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.

As most likely already know, Google has made it a tradition to create fun Google logo’s (or Doodles) to celebrate specific holidays, anniversaries and the lives of famous artists, pioneers and scientists. You may recall that on Saturday May 22, 2010, in celebration of Pacman’s 30th Anniversary, Google featured its very first interactive doodle in the form of a Pacman game you could actually play. You can read more about it in my article Pacman Celebrates its 30th Anniversary – Google Style. Yesterday Google featured another interactive doodle that they call the “Goog” this time in celebration of Dr. Robert Moog (rhymes with “vogue”), an American pioneer of music with the invention of the electronic analog Moog Synthesizer. If you missed it, that’s OK, you can still play the fully interactive “Goog” Doodle through the Google Doodle Library.

The inclusion of an enhanced Accelerated Approval pathway, crafted by Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC), will help expedite the development of modern, targeted, and personalized therapies for patients suffering from serious and life-threatening diseases while preserving the FDA’s robust standards for safety and effectiveness. Senator Hagan is to be congratulated for her hard work and leadership on this very important provision.

But how exactly do patents do all of these wonderful things for companies? Unlike trademarks and copyrights, patents are incredibly difficult to acquire. But a patent, once acquired, grants the holder a fairly long monopoly over their creation. No other individual or corporation can use the patent holder’s creation without negotiating a license (or some other arrangement). Thus, patent holders have a huge advantage over the competition via exclusive use or a profit from licensing. Because, the technology companies heavily market new and cutting-edge products, there is a constant need to acquire new patents to stay ahead of competitors.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that the University of New Hampshire School of Law Library, which was designated as the Concord Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC.) on January 30, 2012, is now open to serve the intellectual property (IP) needs of the public.

It is one thing to cut costs, but to borrow a popular political phrase – you want to cut with a scalpel, not a cleaver. Thus, keeping in mind the ultimately end goal at every step will allow you to engage cost cutting strategies without compromising your patent project. Of course, the end goal is to obtain the broadest, strongest patent portfolio; obtaining patents in a variety of jurisdictions where meaningful business opportunities exist.