copyright, domains, patent, trade secret
Ownership is more than just owning something.
When I was an army officer, we assigned drivers to particular vehicles. Why? Drivers take pride in their vehicles and maintain them better when they take “ownership”. It was enough to assign the vehicle to the driver. Downtime was reduced.
Ownership is a mindset.
If you truly OWN your iP, others will respect it more. So, take the time to own your iP.
It doesn’t take that much time or money. Just make sure the agreements necessary to transfer rights in iP to your company are available and used.
Yes you can!
That’s what the board said in ex parte Linden.
Examiners are challenging claims of patents that are patentable as being directed to “ineligible subject matter” under section 101 of the patent law. This means that the claims are not patentable, but only due to the invention being directed improperly to some “abstract idea” rather than some practical application. (This stems from the difficulty in applying the Supreme Court’s logic in its “Alice” decision, which has left many inventors and patent professionals, alike, seemingly lost in patent Wonderland.)
The board disagreed with the Examiner’s reasoning for rejecting claims as ineligible in ex parte Linden. So, this case is instructive for showing software that is patent eligible.
Since no claims recited any mathematical concept, the Examiner was mistaken to base a rejection of the claims on an algorithm being recited in the specification. At least one mathematical concept must be recited in the claims to even go there.
Also, while it’s possible for transcription to be performed by a human, the board found the claims directed to a specific implementation that could not be performed in the human mind. The board pointed to the limitations in the claims including the steps of normalizing an input file, generating a jitter set of audio files, generating a set of spectrogram frames, obtaining predicted character probabilities from a trained neural network, and decoding a transcription of the input audio using the predicted character probability outputs. These steps are directed to a machine, not the human mind.
The Examiner’s argument that the claims recited “organizing human activity” was rejected by the board, also, because these steps have nothing to do with human activity.
The board sided with the Applicant that “…the claims of the current application include specific features that were specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result…” providing “…improvements to that technical field.”
Thus, the boards decision provides a blueprint for overcoming hasty rejections of claims that fail to provide any logical reason that specific limitations of claims are patent ineligible. Too often, Examiners seem to be rejecting claims on flimsy accusations of patent ineligibility. More board decisions like ex parte Linden will be needed to correct this common practice, which persists, notwithstanding the patent office’s revised guidance issued in October 2019.
If you are filing a patent in the U.S., the law does not require you to have a patent agent or attorney.
That said. A patent application is not easy to draft without significant training. Even for experienced patent attorneys, with all of the changes that are occurring in the law, drafting a patent application that will stand up to a legal battle in the future is challenging, to say the least.
So, you SHOULD hire the best patent attorney that you can afford, if you really NEED a patent.
The real question is … why do you need a patent?
I’m a US registered patent attorney and make my living from preparing, filing and stewarding patent applications through the patent office.
Most innovative and creative startups don’t NEED a patent.
If you need a patent, then you should be prepared to spend the money to get a good one.