Ruttler Mills PLLC

Seattle Patent Attorneys and Trademark Lawyers

206-838-6400 Complimentary 15 Minute Consultation

The Ruttler Mills Blog

Supreme Court Limits Contributory Liability for Exports

Posted Thursday, February 23, 2017 by Jim Ruttler

In Life Tech v. Promega, the Supreme Court has limited contributory liability for supplying parts overseas that are combined to infringe a U.S. patent.

The statute 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1) creates liability for supplying from the US “all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention” to be combined abroad in a manner that would infringe the US patent (if it had been combined in the US). That is, if a substantial portion of the patented invention is shipped overseas only to be combined into an infringing product, there is liability here in the U.S. This prevents companies from escaping infringement liability by making most of the patented product here and then shipping it overseas to finish up the product.

Here the defendant was only shipping one component/ingredient overseas and that ingredient was being used to create the infringing product. The Federal Circuit held that one ingredient could be a substantial part of the patented product. However, the Supreme Court reversed and said it is never enough to supply only one component. There must be a substantial number of components shipped overseas and not just one.

2-17-17 Roud-Up of Trademark News

Posted Friday, February 17, 2017 by Daniel Mills

New England Patriots File for NO DAYS OFF and BLITZ FOR SIX marks.

After their 5th super bowl victory, the New England Patriots have applied for two trademarks inspired by their latest win. The first trademark is BLITZ FOR SIX for both Clothing and Entertainment services namely "providing expert commentary on sports events via the Internet". BLITZ FOR SIX has a trademark history. The mark was previously registered for clothing and paper goods (posters, bumper stickers) in 2007, but the mark was cancelled in 2014. The record at the USPTO does not show a reason for the cancellation. Later, the mark was allowed in March 2015 for clothing and entertainment services namely "basketball games and exhibitions rendered live in stadia and through the media of radio and television broadcasts". However, the applicant never filed the required Statement of Use and the application was abandoned.

The NO DAYS OFF application is only for entertainment services namely "providing expert commentary on sports events via the Internet". Why not clothing, when a "NO DAYS OFF' hoodie with cut off sleeves seems like an obvious and lucrative item at the Patriots team shop? Because there is a prior pending application for the mark as well as an existing registration for TAKE NO DAYS OFF for Clothing. Despite the popularly held belief that the NFL is omnipotent, a belief most closely held by the league and its teams, there are some battles that they just can't win. So be on the lookout soon for some kind of internet show featuring "expert commentary" about the Patriots entitled NO DAYS OFF or BLITS FOR SIX.

PJ Fleck Acquires Rights to ROW THE BOAT

In other sports related trademark news, new Minnesota Golden Gopher football coach PJ Fleck reached a deal with his previous school, Western Michigan University, to use the trademark ROW THE BOAT for clothing and sporting events. It appears like it is a licensing agreement in which WMU will still retain ownership and the right to use the mark when recognizing Fleck's achievement at the University. Fleck will pay WMU $10,000 a year for five years that will be used to endow a scholarship. This is a good move for both parties. The phrase is Fleck's signature and will always be associated with him. It stems from Fleck's journey dealing with the death of his infant son in 2011.

New Proposed 101 Legislation

Posted Friday, February 10, 2017 by Jim Ruttler

Anyone following patent law over the past few years is aware of the uncertainty with respect to patent eligibility. The statute is clear that all useful machines, compositions, and processes are eligible, but the Courts have mucked it all up with judicially created exceptions to the rule. It has gotten so bad that it is difficult to know where the lines is for patent eligibility for some life science and computer program inventions.

The IPO has set forth the following proposed claim amendment seeking to eliminate the judicial exceptions once and for all and reset the law on patent eligibility. The brackets indicate removed terms from the present statute in (a). The sections (b) and (c) are completely new.

101 Inventions patentable.

101(a) ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER: Whoever invents or discovers, and claims as an invention, any [[new and]] useful process, machine, manufacture, [[or]] composition of matter, or any [[new and]] useful improvement thereto, shall be entitled to [[thereof, may obtain]] a patent for a claimed invention thereof [[therefor]], subject only to the exceptions, conditions, and requirements set forth in this Title [[of this title]].

101(b) SOLE EXCEPTION TO SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY: A claimed invention is ineligible under subsection (a) if and only if the claimed invention as a whole, as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, exists in nature independently of and prior to any human activity, or exists solely in the human mind.

101(c) SOLE ELIGIBILITY STANDARD: The eligibility of a claimed invention under subsections (a) and (b) shall be determined without regard as to the requirements or conditions of sections 102, 103, and 112 of this Title, the manner in which the claimed invention was made or discovered, or the claimed invention’s inventive concept.

Still No Clear Answers on Director Lee of USPTO

Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2017 by Jim Ruttler

Last week there were credible rumors that Michelle Lee was being asked to stay on as the Director of the USPTO. This week there are rumors that this has been reconsidered. Gene Quinn at has been following this story closely. He is reporting that there may be a division within the Trump team about whether to keep Lee or not. There are apparently some people that are close to Lee and Trump and who are advocating for her continued leadership at the USPTO. However, there are apparently some very loud voices within the Trump team that are advocating for a clear break from Obama's appointees.

Most patent owners would agree that Michelle Lee is not good for patents. The only people that do advocate her continued role are those that want patents to be easier to invalidate and less valuable.

My hope and that of most patent attorneys and patent owners is that Trump will choose a new candidate that can bring clarity and value back to patents. This will encourage more investment and produce more high quality jobs.

Director Lee Staying on Under Trump?

Posted Thursday, January 19, 2017 by Jim Ruttler

Breaking news is being reported by IPWatchdog and PatentlyO that current Patent Office Director Michelle Lee will be staying on under President Trump. This is quite a surprise by many in the patent community who expected Trump to choose another person to fill the job of running the Patent Office.

There is no information yet as to how long Lee may stay on as it may be a temporary transition until Trump can find another candidate.

My hope and belief is that Director Lee will adopt a more conservative and stronger view of patents under Trump.

More information to come as soon as it is available.

The Ruttler Mills Blog ›› Page 4 of 54 ›› Ruttler Mills PLLC