The other thing I think that’s at play here, and maybe it’s the principal reason is a point that I made earlier which is our economy depends utterly on intellectual property. That is in fostering innovation and inventiveness in the manner in which the framers of the Constitution understood needed to be fostered. That is within appropriately countered system of protections for discoveries and inventions and novel expression. But that doesn’t smother innovation by competitors and by others. And because our economy is so utterly tied to intellectual property the Supreme Court correctly understands that this is a substantive area in which it is very, very important for the correct balance to be struck.

I fail to see how the increase in individual suits suggests in any way, shape or form that the AIA has failed. Because there was a spike in litigation leading up to September 16, 2012, and because the AIA by its express terms requires more patent infringement cases of smaller scope, patent reform has failed. Unbelievable! How can something fail when it is working as intended?

I have just learned that David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, will be stepping down and leaving the agency effective the end of January 2013.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Bosch’s acquisition of SPX’s Service Solutions business would give Bosch monopoly power in the U.S. market for ACRRR devices. Following the transaction as proposed, Bosch would control an overwhelming share of the market. Four other firms are in the market, each with a very small share. The acquisition also would eliminate the current direct competition between Bosch’s RTI and Bosch brands and SPX’s Robinair brand, and would allow the combined firm to raise prices by unilaterally exercising its newly gained market power, in violation of the FTC Act, the FTC alleged. The FTC complaint also alleges that SPX has been pursuing a strategy of suing to enjoin competitors from using patents that may be necessary to meet the standards for manufacturing ACRRR devices.

On November 1, 2012, a federal district court (EDVA) issued an order that may have profound consequences for calculations of patent term adjustment (“PTA”). The district court believed that the PTA promised by 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B)(i), which relates to Requests for Continued Examination, only comes into play if a RCE is filed within the three-year period from the application’s filing date. Before discussing the court’s order, let me review the law and regulations about PTA—which can be complex. In 1994, Congress altered the calculation of U.S. patent terms. Previously, Congress set the patent term as 17 years from patent issuance. After the change, Congress set the patent term as generally 20 years from the filing of the patent application.

Waxman on the advantage of not being a “Patent Specialist”: Perhaps paradoxically, it seems to me, the advantage in litigation with respect to esoteric areas of the law and technology goes to the generalist. All too often, experts apply all sorts of mental shortcuts in explaining why their view is correct. It’s difficult for anyone with expertise to put herself in the mindset of someone who isn’t, and is approaching the issue as a generalist adjudicator. Even Federal Circuit judges with technical training lack expertise with respect to the vast majority of the kinds of innovation that comes before that court.

The injunction, approved by Judge Rogers means that Diageo Chateau must stop production and sales within Sonoma County, California, which was the geographical limitation put on the injunction by Judge Gonzalez. The issuance of the preliminary injunction is contingent upon the plaintiff filing proof of issuance of a bond in the amount of $500. That is not a mistake, the bond required was only $500.

It is a bit difficult to take this invention too seriously for several reasons. First, according to Oregon State University poultry scientist Tom Savage, turkeys are “smart animals with personality and character, and keen awareness of their surroundings.” That being the case, exactly which turkeys are likely to be attracted by a 6 foot turkey plastered onto a giant umbrella laid on its side, as pictured in the main drawing in the patent? Furthermore, Figure 13 (see below) is exactly an umbrella with a turkey decoration, yet the patent describes Figure 13 as a “fully deployed configuration of a blind as as to illustrate turkey decoy image.” Really? A hunting blind? This is an old fashion umbrella.

In this agriculture search Article One Partners is not only looking for those with superior scientific training or advanced degrees. They are also hoping to expand the universe of those who will submit information relative to the study to include many who you might not ordinarily expect would have the such peculiar or specific knowledge or expertise. This call for additional researchers seeks farmers, commercial gardeners and others to rack their brains in an effort to recall things they may have seen, which could make them $5,000 richer due to the reward money that is guaranteed to be paid to the individual who submits the most relevant prior art.

I don’t know what is going on at Chadbourne & Parke, but I do know I know that Walt and John were both at Morgan & Finnegan and left for Chadbourne over 7 years ago. Morgan & Finnegan subsequently filed for bankruptcy ?several years later. Over time the best attorneys were slowly bled from Morgan & Finnegan, and virtually all of the rainmakers left. There were obviously internal problems of one kind or another, likely of a structural nature compounded by top earners and rainmakers leaving. Now I see top level attorneys leaving Chadbourne & Parke, one of them my friend who had enough sense to get out of Morgan & Finnegan years before they went bankrupt. Could this be a sign of what may become over the next several years for Chadbourne & Parke?

Scientifically speaking, there is really very little time the point in time that work in a university laboratory is concrete enough to call “an invention” and capable of description in a patent application until the 30-month deadline to pursue rights in various countries around the world. What that means is that universities are constantly faced with a difficult decision. Do they undertake the expense of seeking patent protection in a variety of locations or do they forego the invention? This decision is particularly problematic for universities engaged in the life sciences where there is of necessity a very long time horizon from conception of the invention to even knowing whether there is a legitimate opportunity for commercialization.

This workshop will examine the economic and legal implications of patent assertion entity (PAE) activity, as distinct from prototypical “non-practicing entity” (NPE) activity, such as developing and transferring technology. By contrast, PAE activities often include purchasing patents from existing owners and seeking to maximize revenues by licensing the intellectual property to (or litigating against) manufacturers who are already using the patented technology.

The white paper outlines just how these counterfeit parts are entering the global supply chains. Even though there are government regulations and precautionary measures taken by the industry, there seems to be a growing problem with counterfeit parts that can cause damage and even fatalities. The introduction of the whitepaper claims: “The complex and distributed nature of supply chains has created vulnerabilities for companies and organizations. Governments and regulations can only go so far. As such, industry can benefit from taking a more proactive approach to protecting the supply chain from counterfeit products and pirated materials.”

Mexico’s Secretary of Economy Bruno Ferrari deposited his country’s instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of Marks with WIPO Director General Francis Gurry on November 19, 2012, bringing the total number of members of the international trademark system to 89. The treaty will enter into force with respect to Mexico on February 19, 2013. 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.

In a 1972 court decision, United States Supreme Court Justice Stewart wrote: “Property does not have rights. People have rights.” Accordingly, Blacks must be diligent in making sure that they are aware of their intellectual property rights, like any other civil right, and seek IP legal counsel to secure and enforce these rights for economic gain, the avoidance of economic exploitation and the creation of wealth in the new millennium and beyond. That will only be achieved with the help of those (of all races and other categories that divide us) who work within the IP community. Until then, in a society where innovation is the key to individual wealth and national economic prosperity and where IP attorneys who represent innovators should be the “next generation civil rights lawyer,” I (and many like me) will have failed to live up to my mother’s dream.