Div.ms-titleareaframe { height: 100%; } .ms-pagetitleareaframe table { background: none; } .edit-mode-panel{ width:100%; }
close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Kickstarting an Old Patent System for the New Software Era

Software patents have been having a rough time of it lately. It seems everyone has something bad to say about them, from the courts to the press, and even some software engineers.

And truly it is software that is being singled out as the villain in the patent universe—Vanity Fair has yet to publish an expose on “the razor blade wars,” nor has the Supreme Court addressed the important question of whether a chainsaw is merely an abstract idea. Patents on starting a car with just one click have seldom been the subject of disdain in the blogosphere.

This nadir, however, presents an opportune time to look for creative solutions to patent protection for software, including a new opt-in alternative for obtaining software patents.

Fundamentally, software is different from other kinds of technologies. Unlike mechanical devices we can see, touch and observe directly in operation, software is invisible, hiding out inside our television sets, smartphones, refrigerators and cars.

While in theory a software innovation should be entitled under the existing patent statutes to the same protection as a new physical machine, the courts and the public often act as though patents on software are allowing applicants to get away with something undeserved. A new kind of windshield wiper blade is clearly worth protecting—we can literally see the improvement. But the software application used to design the blade to have such a high degree of effectiveness? Well, that’s just creating some algorithms—maybe some hard math, but nothing patent worthy.

1. Creating a New Software Patent System

Many in the patent bar and on the courts have struggled mightily for over two decades to articulate the rationale by which existing law should cover innovations in the software industry just as robustly as in the physical world. While those arguments remain valid, there is something to be said for treating software differently for purposes of patent protection. Not because it is less deserving, but because our system for granting and enforcing patents is out of sync with how the industry operates.

The software industry differs from other industries in several respects, and many of those inform how we might design a new software patent system. Some things to consider are speed, enforceability and term.

Consider the pace of software evolution, in which applications are often refreshed, revised and upgraded within periods of months or just a couple of years. Now consider that under the existing patent system, it can easily take three to five years to get an issued patent that can be enforced against an infringer. A new software patent system, therefore, must result in faster issuance of patent rights through a modified examination system. Under the current system, examiners study each claim of each application for both novelty and obviousness. Under a modified system, examiners could simply search for novelty, leaving the question of obviousness to litigation as is now done in New Zealand. Alternatively, software patent applications can be limited to a small number of claims, or the applicant could designate which claims should actually be examined. Software patents would then issue much more quickly, allowing them to be enforced while the innovations they describe are still technologically relevant.

Next, we can adjust the patent term. Today’s utility patents have a term of 20 years measured from their earliest non-provisional filing date. Adjusting for various examination delays and statutory extensions, patents are typically enforceable for about 15 to 17 years. In many industries, patents grow more valuable with time. This is perhaps most true in the pharmaceuticals industry—consider the growth of Viagra and Lipitor sales over their patent term. In those industries, a longer term is key.

Not typically so for software. Innovations in this space typically have limited longevity. One of the standard battle cries against today’s software patents is they end up being asserted years later against unsuspecting defendants through tortured interpretations of their claims that go well beyond the scope of what the inventor originally envisioned. A shorter term for software patents—seven years, perhaps—would address this concern while also mitigating the anticompetitive effect inherent in patents.

The third aspect of a new software patent scheme relates to enforceability. In the existing patent system, all issued patents are presumed by statute to be valid. The onus is on a defendant in litigation to prove otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. A defendant who can prove the patent is invalid escapes paying damages for infringement, but nonetheless is left with a huge legal bill for his trouble.

2. Shifting the Litigation Burden

In a modified software patent system, the tradeoff for a less rigorous examination to obtain the patent is an increased burden on the patent owner in litigation. This may include, for example, a lower standard imposed on the defendant to invalidate—for example, a preponderance of the evidence standard instead of a requirement for clear and convincing evidence. If the examination process does not include an obviousness analysis, then indeed the burden will be on the patentee to rebut a showing of obviousness by a defendant.

Remedies may also be limited—by making injunctions unavailable, for example, or by capping damages. Other reforms currently being discussed in Congress such as a loser-pays system would also serve to limit litigation and encourage settlement.

Of course, many innovations in the software space are pioneering, and applicants may anticipate that they will have long-term value. A software patent scheme would therefore be an opt-in system, allowing the applicant to select the system deemed most appropriate for the invention.

Instead of trying to force the square peg of software innovations into the round hole of a patent system designed for inventions of a prior era, we should take the opportunity to fashion a system that better serves the needs of the software industry and the public as a whole.

 

Reprinted with permission from the July 17, 2014 issue of The Recorder.​​