Posts in IP News

Social Media is not a fad. It is not something that is going to go away nor is it going to be replaced by something bigger and better. Most businesses have embraced social media and all that it has to offer. Perhaps you, yourself have taken a ride on the social media bandwagon. But, even if you have a well-established social media presence, are you really getting the most out of your online relationships? Are you missing opportunities to truly leverage your business relationships online in order to reap bigger rewards and sales in the real world? Following are 5 easy ways that you can take to utilize your online business and real-world relationships to increase your overall social media ROI.

When determining whether to accept a particular course one particularly important consideration is whether the course has been accepted for college-level credit for a Category A degree at an accredited U.S. college or university. We know that the USPTO will accept courses taken at Community Colleges if those courses would count toward a degree listed on Category A. Indeed, some who are short credits will take them at Community Colleges and then be admitted to take the exam. The same rationale seems to apply when OED is evaluating online courses. So before you take a class at a Community College or online make sure that the credits for the course could be used by someone pursuing a Category A degree. If the answer is that the course would count toward the credit requirements for a Category A degree you should be fine.

With a view to the future, the Heads of Office had an initial exchange of views on the “Cloud Patent Examination Solution (CPES)” and “Global Dossier” concept, which are aimed at simplifying procedures for patent applicants and improving the efficiency of the offices when dealing with the same patent application. Simultaneously, they welcome the establishment of an expert panel to continue to discuss patent harmonisation, noting the importance to maintain the momentum. They reaffirmed agreement made last year in Tokyo to accelerate the Common Hybrid Classification Project under a revised mandate which takes into account the launching of a new classification scheme developed by USPTO and EPO (CPC) from January 1st 2013.

Just because a company has a patent portfolio and interesting technology does not mean that the portfolio, or the company behind the portfolio, will be able to tap into the “perfect storm” we are seeing in certain high-tech industries. “I’m not seeing how the Konarka situation exemplifies the ‘Perfect Storm Effect’ at the upper end of the current patent market,” Laurie says. “On the demand side, the multi-billion dollar portfolio valuations in the mobile device and social media markets are being driven by huge, and ever expanding, consumer demand, and large gross margins neither of which factors would seem to apply to solar.”

As a result of this announcement today, AOP will help Appsterdam accomplish the organizations mandate of supporting ongoing innovation and business success in the mobile app development community through research projects sent to its global, diverse and highly educated community. The Appsterdam Foundation attorneys and developers will work with AOP to conduct patent research, harnessing the global reach of the AOP community, which has been used by many Fortune 500 companies to locate prior art that can be used against patents asserted against them. While note every search conducted by Article One results in prior art that can be used to invalidate patent claims, many searches have found prior art that is then used in both federal court and at the United States Patent and Trademark Office during reexamination proceedings.

It has come to my attention that earlier today in his e-mail newsletter Hal Wegner has once again attempted to take a cheap shot at yours truly. Yes, I know that truth and accuracy are not the hallmarks of Hal’s newsletter, and normally I do look the other way when I learn of cheap shots by Hal, which are a dime a dozen. When Hal challenges my business and makes blatantly inaccurate statements I do find it necessary to respond.

Unfortunately, the patentability requirements are frequently misunderstood, including by the United States Supreme Court. For many who are not well versed in patent law one of the reasons it can be confusing when considering patentability is due to the fact that the first of the patentability requirements asks whether the invention exhibits patentable subject matter. This is sometimes phrased in terms of patent eligibility, which leads the many anti-patent zealots and other patent neophytes to erroneously conclude that if an invention is patent eligible then a patent issues. Nothing could be further from the truth, but those who hate the patent system aren’t exactly concerned with facts or reality. So what is required for an invention to be patented?

The mantra of the anti-patent community is nearly in unison on the issue of patented drugs. Of course, everyone wants drugs to be developed, but no one wants to pay the exorbitant prices charged for blockbuster, patented drugs. You can add me to that list of individuals who doesn’t like the prices, but at least there is a benefit. Without appropriate financial incentives in place drugs would not be patented, but then again they wouldn’t be developed either. But what is the justification for scarcity and exorbitant prices of old drugs that are off patent?

With the advent and rise of the Internet, digital property rights have become an increasingly hot-topic in the Board rooms and Executive Offices of major companies, particularly those in the hi-tech industry. Much like the information protected under intellectual property rights, digital products provide their creators with certain protections under the law. The problems and legal challenges facing major companies like Yahoo and Facebook will help better define the laws surrounding digital property rights, and likely present opportunities as well as a whole host of new legal questions.

The amend to the rules of practice in patent cases is for the purpose of implementing the micro entity provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). If an applicant qualifies as a micro entity, then the applicant is eligible to pay reduced patent fees once the USPTO exercises its fee setting authority under the AIA. The fee setting provision in the AIA sets the micro entity discount at 75% of the fees set or adjusted for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.

Commenting on the Yahoo! Inc. patent infringement lawsuit filed against Facebook in March of 2012, Mr. Cuban concludes his post by stating: “I hope Yahoo[!] is awarded $50 billion dollars. It is the only way that consumers will realize what is at stake with patent law as is. Then maybe we can get it right and further innovation and competition in this country.” These statements are from a very influential technology entrepreneur, investor and generally-recognized American business guru. Thus, it would seem that the continuous negative headlines from the smart phone patent wars are definitely giving patents a bad rap!

Colombia became the 87th member of the international trademark system following the deposit of its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of Marks by Vice President Angelino Garzón with WIPO Director General Francis Gurry on May 29, 2012. Colombia is the second country in the Latin American region to join the Madrid trademark filing system. The treaty will enter into force with respect to Colombia, on August 29, 2012. The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks (Madrid system) offers trademark owners a cost effective, user friendly and streamlined means of protecting and managing their trademark portfolio internationally.

Preventing artificial supply-side constraints? Now my spidey-senses are activated. That sure has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? I am skeptical about the desire to eliminate market inefficiencies when combined with simultaneous attempts to drive down royalty payments, thereby compensating innovators only for some perceived benefit to the ultimate consumer. The goal of the first, to reduce inefficiencies in a bilateral licensing negotiation is laudable, but minimizing the “artificial supply side constraints” based on the market as viewed by the ultimate consumer is a recipe for undervaluing innovative value-adds. And let’s not forget that some (perhaps many) of these value-adds mean the difference between having desirable functionality or not, and having a viable product or not.

When it comes to patentability, safety is not necessarily a major factor in the equation. The Patent Office only cares if an invention is sufficiently inventive. Whether or not it’s safe is a superfluous question. And yet I’m always amazed at how cavalier inventors can be about the safety of their inventions — especially inventors from the past. For example, most patents for cradles from the 1800s could have been more aptly titled “System and Method for Killing a Baby Through Violent Shaking.” Pretty much any factory machine, farm implement or laundry wringer patent, for that matter, was just as likely to pull off a hand as serve its intended purposes.