011.

Once an application is granted the prioritized status, the application will be placed on the examiner’s special docket throughout its course of prosecution until a final disposition is issued. A “final disposition” is defined to mean (1) mailing of a notice of allowance; (2) mailing of a final Office action; (3) filing of a notice of appeal; (4) declaration of an interference by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference (BPAI); (5) filing of a request of continued examination; or (6) abandonment of the application.

A word of caution: If an extension of time is taken for any response, prioritized examination will be terminated. Also, prioritized status will be lost if the application is amended to include more than four independent claims, more than 30 total claims, or any multiple dependent claims.

The USPTO's goal for Track 1 applications is to provide a "final disposition" within 12 months of prioritized status being granted. However, this is a goal, not a guarantee!

Is Patent Reform Finally On Its Way?

There was much excitement when the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed (95–5) the America Invents Act (formerly titled the Patent Reform Act of 2011) (S.23 or AIA), on March 8, 2011. The America Invents Act  This legislation represents a major patent reform initiative that has been under congressional debate for at least six years and is quite possibly the most significant patent reform since the 1952 Patent Act. This legislation rewrites, among many other things, who is entitled to a patent when two or more entities seek protection for the same invention, when prior art is available for novelty and nonobviousness determinations, and what is available to a third party who wants to oppose a patent.

First-to-File: When two or more entities seek patents for the same invention, current law awards the patent to the entity that can prove it was the first to invent. Under the AIA, the patent would be awarded to the first-to-file a patent application. Proponents argue that this is more efficient because it eliminates costly and time consuming procedures called interferences and aligns U.S. law with other industrialized countries. Opponents argue that this favors large companies over small companies and independent inventors who do not have the resources to win a race to the patent office. To somewhat address these concerns, the AIA allows for a derivation claim (either in court or the Patent Office) when the first-filer “derived” their claimed invention from the other. Even with these derivation claims, however, the AIA appears to favor large companies who are active in patenting innovations.

 

Importantly, the AIA does not include any provision for prior user rights. Current law has limited prior user rights in that a prior user who is sued for infringement may be able to invalidate that patent by claiming prior invention. That option is eliminated in a first-to-file system leaving a prior user potentially liable for infringement. This is particularly a concern for business methods and software because many companies have considered their business method and software innovations either unpatentable or better protected as a trade secret. Without prior user rights, a company can be liable for patent infringement for continuing to use an innovation that they have been using for years as a trade secret. This lack of prior user rights could be very problematic for industries such as the financial industry and the software industry. The AIA temporarily adds a limited proceeding to challenge business method patents within the patent office but this will be of little help if all of the accused company's prior use was secret.

 

Novelty/Nonobviousness: In order to obtain a patent, an invention must be novel and nonobvious. The AIA rewrites Sections 102 (novelty) and 103 (nonobviousness) of the Patent Act. Current Section 102(a) denies a patent when prior art shows the invention was known to others prior to the patent applicant's invention date. The AIA moves up the focus to the patent applicant's filing date and whether prior art existed before that date. This expands the scope of potential prior art and may make it more difficult to obtain a patent. Current Section 102(b) bars a patent when there is prior art of the inventor or others disclosed more than a year before the patent applicant's filing date. This creates a grace period for pre-filing disclosures but prevents the patent applicant from waiting more than a year to file a patent application. The AIA only applies this grace period to pre-filing disclosures of the inventor or pre-filing disclosures derived from the inventor. Thus, the grace period no longer applies to independent disclosures by others. This also expands the scope of potential prior art and may make it more difficult to obtain a patent. The AIA also rewrites Section 103 (nonobviousness) to deny a patent when the invention is obviousness as of the patent applicant's filing date rather than “at the time the invention was made” per the current Section 103. This yet again expands the scope of potential prior art and may make it more difficult to obtain a patent. 

 

Third Party Participation: When the public is aware of prior art that may prevent the issuance of a patent, current law has a very narrow window of two months after publication of the application to submit the prior art to the Patent Office. In some cases, a patent application is not published and thus there is not an opportunity for the public to submit prior art. The AIA permits the public to submit prior art to the Patent Office at any time. This change has little opposition. The AIA also creates a post grant review and an inter partes review for third parties to oppose issued patents. These proceedings would replace the current reexamination system within the patent office which is limited to addressing patentability issues raised by prior patents or printed publications. The post grant review permits a third party to raise any issue of patentability at the patent office within nine months of the issuance of the patent. The inter partes review permits a third party to raise prior patent or printed publication issues after nine months of the issuance of the patent. Opponents believe that these changes do not go far enough to provide a viable alternative to litigation that is fair to both parties.

 

Initial excitement upon passage by the U.S. Senate appears to be waning as anticipated quick action in the U.S. House of representatives appears unlikely. Initial hearings by the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet raised questions about the lack of prior user rights and the decreasing nature of the post grant proceedings. Other questions were directed to the lack of change to damage provisions which some commentators believe to be the biggest concern of current patent law and the inclusion of the proceeding to challenge business method patents. Note that the Senate removed changes to damage provisions as a compromise to obtain passage of the AIA. It now appears there may still be a long battle before we see patent reform.