On September 26, 2011, the a three-judge-panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., which found intervening rights due to certain patent claims due to the fact that Marine Polymer made arguments about claim language during reexamination, but without actually amending the claims. See Marine Polymer vacated opinion. On January 20, 2012, the full Federal Circuit decided to hear this case en banc and ordered that the original panel decision be vacated and the appeal reinstated. No additional briefing by the parties was requested, but on January 26, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued an Order allowing amicus briefs to be filed on or before February 10, 2012. On February 10, 2012 the Biotechnology Industry Organization and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America filed a joint Amici Curiae Brief supporting the appellee and seeking affirmance of the district court decision.

It does seems clear that the allowance rate for large corporations is much higher than the average allowance rate for all patent applications. But does that suggest some nefarious bias? Not so fast my friends! At the end of the day it seems to me that the way patent applications are prepared and strategic decisions made during prosecution of the patent application explain why larger corporations have a much higher allowance rate than the average.

Yes, I had the audacity to say what is objectively correct. There is no absolute right under the First Amendment to engage in false or misleading speech. Despite the fact that this statement is legally 100% correct you would have thought I was engaging in treasonous behavior. What made it all the more comical was that it was the anarchists who seemed most upset, both in comments on IPWatchdog and in a variety of Twitter and blog articles that sought to paint me as some kind of crazy. You see the anarchists got so upset because the only play in their playbook is to lie and misrepresent in order to pull the wool over the eyes of enough people that they can get their way. That is where America is currently and if you ask me that is wholly unacceptable.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed a consolidated set of rules related to trial practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The proposed rules implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act relating to inter partes review, post-grant review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings.

Under the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), for the first time in its history, was given the authority to work with IP stakeholders to set fees through the regulatory process. The agency took a first step towards that end this week when it published proposed fees for all of the patent services it provides.

I had the honor of being invited to the White House today for the Innovation for Global Development Event, which was held in support of the President’s commitment to using harness the power of innovation to solve long-standing global development challenges. As a part of this event, David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, launched a pilot program dubbed Patents for Humanity, which is a voluntary prize competition for patent owners and licensees. The pilot program seeks to encourage businesses of all kinds to apply their patented technology to addressing the world’s humanitarian challenges.

We must find reasonable ways to stop infringement of intellectual property on the Internet. Such a solution must be fair to the victim of the infringement. It must uphold the principles of the Constitution of the United States. And it must not break the Internet. SOPA and PIPA may not be perfect implementations of such protection, but they meet all of these requirements. There may be better strategies that can be reached through measured and thoughtful debate, but not through excessive hyperbole and misrepresentation.

Article One Partners (AOP), the world’s largest patent research community, earlier today announced that the company has achieved a significant milestone — more than $2 million dollars in financial incentives to its global research community. This milestone comes 11 months to the day from when Article One announced that they had reached the $1 million award milestone.

The types of returns promised to investors and the types of benefits offered to participants are also quite different from garden-variety non-practicing entities, as are some of the tactics used in organizing the entities and in asserting the patents. Finally, the scale itself is simply mind-boggling. Mass aggregators operate on a scale and at a level of sophistication and complexity that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. They have taken the prototype strategies pioneered by a prior generation of non-practicing entities and changed them into some of the cleverest strategies yet seen in the intellectual property rights field.

We begin by discussing first action allowances and whether they are frowned upon, then discuss the examination process and weave our way to Track 1 and whether you really must use Track 1 for patents likely to be litigated because you get a much more condensed, streamlined prosecution history. Over the past 10 days I have also interviewed Peggy Focarino (Commissioner for Patents), Deborah Cohn (Commissioner for Trademarks) and Peter Pappas (Chief of Staff). These interviews are being transcribed and prepared for publication. So stay tuned.

As for the particulars of SOPA, perhaps there are some who are against the legislation for valid, thoughtful reasons and would like to see something better. That, however, seems to be the substantial minority. Those who are against SOPA seem to want to protect online piracy as if they are entitled to access the creative works of others for free. In economic terms those who steal intellectual property are freeloaders. These freeloaders are just like the many non-productive members of society who only take and give nothing back, expecting those of us who are productive to pick up the tab for them. There are certainly people in society who need and deserve help, and we should be there to help them, but by any fair estimate the entitlement mentality is running amok. No one “needs and deserves” free access to the latest blockbuster movie the opened just yesterday in theaters.

Leason Ellis LLP, an intellectual property law firm located in White Plains, New York, recently filed a complaint against USA Trademark Enterprises, Inc. of Sarasota, Florida. The multi-count Complaint alleges that USA Trademark Enterprises has engaged in false advertising and unfair competition by marketing a catalog of trademark registrations, which offers no value because the published information is freely available in the online records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. David Leason, Managing Partner of Leason Ellis, said “by targeting our clients and us, USA Trademark Enterprises has interfered in our business and cast a shadow over the legitimacy of trademark-related communications. In filing suit, we are out to protect our clients, our business, and the integrity of the trademark process from predatory and deceptive marketing.”

Part 2 of my interview with Deputy Under Secretary Rea picks up with discussion of the America Invents Act. We generally discussed the rulemaking process, the fact that the post-grant proposed rules are a bit late in coming, comments and what the USPTO will do with them, as well as the upcoming Road Show the USPTO is taking across America for the purpose of discussing implementation of the America Invents Act.

Cummins Inc. (NYSE:CMI), announced today that Sharon R. Barner, formerly a top official in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and a leading intellectual property litigator, has joined the Company as Vice President and General Counsel. After leaving the USPTO Barner returned to Foley & Lardener’s Intellectual Property Department in its Chicago office, where she started with the firm in 1996.