It has become the fashion these days to bemoan the poor quality of American public school education (occasionally correct), American popular music (mostly correct), and American political leadership (presently correct). Now, one percipient voice is addressing the poor quality of American patents (frequently correct).

As the reader undoubtedly knows – or should know – applicants for patents and their attorneys owe a duty of candor to the patent office. As part of this duty, they are obligated to disclose to the patent examiner all material prior art of which they are aware. That sounds fine, but exactly how far does that duty extend? If a patent examiner has been directed to consider a certain apparently pertinent prior art reference, but inexplicably fails to do so, is it the duty of the applicant’s attorney to bring this failure to the examiner’s attention?

Back in the dark ages, when I was in high school, my English literature class studied The Catcher in the Rye. Since at that time I planned to be an engineer, I made a point of showing no interest in literature. As the semester ended before we finished studying the book, I never did find out how it ended.

We have frequently decried the actions of patent infringers (slimeballs). Now, it seems that even when they take a license, the actions of some companies may remain questionable. Discovision Associates v. Toshiba Corporation. Discovision granted a patent license to Toshiba and its subsidiaries.

A previous blog post discussed the eBay decision, about which we will not comment further, except to note that it effectively removed one weapon from the arsenal of the NPE – the dreaded “non-practicing entity” (also, pejoratively known as a “troll”). No longer could the NPE threaten a patent infringer with the legal equivalent of a neutron bomb – a permanent injunction.

If a patent claim is indefinite, it is invalid. The key question, of course, is what constitutes indefiniteness. Well, patent draftspersons, rejoice. In a rare, precedential opinion, Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (USPTO BPAI) has decided that if a claim term is not used or defined in the specification, and the meaning of the term is not discernable, the claim is indefinite. Moreover, any inconsistency between a claim term and the patent specification may make the claim indefinite.

Under the common law, intellectual property, created by an employee in the course of his employment and pertaining to the business of his employer, belongs to the employer. Nevertheless, in order to leave no question as to this, most employers require employees to sign an agreement to this effect (the well known Employee Invention Assignment Agreement).

Patent licenses typically allow the licensee to “make, use and sell” the patented product. Often, they are silent as to the right of the licensee to have the licensed product made by a third party. In such a circumstance, does the license also include the right to “have made,” i.e. the right of the licensee to use third-party contractors to manufacture licensed products for its own use?