Information on the world’s specialized intellectual property courts can now be found in one place. The Study on Specialized Intellectual Property Courts, a joint effort published by the International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI) and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), is the first study to catalog the world’s specialized intellectual property court regimes. Not surprisingly, the study concludes that governments around the world should adopt some form of specialized IPR court to handle intellectual property cases. Specialized IPR courts were found to enhance efficiency, lead to more timely resolution and foster more consistent rulings and outcomes. Such courts are also an important signal to individuals and industry that a country takes intellectual property enforcement seriously, which we in the industry know is a precursor to economic development and outside investment.

Now the Patent Office and the courts have the unenviable task of trying to figure out what the Supreme Court really meant in Mayo v. Prometheus. If Diehr remains good law, which it clearly does, and Mayo v. Prometheus is good law, which it has to be as the last pronouncement, then it becomes clear that the proper statutory analysis is to go step by step through the statute analyzing patentability under the separate and distinct patentability requirements of 101, 102, 103 and 112. That is unless there is something that allows for the short-circuiting of the appropriate analysis as in Mayo v. Prometheus. What is that something?

The posting says that the purchaser will acquire a version of the course that was first purchased in March 2012 and includes 36 audio CDs, 8 video DVDs and Patware 9.0.  That is simply not possible because by March 2012 the courses being sold did not include any of this.  John White and I updated the course at the beginning of 2011 to take into account the then newly tested material, which included KSR rationales and guidelines, Bilski guidelines and the 112 guidelines.  At this time in the beginning of 2011 audio CDs and DVDs ceased to be provided, and Patware was no longer available in disk form. The last version of Patware on disk was indeed Patware 9.0, but that did not include any questions on KSR, Bilski or the 112 guidelines.  Simply stated, a course that included audio CDs, DVDs and Patware on disk had to have been purchased at the very beginning of 2011 or earlier.  The claims in this ad are simply false.

Each state has its own unique rules pertaining to trade names that are very close, if not identical, to the federal rules. It naturally follows, then, that an application for a Florida state trade name for a sushi restaurant is a pretty boring subject. Unless the applied for mark is “Fuku” and the application is rejected on the grounds that the mark is scandalous.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that it will open the current Trademark Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program to admit 15 additional schools for the upcoming fall 2012 academic year. This pilot program allows law students to practice trademark law before the agency under the guidance of a law school faculty clinic supervisor. Submissions from interested law schools will be accepted through Monday, July 2, 2012.

Are you a patent attorney or patent agent setting up your own firm? Are you presently at a firm but considering splitting off and going it on your own? There are a great many things that you need to consider and have in order, from a docketing system that will let you sleep easy to malpractice insurance to engaging clients and firing clients to how to handle un-earned client funds held in trust. Here are just a few thoughts.

A decision with the right outcome but for the wrong reasons can confound jurisprudence nearly as much as a decision that is entirely wrong. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that all that found its way into the Siedman patents was the results of the very research that had been recommended in the 1996 paper and which Prometheus had been prompted to under-write. The more natural objection which, unfortunately, was not pursued was therefore lack of inventive step under 35 USC §103. It is submitted that this should have been enough to dispose of the issue between the parties, arguably even in a motion for summary judgment, but unfortunately it was not how the case was pleaded and argued.

Washington – The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking nominations to fill upcoming vacancies for the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC). Nominations must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before June 11, 2012. Submission details can be found in the Federal Registration Notice. The committees were created in 1999 through Patent…

Two American scientists have been nominated for the European Inventor Award (EIA), which is presented annually by the European Patent Office (EPO) to outstanding inventors for their contribution to technological, social and economic progress. The winners of the 2012 EIA will be announced during an award ceremony in Copenhagen on June 14th. Prof. Federico Capasso created an entirely new class of semiconductor lasers, called Quantum Cascade Lasers (QCLs). Dr. Stanford Ovshinsky, a leading American scientist in the fields of energy and information, developed clean-energy NiMH batteries.

In addition to key executives from Lifetime Brands, on hand for the day will be Warren Tuttle, Lifetime Brands External Open Innovation Director and President of the United Inventors Association. Steve Greenberg, author of Gadget Nation and host of Food Network’s television program “Invention Hunters” will also be at the event to meet and greet inventors. I personally know both Warren and Steve and they are certainly two of the good guys in the industry. Therefore, I am happy to recommend this event to inventors.

The story of the invention and development of the sewing machine challenges these two assumptions insofar as it is a story of a patent thicket in an extremely old technology, but, more important, it is a story of the successful resolution of this thicket through a private-ordering mechanism. The Sewing Machine War was not brought to an end by new federal laws, lawsuits by public interest organizations, or new regulations at the Patent Office, but rather by the patent owners exercising their rights of use and disposition in their property. In so doing, they created the Sewing Machine Combination, which successfully coordinated their overlapping property claims until its last patent expired in 1877. Moreover, the Sewing Machine War is a salient case study because this mid- nineteenth-century patent thicket also included many related issues that are often intertwined today with concerns about modern patent thickets, such as a non- practicing entity (i.e., a “patent troll”) suing infringers after his demands for royalty payments were rejected, massive litigation between multiple parties and in multiple venues, costly prior art searches, and even a hard-fought priority battle over who was the first inventor of the lockstitch.

Munich/Geneva, 3 May 2012 — With the aim of further developing the international patent system to better support innovation in economies around the globe, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have agreed on a comprehensive three-year technical co-operation scheme. The agreement, signed by EPO President Benoît Battistelli and WIPO Director General Francis Gurry in Munich…

The biggest myth about patent appeals is that that the examiner usually wins. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) posts that it reverses examiners only one out of every three decisions —33%. That number is accurate, and reflects the percentage of reversals among Board decisions. But another number is more helpful — 75%. That is the rough percentage of reversals among all appeals—not just Board decisions. The difference arises because not all appeals result in a Board decision. In fact, the vast majority of appeals (80%) never reach the Board. The Board’s 33% number has nothing to say about this invisible sea of patent appeals.

Mr. Kessler believes that Mr. Madison did not understand what he was doing or, at best, did not foresee the expense that patent litigation would involve in the 21st century. In fact, the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when writing the intellectual property clause into the U.S. Constitution. They were protecting the individual from the overwhelming power of large entities. They were enacting the very principles of American society for which we fought the Revolutionary War. Since 1790 the U.S. patent system has contributed to America becoming the most innovative society in the history of the world. Fundamentally changing the system in the ways suggested by Mr. Kessler would stifle that innovation.

This is a good time to review the implications of this case, but an even better time to look into the origins and constitutionality of the Non-obviousness requirement. You might object that the jurisprudence of the non-obviousness requirement is so well established that nothing can be learned from this sort of analysis. I disagree. Patent law is under assault by the Supreme Court, the media, the ‘information wants to be free’ crowd, multinational corporations, and the economics profession. If we attempt to explain patent law based on the decisions of people who never passed the patent bar, never wrote a patent, never prosecuted a patent, and do not have a technical background, we are doomed. We need to define patent law as a natural law/right based on certain fundamental truths. This is the only way to get the non-patent attorney judge or the general public to understand patent law and understand that it represents justice.