The question, however, is whether this increased inventive activity is sustainable in light of the overwhelming backlogs faced by Patent Offices around the world. It is great to have a lot of inventive activity and interest in obtaining patents. That shows that there is increased interest in business activities because few, if any, pursue a patent for the sole purpose of obtaining a patent. There is almost universally some business goal with associated hopes, dreams and potential positive impact for the economy. Whether this increased innovative activity can and will be something that produces an associated economic boon remains to be seen and is largely, if not completely, dependent on the political machinations of those in Washington, DC and other capitals around the world. Talk about a depressing though!

Hello everyone. I am writing today to provide an update to our readers on several matters (i.e., Renee’s surgery and our server issues), and to make a plea for votes in the ABA Blawg 100 contest — IPWatchdog is in the IP Law category. So please vote for IPWatchdog and if you could help spread the word to family, friends and co-workers and get them to vote that would be greatly appreciated.

So here’s what I learned about Kickstarter specifically, and crowd funding in general, after running a campaign. Setting your goal correctly is at least as important as setting your rewards. The FAQs on all of these sites all say to set your goal to the minimum that you need to launch the product, and after running a campaign I completely agree. I still could have produced my book with a goal of $5,000, and that would have been a much more reachable and less nerve-racking goal. But I wanted to hit five-figures, and when perusing all of those successful campaigns (some of which had hit six figures) it’s easy to have delusions of grandeur. I just barely made my goal, but I was sweating bullets at day 22 or so with another $2,500 to go and no good ideas for additional marketing of the campaign. Instead of risking the backing I had received by setting a goal too high, it would have been smarter for me to set a lower goal and hope for a 150% funding success instead of the 105% I did barely obtain.

After meeting with my doctor, discussing the results of my tests, reading through all of the documentation and talking to my mother who had a similar surgery in 2000, I realized that there have been so many medical breakthroughs over the years. These medical breakthroughs make surgeries like this possible, and in many cases with far better outcomes. So I thought I would write about some of those revolutionary technologies and the Hall of Fame inventors who were responsible for them.

In cooperation with the Practising Law Institute, I will be giving away 1 free PLI Patent Bar Review Course to one lucky individual. Entry is free, but to be eligible you must vote for IPWatchdog.com and tweet the vote count after your vote.

The CAFC’s split panel decision this past week – In re Construction Equipment Company – extends the PTO’s authority to reexamine a patent even where its validity has already been adjudicated and confirmed by the courts. Yet the CAFC once again fails to explain how a PTO reexamination finding that a patent is invalid effects an earlier judicial determination that the same patent is valid and infringed.

Outsourcing to those who speak English as a second language is extremely dangerous, and there is only so much an inexperienced patent attorney or patent agent can do without having someone more seasoned review the work and add value. We can gripe about the “good old days” or we can just realize that it takes more time and more energy to prepare patent applications then every before, and consequently more money than ideal. So if you are going to go down the patent path do yourself a favor. Either go all in and get quality or don’t bother. The half-way solution is a recipe for spending money and getting nothing to show for it in return.

With the economy still unsettled, extravagant gifts aren’t likely in many budgets. That means creativity will reign supreme. With a little extra thought you can give a really cool gift to that special someone, whether they are a patent attorney, inventor, law student or computer geek. With that in mind, below are some suggestions in order to help you find some fun, thoughtful and appropriately cool gifts for the geek in your life. The best part is the price means that one or more of these items should fit almost any budget.

Frustration with registration and login isn’t limited to mobile devices, of course. As the web has become more participatory and an integral component of our lives, the average web user has accumulated dozens of accounts at different websites — each with a distinct username and password to remember. Even more problematic, many people try to cope with this problem by recycling the same password across multiple sites, thereby jeopardizing their online security. Social login alleviates this “password fatigue” problem and offers up benefits both for online users and online businesses and other websites.

This was a very interesting discussion, although I was surprised at how little Bilski was mentioned. Although the hearing did digress on some tangents, the Justices’ questioning was generally on point and indicative of the difficult questions a case like this presents. Surely, the Court will be thinking of the impact a decision might have on the healthcare industry, as well as the information technology industry. Also, Justices are no doubt aware of other pending cases which may find their way to the Supreme Court, such as AMP v. USPTO, Classen v. Biogen, and the divided infringement cases of McKesson and Akamai. I will leave the reader to reach their own conclusions, but my best guess is that the Court is leaning toward the position that §101 should be a coarse filter and that §102 and §103 would be more appropriate to challenge the validity of the claims in this case. We will learn the answer in the spring.

All in all it seemed to me that the majority of the court seemed more skeptical about the Mayo position and more supportive of the Prometheus position. That being said, it is extremely troubling to contemplate the possibility that Chief Justice Roberts was more in tune with the thinking of Justice Breyer. It is also disheartening to see such a fundamental misunderstanding of patent law on the part of the Chief Justice. At the end of the day the Justices of the Supreme Court will say what the law is on this issue, but sometimes it is hard to imagine a less qualified bunch to opine on a patent issue.

Beginning January 31, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office will update the content of the patent registration examination to cover two new rules issued September 26, 2011 that relate to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. These new rules permit prioritized examination of patent applications (Track I) and revise the standard for granting inter partes reexamination requests. Additionally, the patent registration examination will also include questions concerning the November 22, 2011 rules governing practice in ex parte appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

If you believe that prior user rights are insignificant and don’t deserve discussion you have permission to keep your head firmly planted in the sand. Everyone else keep reading. Think of all that will easily be fair game in discovery. The defendant has the burden of proof and controls the evidence. Judges are going to allow liberal discovery, particularly where the evidence is uniquely held by the defendant and cannot otherwise be obtained by the patentee. When things go wrong it will be the lawyers who are at the short end of the pitch-fork. Don’t let that be you!

The doctrines of “secret prior art” and “inherency” both merged in the case Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP to surprise, and unpleasantly upend the patentee. Judge Linn’s opinion ruled that “[a]n inventor need not understand precisely why his invention works in order to achieve an actual reduction to practice.” Relying upon the collective holdings in Dow Chemical, Mycogen Plant Science, and Invitrogen, the Federal Circuit panel then concluded that “it is apparent that the district court correctly entered summary judgment” of invalidity of the asserted claims in the ‘502 patent under 35 § 102(g)(2).