Media Mentions
2012
“Kappos Guides PTO As It Revs Up for New Law”
National Law Journal, January 23, 2012
Leigh Martinson praised Patent & Trademark Office director David Kappos as “doing a fantastic job,” adding of Mr. Kappos that “his communication has been clear, concise and on-point.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
2011
“Administration Says America Invents Act Will Address Software Ban Petitioners’ Concerns”
BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, November 4, 2011
Leigh Martinson called the Obama Administration’s response to an online petition to halt and void software patents “very well done. They said all the right things.” The response cited provisions in the new America Invents Act and other initiatives to keep overly broad patents from inhibiting innovation. Saying he appreciated the focus on patent quality, Mr. Martinson summarized the administration’s view as, “If there is a problem with software patents, it’s up to the Congress or the Supreme Court to figure that out. And that’s the way it should be.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“President’s We the People Website Includes Well Supported Software Patent Ban Petition”
BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, September 30, 2011
Leigh Martinson, commenting on a September 28 petition that received more than twice the minimum required to force the administration to provide a response, said “While this is an old debate, the passing of the new patent reform laws seems to have sparked interest in the topic again.” Mr. Martinson continued, “Certainly arguments can be made for both pro- and anti-software patent positions. However, a close review of the new legislation could lead one to believe Congress is actually encouraging the ‘individual inventor’ to protect his patentable software ideas by substantially lowering the official patent office fees associated with the prosecution of patent.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“The Long-Awaited Patent Reform is Now Law. This Week, We Look at its Ramifications”
Boston Business Journal, September 30, 2011
Leigh Martinson, commenting on the patent reform law’s effect on the first-to-file system, said, “I think it will force some companies to change the way they do things. Now there’s a risk every time you decide not to file for something because someone else could.” Mr. Martinson continued, “We might see companies streamline their patent review process and maybe even force people like me to have tighter deadlines.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“Anti-Software-Patent Petition Makes White House’s Top 10”
Computerworld, September 28, 2011
Leigh Martinson, commenting about the large number of signatures on a petition to ban software patents that has been submitted to the White House, said that while it is hard for the solo software developer to know if the program they are working on is already patented, a software patent overall provides “a competitive advantage, and it keeps people employed.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“Petitioners Ask White House to End Software Patents”
Law360, September 26, 2011
Leigh Martinson said that, despite the fact that thousands of signatures appear on a petition calling for abolition of all software patents sent to the White House, “I can’t imagine the government is going to go out of its way to make a statement with regard to this.” Mr. Martinson noted that the new patent reform law did not address software patents, and that it would be highly impractical to void such patents. “Hundreds of man-hours of labor can go into creating software,” he added. “Why should you not be able to protect that work?”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“Patent Bar in Mass. Split on Impact of New Law”
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, September 20, 2011
Leigh Martinson predicted that the new patent reform law’s impact on infringement claims will mean “fewer defendants in each multiple-defendant case, but won’t slow down the pace of filing” of such cases by non-practicing entities (NPEs) who sue in the hope of getting licensing agreements for patents they hold. He added that the law will thus likely slow down NPE licensing revenue because “it messes with their strategy.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“With Some Changes, Patent Reform Bill Cruising Toward House Passage”
Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, May 25, 2011
Leigh Martinson predicted that if the House of Representatives passes its own version of patent reform, “On the big issues such as first-to-file, processes for improving quality and addressing opposition, as well as supplemental examinations, the House and Senate bills will not be that far apart.” Robert Underwood said the Patent & Trademark Office “isn’t well equipped” to enforce a proposed House patent reform bill amendment that would bar examination of patents where fraud was attempted.
Leigh J. Martinson, Robert H. Underwood Ph.D., Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“When a System is Used, Who is Responsible for the ‘Use’?”
National Law Journal, May 9, 2011
Leigh Martinson and Brett Bachtell authored this bylined article assessing the Federal Circuit’s Centillion patent infringement decision, which held that even if a party does not have direct physical control over all elements of a system, use (and infringement) can be shown if its customers use it. This means, the authors wrote, that patent drafters should now “ensure the[ir] claims are formatted in a way that will allow the proper target to be identified as a defendant in any future litigation.” Also, plaintiffs must now “sue customers of the defendant in combination with the corporate defendant … to identify and include as many users as possible in the litigation.”
Brett E. Bachtell, Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“A Patent Plaintiff is Forced to Pause”
Corporate Counsel, April 2011
Leigh Martinson observed that if wireless device patents of patent-holding company NPT Inc. are ruled invalid in a current matter before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it would probably affect the company’s “ability to extract royalties from others going forward on those patents,” as it famously did from Research in Motion Ltd. for its BlackBerry product.
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property
“NTP Faces Crucial Patent Challenge”
National Law Journal, February 7, 2011
Leigh Martinson, commenting on NTP Inc.’s appeal to the Federal Circuit on Patent Office rulings that invalidated a number of patents that it holds and has used to sue other companies for infringement, observed that losing at the circuit court level would likely affect NTP’s “ability to extract royalties from others going forward on those patents.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution
2010
“A common defense: Recession pushes cooperation”
Boston Business Journal, September 24, 2010
Leigh Martinson was quoted regarding the trend of defendants who are sued by patent-holders to pool their resources and advance a common defense. Mr. Martinson noted that in such instances there is a risk that one or more defendants will settle before trial, leaving fewer parties to bear defense costs. The result among defendants, he said, “is a lot of striving for price competition from law firms. If you have a flat fee for a case of, say, 10 defendants, and each pays $500,000, that may make sense, but what happens if two of the 10 settle?” For this reason, Mr. Martinson added, a joint defense “needs to be carefully planned out and accounted for. But in most cases, working together is at least worth a long look.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
Leigh Martinson spoke about the economic pressures driving patent law reform in a May 10 Mass. High Tech article. He said that such pressure is “a result of the law not keeping up with how fast technology is moving, so you’re hearing about patent reform in every Congressional session now.” Mr. Martinson also noted that “the courts are taking matters into their own hands” by updating patent law with “changes in how damages are calculated and what reasonable royalties are. If anything, changes in technology are driving changes in the law.” For many companies, he added, intellectual property is now “the core of the business. It used to be, ‘just get me a patent.’ Now its, ‘Get me a patent that’s going to allow me to leverage relationships and compete.’ That’s exciting.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, Patent Prosecution
Leigh Martinson was quoted in an April 15 National Law Journal story about a streamlined review process at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). Mr. Martinson said that the new procedures should help keep patent lawyers from receiving “notices over the most stupid things and that really slows you down.” He added that patent appeals have become more critical as the number of patents approved has dropped. “If you think you cannot make any headway with a patent examiner, your only option is to appeal,” Mr. Martinson stated, “and the speed in which you can have your appeal heard and reversed or confirmed is important.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution
Leigh Martinson commented for The National Law Journal (January 28) concerning a small company’s federal court victory against the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The win reinstated the company’s patent for safety protection equipment seven years after the PTO ruled the patent had expired after the company’s lawyer at the time missed paying a maintenance fee on the patent application. Mr. Martinson (who was not directly involved in the case) said that “[i]t’s a high hurdle” for a plaintiff to win reinstatement by proving that the PTO acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and elaborated: “It’s something that is typically not easy to overcome. But I think in this case, when you look at the record, I’m not surprised that they won.”
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
2009
Leigh Martinson was quoted in a September 29 Law.com examination of the increasing amount of time required by the Patent & Trademark Office Appeals Board to resolve patent filing appeals. Mr. Martinson cited the problems that such long timeframes can cause, saying that while waiting for an appeal to be resolved, “You could get a change in the law that affects the arguments that you’ve made. You could get a new ground of rejection that you hadn’t faced before.” He added that such developments could send the case back to the examiner, with the result that a possible new rejection would mean another appeal. Mr. Martinson provided similar comments to the Broward Daily Business Review on September 30.
Leigh J. Martinson, Intellectual Property
Leigh Martinson commented for Law.com (July 6) on the decrease in patent allowance rates and resulting sharp increase in patent appeals at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Mr. Martinson noted a growing reluctance by patent examiners to suggest changes that address concerns about a patent application. “You stopped getting that negotiating feeling with examiners,” he said. “The only way you can get past them is to go to the [appeals] board.” Mr. Martinson added that appeals are more expensive than continuing an application: “It becomes a much more involved response. You’ve really got to point out everything the examiner has done incorrectly.”
