Given the sluggish economic recovery and continued budget pressure on IP departments, it makes sense to consider new strategies for lowering the steep costs related to international patent filing. Translations can account for up to 50% of the cost of national stage entry, so cost-cutting strategies could make a significant difference in the bottom line. Strategic costs savings can then be used to stretch a diminishing budget, or offer opportunities to expand patent protection into other countries without busting your budget.

Before moving into discussion about ways to cut cost it is important to focus on the end goal. It is one thing to cut costs, but to borrow a popular political phrase – you want to cut with a scapula, not a clever. Thus, keeping in mind the ultimately end goal at every step will allow you to engage cost cutting strategies without compromising your patent project. Of course, the end goal is to obtain the broadest, strongest patent portfolio; obtaining patents in a variety of jurisdictions where meaningful business opportunities exist.

Washington – The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host its second Clean Technology Partnership Meeting on Tuesday, June 12, 2012, to bring clean technology stakeholders together to share ideas, experiences and insights and provide a forum for discussion on how the USPTO can improve and expand on its clean technology programs.

Clean technology includes products and services that improve operational performance, productivity or efficiency while reducing costs, inputs, energy consumption, waste or pollution. Alternative energy sources, water and gas purification and soil remediation, as well as other technologies centered on increasing energy efficiency and non-toxic production incorporate clean technology.

It is with an indescribably profound sadness that I write this article.

In the early morning hours of May 17, 2012, my mother — Mary Catherine Quinn — passed, succumbing to her fight against cancer.  My mother was my closest friend and I will miss her more than any words could possibly describe.

In early February 2012 my mother was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer that had spread. At that time I knew the prognosis was bad, but she looked better than she had in years. It was impossible to believe that this was the beginning of the end, but it unfortunately was. We were told that she would have perhaps 3 months if she elected not to undergo chemotherapy, and perhaps 8 to 10 months if she elected to undergo treatment. My mother elected treatment and prayed every day for the miracle she knew she would need to save her.

As I began canceling meetings, appointments, interviews, conferences and phone calls some in the industry learned about my mother’s battle with cancer. Since early February, I have made frequent and extended trips to New Jersey to be with my mother. By mid-April I moved in with my sister to be close.  As my mother was quickly succumbing to the cancer and could no longer go through chemotherapy she moved in with my sister where we were able to care for her in a loving environment surrounded by close family who attended to her 24/7.

I am frequently asked a version of the same question by inventors, which goes something like this: “I have an idea but I am unable to do it myself.  I am going to need some help.  What should I do to make sure I am protected?”

Patent attorneys and agents reading will likely start to immediately say that ideas cannot be patented and it doesn’t sound like you have anything that could be protected.  I too have explained that to many inventors of the years and written about that very topic (see Protecting Ideas and Moving from Idea to Patent).  But with this presentation there is no way to know yet whether there is an invention lurking there or whether the individual has merely a raw idea without any knowledge about how to bring it into being.  Thus, this question begs the essential inquiry, which is this: At what point does an idea take enough form to be considered an invention that can be protected?

Trademark owners who attempt to file and prosecute their own trademark applications are really being pennywise and pound foolish. I appreciate the reasons for filing your own trademark applications, particularly in this economy. Many times, trademark owners are small companies in their infancy, or individuals that are trying to minimize legal fees while attempting to obtain valuable trademark protection. Nevertheless, there is significant long term damage that can be caused by filing your own trademark, or relying on a one-size-fits-all service provided by non-attorneys.

It seems I have a constant of clients that have filed their own trademark applications, and some that have used non-attorney services. These clients are now up against some very tough rejections from the Trademark Office, or are having other difficulties with the trademark prosecution process. Inevitably, these clients wind up spending more money to pay an attorney to fix the application, or to re-file the application, than it would have cost to hire an experienced trademark attorney to file the application for them.

I am pleased that a recent case gives me the opportunity to discuss two of my favorite things — whiskey and trade dress, an often overlooked and highly underrated form of intellectual property.

Trade dress is actually a kind of trademark, but the analysis is very different.   It falls under the definition of “symbol” or “device” under §2 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052).  Trade dress is also discussed thoroughly in Chapter 1202.2 of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”).   Where a trademark is   words or symbols that function to identify the source of goods, trade dress is the actual shape or design of the product or its packaging.  It is the image as a whole and can include shape, color, size, and other thematic elements.  While a single name or logo can be a trademark, trade dress is better thought of as the sum of an item’s parts.  For example, the Coca-Cola bottle, the Rolls-Royce front grill, and the overall appearance of restaurants like IHop and McDonalds are all protected under trade dress, meaning that not only is it impermissible to copy the name of the good, but also the appearance of the good as well.

In order to qualify for protection as trade dress, the thematic elements must have acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning and they must not be functional.  With respect to acquired distinctiveness, the public must associate the thematic elements of the alleged trade dress with the source of goods.  For example, if the label were removed from, say the Coca-Cola bottle, the carbonated beverage consuming public would still recognize the bottle as containing Coca-Cola’s beverage and not some other soft drink.  Showing this level of distinctiveness typically requires a fair amount of evidence.

A Google search of the term “patent strategy” in quotes conducted on May 11, 2012, returned no fewer than 188,000 references.  A similar search of the terms ‘patent strategy’ without quotes returned 81,000,000 references.  Indeed, anyone who reads press releases or financial news can tell you that companies, both big and small, repeatedly talk of developing a patent strategy for the twenty-first century that will enable them to compete in the global market place and take advantage of existing synergies and ongoing alliances in a manner that will create shareholder value and bring new technologies to market.

What a mouthful! Blah… blah… blah!  Existing synergies and ongoing alliances?  That seems to be code for “we don’t have a clue but want to make it sound like we are doing something to keep our investors/shareholders happy.”  And if I hear any more about moving forward through the twenty-first century I think I will be sick to my stomach.  For crying out loud, strategies for the twenty-first century are only about a decade (or more) late!  Further, anyone who thinks that their company will be dominant, let alone relevant, by the end of the twenty-first century obviously hasn’t learned anything from history.  Virtually none of the dominant tech companies remain dominant for more than a generation.  There are, of course, notable exceptions.  IBM and Apple are two very notable exceptions to the rule.

If you are a user of Twitter you have probably seen more than a few tweets, always on Friday’s, using “#FF” followed by a number of names.  ”#FF” stands for “Follow Friday.”  On Fridays many Twitter users will suggest who others should follow by tweeting with the hashtag #FF.  If this doesn’t make any sense to you — no worries.

For me Twitter is about news and information.  It is one of the ways that I keep my finger on the pulse of what is happening, so I put a premium on those who convey information.  I also typically prefer those who are not “machine like” Tweeting dozens of things over a short period of time.  Let me know about what YOU believe is worth my time.  If I wanted a disk dump I would just go to Google News.

Those with Twitter accounts who are looking for some good folks to follow look no further.  Likely everyone in the industry is already familiar with folks like Professor Dennis Crouch of PatentlyO, who tweets @patentlyo, so I tried to focus (for the most part) on some lesser known tweeters.  Below are some of my favorites on Twitter; people who in my humble opinion are excellent to follow.  You may also want to check my previous recommendations.  See Follow Friday: IP Tweeters on Twitter.

Of course, you can follow me @ipwatchdog and Renee @ipwatchdog_too.  See you on Twitter!