Recently, a partial verdict came back in the copyright trial phase of the case between Oracle and Google.  The  jury couldn’t decide whether Google’s use of Oracle’s Java APIs in the creation of the Android operating system was fair use, which is a defense to copyright infringement.

A jury finding of fair use would have let Judge Alsup off the hook from having to decide the most fundamental issue — whether APIs can be protected by copyright law.

If there is no copyright protection, there is no copyright infringement.

And Google won’t need a defense.

Soon Judge Alsup will decide whether an API is copyrightable subject matter  and not just a method of operation that can’t be protected.

What is an API?

To understand the copyright issue in the Oracle v. Google case, it’s first important to understand a little bit about an API — an  application programming interface.  Most simply, an API is a set of instructions that allows software components to talk to each other.  API owners generally allow developers to have access to their APIs so developers can build compatible applications that communicate seamlessly.

At issue in the case is Google’s use of Java APIs to allow Java applications to run on Android.

Limits on Copyright Protection

Copyright law does not protect all written expression. For example, a recipe, merely listing ingredients without substantial literary expression  is not protected. Indeed, the Copyright statute is explicit. There is no copyright protection for “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery” regardless of the form of expression. (17 U.S. C. Section 102(b))  If taken literally, however, these exceptions could forclose protection for software, which Congress specifically allowed.

Although copyright law protects some forms of software, operating instructions may be  unprotected “methods of operation.”  In the infamous Lotus v. Borland case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals found that Lotus’ menu command hierarchy was not copyrightable subject matter because it was a method of operation that was essential to operating the program. The court reasoned that software commands essential to the operability of the program are like “buttons” on a machine and consequently unprotected methods of operation. Moreover, the court reasoned that anyone can build on a method of operation — not just the original developers.

Arguably, APIs are merely methods of operation, interface access buttons. If that is the case, Google has not violated the law by using the APIs to build its Android operating system.

Stay tuned for the initial ruling, which is likely to be appealed to higher courts.

For more information on copyright law see:



The information provided in this legal blog is not intended as legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not submit questions or comments seeking legal advice or submit confidential information through this blog. By communicating through this blog, you understand and agree that the information will not be treated as confidential and the publisher has no duty to keep it confidential.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

How to Read a Patent Like a Pro

by Jill Hubbard Bowman on February 22, 2012

There is a fine art to reading patents. And it’s far harder than you might imagine.

The devil is really in the details.

Today, I’m explaining how to read a patent like a pro, including identifying the most important parts and considerations for interpretation. My primary goal is to help you get a better understanding of how to determine what a patent actually covers.  Frequently, it’s not what you’d initially think.

Part 1:  Patent Anatomy

Patents have several common sections:

  • the front page basics including the patent number, title, inventor’s name, owner if different, patent filing date, patent issue date, and cited references.
  • the abstract, which gives a snapshot of the type of invention and what it does;
  • the specification, which explains how to make and use the invention;
  • the drawings, which illustrate the invention; and
  • the claims, which define the legal boundaries of the patent’s coverage.

For example, see Patent No.4,833,729, a patent for a Shark Protector Suit.

From the front page, you can get a general idea about what the invention does. Here, the abstract describes the invention as a rubber suit with spikes “to prevent a shark from clamping its jaws over a wearer.”

But if you want to read a patent like a pro, after quickly reading the title and the abstract, you need to start at the end of the patent — with the claims.

The claims are the most critical part of a patent.

Shark Protector Suit Claim 1

It is the claims as issued that determine the scope of the patent’s reach. And the claims may have undergone major modifications during the patent prosecution process with the PTO. The specification may describe a general invention that seems to have broad coverage. Indeed, the initial claims may have been very broad and far reaching — too far reaching. Because of conflict with prior art, the inventor may have significantly narrowed what is being claimed to get the patent granted. And the issued patent may not even cover some of the “preferred embodiments,” examples of the invention described in the specification.

Don’t be fooled by broad language in the specification. You need to first look at the claims to get a sense of what is actually covered by the patent rights.

Then, you need to try to figure out what the claim language actually means — the claim construction.

Part 2:  Claim Construction for Beginners

Claims come in two flavors:  1) independent, stand alone claims; and 2) dependent, me-too type claims that incorporate an earlier claim with an additional element.

Claim construction is all about the meaning of individual words and phrases in the claims. Don’t be thrown off by the awkward wording or use of the term “said.” Drafters are trying to define the invention clearly and doing so can make the wording strange.

A definitive claim construction can be hard, very hard. Indeed, according to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, even district court judges in patent infringement suits get the claim construction wrong around half of the time. (In patent cases, the judge decides the claim construction after briefing by the attorneys, who try to persuade the judge of their particular interpretation. See example of a judicial claim construction analysis.) Moreover, millions of dollars are paid to attorneys who fight over the meaning of a few claim words. Amazingly nuanced, claim construction can be a high stakes squabble with billions of dollars in damages hinging on the meaning.

So how do you determine what a patent’s claim terms mean, especially when you’re not a lawyer?

First, start with the plain meaning of the words. How are they generally understood by a person skilled in the art? How are they defined in a standard or technical dictionary? Is there any ambiguity as to the meaning?

Second, read the specification very, very carefully. Have certain terms been coined or defined by the inventor? Examine the drawings and examples for clues about the meaning of the terms.

Third, and most importantly for infringement considerations, review the prosecution file history — the paperwork between the PTO and inventor as the patent application was examined. (You can find it on-line). The inventor may have had to distinguish the invention from prior art. She may have had to tell the examiner what the invention is not.  These limitations can be critical. The inventor cannot go back and try to insist that the invention covers what was disclaimed, although I’ve seen some plaintiff’s who have tried.

From these sources, you will have a basic idea about what the claims mean and what is covered or not covered. You’ll be able to read a patent like a pro.

(There are some special types of claims that get a different analysis, but in general you can understand the scope of the patent from the claims and specification.)

Jill Hubbard Bowman is a patent attorney who often ponders about the meaning of patent claims.


The information provided in this legal blog is not intended as legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not submit questions or comments seeking legal advice or submit confidential information through this blog. By communicating through this blog, you understand and agree that the information will not be treated as confidential and the publisher has no duty to keep it confidential.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Copyright Registrations: A big hammer for your small company

by Jill Hubbard Bowman on January 18, 2012

Benefits of Copyright Registration

If your company’s core products are original works of authorship — like software, websites, video games, music videos, graphics, photographs, musical compositions, cartoons, on-line publications, articles, books, or even automated databases — you may want to get enhanced benefits by filing a formal copyright registration with the Copyright Office.

There are several important reasons to file a federal copyright registration before infringement.  First, registration is necessary to even get to court. Second, if you win, the court may award statutory damages –- from $750 per infringed work to as high as $150,000 for willful infringement — and attorneys’ fees, which alone can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This big statutory hammer is very important when you send a cease and desist letter to an infringer.  If an infringer may face paying hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions) to the copyright owner pursuant to the statute, they should be more likely to stop infringing and settle out of court.

And the hammer is relatively cheap.

The registration fee for a simple work filed electronically is $35. (Fees vary depending on the type of work and method of filing.)

To get the statutory benefits, however, you must file for copyright registration before infringement or within three months of publication of the work.  If you file late, you will have to prove the amount of actual damages you have suffered because of the infringement and pay all of your own costs and attorneys fees. In some cases, without registration, the costs of enforcement may be too high to justify going to court.

The difference between statutory damages and actual damages can be astronomical and the copyright litigation in the music industry is illustrative.

Really, what are the actual damages from illegally downloading a song? 99 cents?

In one case, however, a jury found that a single mother who willfully downloaded 24 songs on the KaZa’s file sharing network liable for $1.9 million in statutory damages. Now, that’s a big hammer.

[click to continue…]


The information provided in this legal blog is not intended as legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not submit questions or comments seeking legal advice or submit confidential information through this blog. By communicating through this blog, you understand and agree that the information will not be treated as confidential and the publisher has no duty to keep it confidential.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

IP Review and Update for the New Year

January 17, 2012

January is a great time of year to take stock of your IP protection strategy. How has your business grown or changed? Have you shifted your brand strategy? Have you created new core technology, website, or interactive platform? If so, you should reevaluate whether: you have taken proper steps to protect your new brand name [...]

Read the full article →

Is Your Startup Ready for IP Due Diligence?

October 20, 2011

As an IP attorney who has conducted due diligence for VCs, Angels, and acquiring companies, I’m wondering: Is your startup ready for due diligence? Do you even know what that means? Let me explain what IP due diligence is and why your preparation today is important. If you are very fortunate and a savvy investor [...]

Read the full article →

Does Your Investment Pitch Have an IP Slide?

October 17, 2011

I recently spoke with VC Rudy Garza of G51 Capital Management about entrepreneurs and their attitude about IP. Rudy made an interesting observation: when entrepreneurs give their investment pitch to his group, entrepreneurs either don’t discuss their startup’s IP or put information about it in an appendix — almost like an afterthought. This neglect is [...]

Read the full article →

Women Entrepreneurs Can Now Ramp Up in More Places in Texas

September 30, 2011

Texas State University’s RampCorp program for women entrepreneurs is now accepting applications for its program in the following cities: Dallas El Paso Austin San Antonio RampCorp provides assistance for women who want to build scalable technology companies. RampCorp provides extensive coaching and support from experienced women entrepreneurs. The RampCorp curriculum provides extensive information to help [...]

Read the full article →

Does Your Startup Own the IP Created by its Founders?

September 28, 2011

One of the biggest, most frequent mistakes I see as an intellectual property attorney is a startups’s lack of ownership to all of the exclusive rights to the intellectual property created for it. One of the most damaging omissions is not taking the proper steps to ensure the company owns all of the rights to [...]

Read the full article →

The New Patent Law: What does it mean for your startup?

September 19, 2011

On Your Mark….Get Set…GO! With a swift stroke of his pen, President Obama signed the America Invents Act last week that will completely overhaul the U.S. patent system. And what should be of interest to startups and entrepreneurs everywhere is the transition of U.S. patent law to a “first-to-file” system. Currently, the U.S. is the [...]

Read the full article →

Does Your Startup Really Have the Right to Sell Its Software?

September 15, 2011

Savvy investors hire lawyers to conduct IP due diligence before investing in a software startup for a very good reason: All too often the startup does not own the exclusive IP rights to its software! Usually the startup doesn’t own the IP rights to its software because of carelessness, a cavalier attitude toward contracts, and [...]

Read the full article →