IPWatchdog.com is sponsored by Berenato, White & Stavish

This is my site

Welcome to IPWatchdog.com. My name is Gene Quinn and I am a patent attorney with White + Quinn Consulting and the founder of IPWatchdog.com. Since 1999 IPWatchdog.com has been dedicated to providing a free, reliable and easily understandable resource on intellectual property law and related topics. Over the years the look of IPWatchdog.com has changed, but our mission has always been to provide good information in a way that can be easily understood. Since we first launched this site we have had over 2 million unique visitors, making this one of the most popular destinations on the Internet for information regarding patents, copyrights, trademarks and more.

I feel certain that if you spend some time browsing our site you will find answers to virtually any question you could want answered. We are constantly adding information to the site to continue to make this a fresh and relevant resource, so if you have any suggestions please let me know.

Thank you for your interest in IPWatchdog.com.





















Our Latest Blog Posts
 To read all our blog posts go to the IPWatchdog.com Blog



Red Bull Wins Trademark Lawsuit
This is my site Written by Gene Quinn on May 2, 2008 – 5:41 pm

The Wet nightclub, a popular Chicago bar, was ordered to pay over $500,000 in damages after people working undercover for Red Bull ordered drinks that mixed Red Bull with vodka but were served another energy drink.  The act of serving a less expensive energy drink and telling customers it was Red Bull undoubtedly caused damages…       Continue reading >>>



Obscure Patent: Inside Out Clothing
This is my site Written by Gene Quinn on April 30, 2008 – 11:39 pm

Garments having inside out appearance
US Patent No. 7,350,242
Issued April 1, 2008

The issuance of this patent on April Fools Day shows that someone at the Patent Office has a sense of humor.  This patent also reminds me of one of my all-time favorite obscure patents - Disposable boxer shorts - which was patented also on April Fools Day, just 5 years earlier.  

In any event, what we have here is not at all unique.  This particular invention is simply a garment having an inside out appearance.  How in the name of all that is right and proper could something like this be patented?  I have absolutely no idea.

We can all sit here and poke fun at this patent, pointing out the obvious problems, such as the fact that clothing that is turned inside out is not really new or unique.  In fact I would venture to say that during the course of a week we all have at least one article of clothing that is inside out in our hamper or laundry basket.  But poking such fun, which mildly entertaining, is not really enlightening. 

Just over one  year ago the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the already famous (or perhaps it is better to say infamous) matter of KSR v. Teleflex.  In that case the Supreme Court ostensibly made it more difficult to obtain a patent.  The US Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was to rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  Now we go case by case and determine for every invention whether it would be within the common sense knowledge base of someone of skill in the art. 

      Continue reading >>>



Inventors Workshop in Tampa, FL
This is my site Written by Gene Quinn on April 29, 2008 – 3:14 pm

Product Coach Matt Yubas and Patent and Licensing Attorney Mark Malek are hosting a workshop to help everyday inventors succeed in presenting product ideas to companies for royalties. Matt Yubas (www.Product-Coach.com), author of Product Idea to Product Success, will provide the step-by-step licensing process from idea to receiving royalties.

Mr. Malek, an attorney with the firm Zies, Widerman, Sutch and Malek, PL, will show how to protect ideas, the patent process, and go over the fine points of licensing terms and agreements.

      Continue reading >>>

| 1 Comment



US Releases 2008 IP Watchlist
This is my site Written by Gene Quinn on April 27, 2008 – 5:05 pm

On Friday, April 25, 2008, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its annual “Special 301″ Report on the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection by U.S. trading partners.

This year’s Special 301 Report places forty-six (46) countries on the Priority Watch List, Watch List, or the Section 306 monitoring list.  There are nine (9) countries on this year’s Priority Watch List: China, Russia, Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela. Countries on the Priority Watch List do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection, in absolute terms and/or relative to a range of factors such as their level of development. Priority Watch List countries will be the subject of particularly intense engagement through bilateral discussion during the coming year.

      Continue reading >>>



Describing Your Invention in a Patent Application
This is my site Written by Gene Quinn on April 26, 2008 – 12:03 pm

When you file a patent application it is always necessary to file an application that completely and clearly describes the invention so that others would be able to understand the invention.  For new inventors it is sometimes difficult to understand the so-called description requirement to patentability.  It is not an overstatement to say that the description of your invention must be so complete that it could be copied by others who read your patent application and/or issued patent.  It is absolutely critical to understand that this complete and full description MUST be present as of the filing date of your application.  If you file an application that does not describe the invention to the required level the application is defective and it cannot be fixed.  The only way to fix an inadequate disclosure is to file a new application with an adequate disclosure, but that means you obtain no benefit from the earlier inadequate application.

      Continue reading >>>