Posts in IP News

As I have repeatedly explained over and over again for the past several years, there is nothing to fear about a first to file system (see above) AND there is no reason that a first to file system must be linked with changes to the grace period enjoyed by innovators. It seems those that would prefer to marginalize my factually correct statement about a de facto first to file statement conveniently ignore my complete views. Those who mischaracterize the truth seem to have an unhealthy and unnatural emotional attachment to a first to invent system that simply doesn’t exist, at least 99.99613% of the time.

The survey assesses the impact of the U.S. economy on global IP strategies for 2011, and is available for free to anyone interested in the results. The survey includes a number of interesting findings, including among these are that 88% of respondents say they were in favor of a European Wide Patent System (which isn’t surprising really), only 19% of respondents said they filed fewer patent application in 2010 (which probably contradicts the convention wisdom of many) and 46% of respondents brought work in house in 2010 (which might not bode well for firms heavily leveraged on work from large corporations).

Easily the most eggregious thing written about patent reform, at least that I have seen, is a statement from the Associated Press. In talking about the grace period in the patent reform legislation the AP wrote: “It comes with an enhanced grace period to protect inventors who publicly disclose their inventions before seeking patents.” This is not misleading, it is flat wrong. The grace period contained in S. 23 is not “enhanced,” but rather it is reduced.

Erik Iverson is Associate General Counsel with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, working exclusively with Foundation’s Global Health initiate. Mr. Iverson works with grantees in the development of intellectual property management plans, collaboration agreements and global access strategies with respect to the health solutions being funded by the Foundation. During our conversation Iverson and I talked about how the Gates Foundation seeks to incentivize innovators, as well as foster and respect intellectual property rights while at the same time engaging in what by its very nature is a humanitarian effort.

In this second installment of my interview with Don Dunner, the dean of CAFC appellate advocates, we talk about which judges on the Federal Circuit ask the most difficult questions, who he thinks are capable candidates for future federal circuit vacancies, why the Federal Circuit was created as a specialty court, continued hostility toward a purely specialty court and Congressman Issa’s attempt to create a pseudo-specialty trial court for patent issues. We also touch upon the familiar fun questions and learn that one of Dunner’s favorite movies is a well known courtroom comedy.

What follows is a letter to Congress from Gary K. Michelson, MD, published here with permission…. First to invent versus first to file is the proverbial tempest in a teacup (smaller than a teapot). All sound and fury signifying nothing. The low cost and ease of filing a provisional patent application (a placeholder for the first to invent) should render any discussion of fairness moot. I believe that first to file is both fair and beneficial to all inventors; and is an important change to correctly position the U.S.P.T.O. as the leader in what will become a worldwide patent system.

It’s crunch time.  The Patent Reform Act of 2011 is scheduled for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor this Monday, Feb. 28.  It’s time for all intellectual property professionals to look carefully at the Patent Reform Act, and decide: is this bill good for American innovation or bad? I am convinced that it is bad. This bill (and its…

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the United States Women’s Chamber of Commerce (USWCC) will host a women’s entrepreneurship symposium Friday, March 11, focused on women entrepreneurs, the importance of intellectual property protection for their innovations, and how to leverage economic opportunities for women-owned businesses. The symposium will be held from 9:00 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Va.

Brand building can be defined as ‘Building the perceptions of your target audience.’ Those who work in marketing usually say that in order to really build your brand you need to be consistent in your marketing campaigns. Consistency and repetition are a sure way to ingrain your message into the minds of those you are trying to reach by creating a focused brand image. However, Geico, has shown that, when done right, you can break the widely accepted and customary brand building “rules” often having numerous different iconic ad campaigns running at once. So today I’d like to discuss 5 of the more memorable GEICO ad campaigns beginning with the GEICO Gecko® through the most recently added Mike McGlone Commercials and analyze what your business can learn from these ad campaigns.

The largest patent infringement verdict in U.S. history did not stand the test of time at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After a five-day trial, the jury found Abbott liable for willful infringement. The jury rejected Abbott’s argument that the asserted claims were invalid, and awarded Centocor over $1.67 billion in damages. The Federal Circuit reversed and held that the asserted claims were invalid for failure to meet the statutory written description requirement, erasing the $1.67 billion verdict.

Don Dunner is a partner with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, and he has argued over 150 cases before the Federal Circuit. Dunner was enormously candid, although many of the things I would have liked to ask him had to be off the table due to ongoing litigation. In fact, Dunner is involved in three exceptionally important cases: TiVo v. Echostar, Microsoft v. i4i and Uniloc v. Microsoft. Thankfully, Dunner did agree to return to talk to us further once these important cases finally resolve without further opportunity for appeal. We did, however, go in depth discussing eBay v. MercExchange, the dynmic between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, how he approaches appeals generally and specifically blow-by-blow and which Federal Circuit Judges ask the toughest questions.

Foley & Lardner LLP announced today that Sharon R. Barner has returned to the firm’s Intellectual Property Department in its Chicago office. Barner most recently served as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Intellectual property law is premised on incentivizing innovative and creative activities by providing limited property rights for the fruits of such activities in order to increase the storehouse of creative and innovative knowledge for the betterment of society. Excessive overlapping protection undermines the careful balance individually developed under each body of intellectual property law. Expansion of the subject matter protected under either patent, copyright, or trademark law should only occur if it does not undermine the careful balances struck under each of the other bodies of intellectual property law. Being mindful of the balance between protection and public interest can prevent unintended over-protection of intellectual property that would work to skew the balance in favor of rights to creators and innovators at the expense of the public.

Carrier goes on to detail the comprehensive research of Professor John Walsh who in 2007 surveyed 1125 biomedical researchers in universities, government labs and nonprofit institutions. Walsh received 414 responses and the responses were overwhelmingly clear. Carrier explains that only 3% of respondents indicated that they stopped pursuit of a research agenda based on an excess of patents present in the space. Furthermore, Carrier explained that a mere 5% of respondents even regularly checked for patents related to their research and “no respondents reported that they had abandoned a line of research because of a patent.”

If you look at the list, when they first started doing these ranking we were number one, then we were number four, and then we dropped. Now we’re number nine, and they only rank through number ten. So we’re tied for ninth with Duke, which is amazing given our size and our location. Now, the schools ahead of us are Michigan, Harvard and Stanford. In many ways we would never be on that list. To remain on the list, we needed to be in a bigger boat. We needed more resources. Otherwise, we might be pushed off the list, and we don’t want to fall off that list. So I think in some ways we were entrepreneurial as the school has always been, in ensuring our long term vitality. I think our capacity to be a larger player potentially with more resources, with more interdisciplinary activity in our IP center, has been enhanced.