Publications

My last column was the first of two columns discussing some of the most common misconceptions or myths about patents.  Here is the second part, starting with number five on my list.

5. A Patent Does Not Give the Patent Owner the Right to Practice the Invention.

Inventors and patent owners often assume that a patent gives them rights to practice the patented invention, i.e., freedom from infringement.  Not true.

A patent is a grant to its owner of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, and selling the patented invention in the United States, or importing the invention into the United States.  These rights are called exclusionary rights.  A patent does not provide its owner with the rights to do these things.  An invention may be patentable but still infringe another person’s patent.  In such a case, the patent owner may have a patent on the invention but cannot make or use the invention unless they obtain a license from the owner of the patent that is infringed.

6. Patents Do Not Infringe Other Patents.

A patent cannot infringe another patent.  Only a machine, article of manufacture, composition of matter, or process can infringe a patent.

As stated above, a patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing the patented invention.  The patent is infringed if any of these acts are committed in the United States without the patent owner’s permission.  Thus, there is no infringement unless someone makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells the invention in the United States, or imports the invention into the United States.  An invention described in a patent may infringe another patent, but only if it is made, used, offered for sale, sold, or imported in the United States.  The patent itself is not an act of infringement.

7. Patentability and Patent Infringement are Not the Same Thing.

Inventors often think that if their invention is patentable, then it cannot infringe other patents.  Not so.  Patentability and patent infringement are two different things.  An invention may be both patentable and infringe an existing patent.  In both cases, the starting point of the analysis is the claims.

To determine if an invention is patentable, the invention, as it is claimed, is compared to what is known in the field (the prior art).  In general, prior art includes written documents (such as other patents, published articles, catalogs, and websites), as well as actions by the inventor and third parties, that exist before the patent application is filed.

The first requirement of patentability is that the claims must be novel (new or different) over the prior art.  The test for novelty is performed by looking at each element of the invention as claimed.  If all of the elements of the claimed invention are present in a single prior art reference, then the invention is not novel and is said to be anticipated by the prior art.  The invention is not patentable.

The second requirement of patentability is that the claims must be nonobvious over the prior art.  The invention is obvious if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the invention, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time it was made to a person with ordinary skill in the art.  Unlike the test for novelty, the test for obviousness is not limited to a single prior art reference – any number of references can be combined to render an invention obvious.  For obviousness to be found, every element of the claimed invention must be present or suggested in the prior art, although not necessarily in the same reference.

To determine if an invention infringes an existing, in force (not expired) patent, the claims of the patent in question are compared to the invention (in a patent infringement action, the district court first interprets or construes the claims to determine their meaning and scope).  If each element of a claim is present in the invention (literally, or in some cases, by an equivalent), that claim is infringed.  Only one claim need be infringed for the patent to be infringed.

Thus, although it sounds counter-intuitive, an invention can be patentable over a prior art patent and, at the same time, infringe the same patent.

California was the first state to legalize marijuana for medical use.  In 1996, California approved Proposition 215, the California Compassionate Use Act.  Two decades later, California voters approved  Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA).  Despite the fact that cannabis has been legal in California since 1996, you still can’t get a trademark in California for marijuana, medical or otherwise.  Why is that.

The problem results from a disconnect between California’s trademark statutes and the California laws governing legal cannabis use.  California Business and Professions Code Section 14272 provides as follows:

The intent of this chapter is to provide a system of state trademark registration and protection substantially consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1051 et seq.), as amended. To that end, the construction given the federal act should be examined as nonbinding authority for interpreting and construing this chapter.

The USPTO regularly rejects applications to register trademarks related to cannabis on the grounds that such use would not constitute “lawful use in commerce”.  The legal reasoning underlying such rejection goes as follows:  Under federal trademark law, the registration of a trademark requires use of that mark in connection with the goods or services in commerce.  Federal trademark law defines “commerce” as all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.  If the goods or services covered by a mark are unlawful, actual lawful use in commerce is not possible.  And in those situations, a mark covering such unlawful goods or services cannot be federally registered.

Cannabis and products that are primarily intended or designed for use in connection with cannabis are federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.  The federal trademark office has taken the position that if a mark covers a good or services that would be illegal under the CSA, lawful use in commerce is not possible, and as such, the mark cannot be federally registered.

The trademark examiners in Sacramento have gone further than taking USPTO reasoning as nonbinding authority; they have taken the USPTO reasoning as gospel in  rejecting state applications for cannabis.  However, California’s lawmakers are proposing an amendment to California’s trademark laws that will address this inconsistency.

AB 64 proposes to, notwithstanding those provisions, authorize the use of specified classifications for marks related to medical cannabis and nonmedical cannabis, including medicinal cannabis, goods and services that are lawfully in commerce under state law in the State of California

AB 64 intends to provide a statutory mechanism for allowing the registration of a California trademark for cannabis products.  The bill proposes two new classifications of goods and services may be used for trademark marks related to cannabis, including medicinal cannabis that are lawfully in commerce under state law in the State of California.  The proposed classes are:

(1) 500 for goods that are cannabis or cannabis products, including medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products.

(2) 501 for services related to cannabis or cannabis products, including medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products.

While AB 64 would appear to solve conflict at the California Secretary of State’s trademark department, the down side is that California state trademark registrations for cannabis products will not be available until January 1, 2018.

A plaintiff seeking to prevail on a trademark infringement claim needs to establish that there is some likelihood of confusion between its mark and that of the defendant.  Generally, a plaintiff establishes that there is “forward” confusion by showing that customers believed they were doing business with plaintiff but because of a confusion in their respective marks, were actually doing business with the defendant.  Sometimes, however, a plaintiff will seek to establish “reverse confusion” in that a customer believing they were doing business with a defendant actually ends up doing business with the plaintiff.  The Ninth Circuit, in the case Marketquest Group v. BIC Corp. (decided July 7, 2017), was faced with the issue as to whether a plaintiff seeking to prevail under a theory of “reverse confusion” is required to plead that theory with specificity.

For nearly 20 years, Marketquest produced and sold promotional products utilizing its registered trademarks “All-in-One” and “The Write Choice.”  In 2009, BIC Corporation acquired a competitor in the promotional products field and began publishing promotional product catalogs featuring the phase “All-in-One” and in other advertising, using the phrase “The WRITE Pen Choice for 30 Years.”  Marketquest sued BIC for trademark infringement.  After the District Court granted summary judgment to BIC, Marketquest appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  (This article does not address the other issues decided by the Ninth Circuity other than the pleading requirement.)

In seeking to have the Ninth Circuit reject the appeal, BIC argued that Marketquest could not proceed under a “reverse confusion” theory because it had not specifically pled such a theory in its complaint. The Ninth Circuit began by recognizing that the Lanham Act allows a trademark owner to pursue a cause of action against someone who uses the trademark in commerce “when such use is likely to cause confusion.”  Given that neither party questioned the validity of Marketquest’s trademarks, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the main issue before the lower court was “whether there is a likelihood of confusion: that is, whether Defendants’ `actual practice[s were] likely to produce confusion in the minds of consumers about the origin of the goods … in question.’”  Since at least 2005, the Ninth Circuit has recognized two theories of consumer confusion: “forward confusion” and “reverse confusion”.  See Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.32 625 (9^th Cir. 2005).  Because Marketquest was attempting to establish trademark infringement under a theory of “reverse confusion,” BIC argued that it was required to plead such a theory with specificity in its complaint and that having failed to do so, the lower court properly granted judgment against it.

The Ninth Circuit recognized that it had not addressed this issue before, but that the First Circuit, in Dorpan, S.L. v. Hotel Melia, Inc. 728 F.3d 55 (1^st Cir. 2013), had.  In that case the First Circuit ruled that “`reverse confusion’ is not a separate legal claim requiring separate pleading.  Rather, it is a descriptive term referring to certain circumstances that can give rise to a likelihood of confusion.”  The Ninth Circuit adopted this approach and ruled in Marketquest’s favor “when reverse confusion is compatible with the theory of infringement alleged in the complaint, a  Plaintiff need not specifically plead it.”

BIC argued that at least two prior Ninth Circuit cases required a different result.  BIC first cited the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Surfvivor to support its argument that strict pleading is required. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument and held that the only the thing that the Surfvivor case held was that when reverse confusion is the only plausible theory in a trademark infringement complaint, a plaintiff cannot establish a viable trademark infringement claim based on “forward confusion.”

BIC also cited Murray v. Cable National Broadcasting Co., 86 F.3d 858 (9^th Cir. 1996) in support of its proposition that in order to plead a “reverse confusion” theory, “a plaintiff must allege that the defendant `saturated the market with advertising’ or alleged actual reverse confusion from customers.”  The Ninth Circuit likewise rejected this argument recognizing that its Murray decision was decided before it had even recognized a theory of infringement based on “reverse confusion.”  More importantly, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff in Murray had not alleged any cognizable trademark infringement claim regardless of whether it was based on “forward confusion” or “reverse confusion.”

The Ninth Circuit concluded that although Marketquest did not use the words “reverse confusion” in its complaint, nor did it allege that the defendants had saturated the market, it had alleged generally that customers “were confused `as to whether some affiliation, connection or association existed’ among defendants and Marketplace and specifically alleged that there were actual instances of forward confusion (i.e., that consumers that that defendant’s goods came from Marketquest).”  Although Marketquest did not raise issues of ”reverse confusion” until its motion for preliminary injunction and later on summary judgment, the lower court’s order did recognize that Marketquest was asserting infringement based on “reverse confusion.”  Although it had not pled such a theory with specificity in its complaint, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the lower court properly allowed Marketquest to proceed under a “reverse confusion” theory and held that Marketquest was not required to plead such a theory with specificity in its complaint.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Marketquest will give plaintiffs some leeway in pleading their theory of trademark infringement. However, plaintiffs will still be required to allege some likelihood of confusion between its mark and that of the defendant in order to avoid a dismissal of their infringement claim.

Because it’s summertime, I thought we should take a break from “serious” intellectual property articles.  So, instead, here are some patented inventions that you might see this summer.

A baseball with a speedometer seems like a great idea.  Although I don’t know anyone who has one, I’ve seen them in toy catalogs.  What could be more American?  We love baseball (at least many of us do) and we love competition, and this allows you to prove how fast you can throw the ball!  The patent is entitled “Baseball Having Inherent Speed-Measuring Capabilities.”  The patent covers the baseball itself, which contains a computer chip, as well as a method of determining the speed the ball is thrown.

A spray misting system for cooling people is a very useful thing.  These systems are very popular; in the last few weeks, I have seen them at a restaurant and at the State Fair.  They’re really effective.  One patent is entitled “Water Mist Cooling System.”  Apparently, there are several similar systems on the market, but most have a lot of problems, such as low water pressure due to reliance on tap water, and clogging due to small nozzle openings and high levels of dissolved solids in the water.  The invention is basically a hose with a series of nozzles, but it also has a pump and a regulator.  The pump solves the low water pressure problem and the regulator flushes the system to reduce clogging.

Corn on the cob holders – a cute idea, but no one actually seems to use them.  They come in all sorts of designs, from those with plain handles to those with decorative handles (little corn cobs, soccer balls, etc.).  Most of the patents I found were design patents and all were entitled “Corn Cob Holder.”  The designs varied in their handles (flat, cylindrical, or curved inward) and in the number of prongs (one, two, or four).  Even though these seem useful, most people seem to prefer to eat corn with their fingers.

The frisbee is a classic summertime invention.  The oldest patent I found was issued in 1967 and was called “Flying Saucer.”  Since then, there have been many patents covering improvements to what is now called a “flying disc.”  There are two types: regular saucer-shaped discs and ring-shaped ones.  The aerodynamics of the two types are completely different. I found one patent that described a “yo-yo returning disc” that uses a string and axle to create “yo-yo motion,” causing the disc to return to the user, like a boomerang.  The advantage of this invention is that a person can play frisbee all alone.  I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this, but if you did, this invention would make it much easier.

The barbecue fork with thermometer is a common subject for design patents.  These devices allow you to stab your food item as it’s being grilled to determine whether it’s done.  As a vegetarian, I don’t need this device, but I’m told it is very useful.  The patented designs vary in the location of the thermometer (an in-line thermometer in the handle of the fork or a round device sitting on top of the handle), and in the length of the fork portion.  The forks with the longer fork portion would seem to be better – so that you don’t burn your arm.

There are lots of patents for soccer shin guards.  The old shin guards were pretty simplistic, consisting of a single piece of stiff material.  The new ones have a separate foot portion that attaches with velcro at the ankle to the shin portion.  The patented shin guards all try to solve the same problem: they must be flexible enough to fit a variety of shins and yet also be stiff enough to provide protection.  Protection is critical, because the shin bone (the tibia) is a very vulnerable bone – it is long, thin, triangular, and not covered by muscle or fat.  One patent described a moisture-curable resin shin guard that can be molded to the user’s shin without heat, using only water, to form a rigid, tight-fitting guard.  This sounds like an effective way of getting a good fit.

The swim noodle is my favorite summer invention.  I have a bunch of them, and I wish I’d patented it.  The noodle is a long, open-celled, foam tube that is used as a pool floatation toy.  They come in many colors and shapes.  You can do just about anything with the noodle, depending on how many you have and how you arrange them.  You can use them to float sitting up, lying down, or something in between.  You can use them to do water exercises and to reach other pool toys floating in the pool.  Kids (and adults!) use them to whack each other or blow water out.  I couldn’t find a patent for the basic noodle, but I did find one for a noodle chair.  However, I think the noodle is best used in its purest form, by itself.

Now, enjoy the rest of our summer!