A marketing company is currently helping CEA and a coalition of other companies (and legislators!) in a project to raise awareness to fight “patent troll” issues and to petition the senate for Patent Legislation Reform.

According to the site, their message is:

Sign our petition now and tell the Senate to focus on patent reform during lame duck. No more excuses!

However, the site does not tell you anything further without having to input all of your information, which we were not willing to do.  The CEA does have lots of anti-troll websites and campaigns and there is no indication how this is any different than previous efforts.

There are now fourteen bills that have been introduced in Congress to deal with some aspect of the patent troll issue, such as:

The problem is, there is no single, universally accepted definition of a patent troll. The term is generally applied to companies that don’t create (or intend to create) any products or services but instead assert patents as their sole business model. Other terms for patent trolls include non-practicing entities (NPE) and patent assertion entities (PAE).  Unfortunately, one person’s troll is another person’s champion of (their own) patent rights. It is very difficult to legislate a solution to the patent litigation abuse problem without affect- ing the intellectual property rights of legitimate companies.

The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S. 1720), which was introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) last November, is the main Senate bill currently under consideration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has focused on fee-shifting provisions, which would require the losing party in patent litigation to pay the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees. The Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) passed by the House has a provision that shifts attorneys’ fees unless the court finds that the losing party’s position and conduct were “reasonably justified in law and fact” or there are “special circumstances” making an award unjust. The current version of S. 1720 does not include any fee-shifting provision.

It remains to be seen how these issues will be sorted out.  In the meantime, you can view the video and petition at http://p2a.co/xfcZHLU and follow them on twitter @PatentFix.

  Print This Post   Email This Post

Innovate Product Design has created this infographic on “What is Intellectual Property? A Student Guide and Definition.” The infographic is intended to help people and students understand the importance of intellectual property and why it is also important for designers to protect their creative idea.

student-guide-to-ip
© 2014 Innovate Product Design

URL to Infographic: http://www.innovate-design.co.uk/student-guide-to-ip/

  Print This Post   Email This Post

The Chisum Patent Academy is pleased to accept registrations for our next Advanced Patent Law seminar, to be held March 5-6, 2015. The venue is the award-winning 21C Museum Hotel in easily accessible and inexpensive Cincinnati, Ohio. The 21C was recently named the #1 hotel in the United States and #11 worldwide in the prestigious Condé Nast Traveler Readers’ Choice Awards.

Why We’re Different:

Because each Chisum Patent Academy seminar is uniquely limited to ten (10) participants, we offer an unparalleled opportunity for interactive roundtable discussion and debate. Our format is the antithesis of mega-ballroom passive presentations by large CLE providers. Each Academy seminar session is led by patent law educators and treatise authors Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller. We focus on the most significant recent Federal Circuit and Supreme Court patent decisions, looking at trends, schisms, and practice implications. Attendees benefit not only from our insights but also by sharing strategies and best practices with fellow attendees. We particularly encourage registration by experienced patent professionals seeking a sophisticated level of analysis in a participatory, interactive format. We welcome those who want to discuss, debate, and argue patent law!

Topics for the 2015 Cincinnati Seminar:

The Chisum Patent Academy updates its syllabus for every seminar in order to cover the most timely and significant Federal Circuit and Supreme Court patent law developments. We’re honored that a number of our participants have returned for more than one seminar. As of October 2014, the Cincinnati seminar is expected to include the following topics (and more):

▪ Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Blockbusters
▪ Patent Practice Gone Wrong.
▪ Patent Claim Construction and Definiteness.
▪ Inter Partes Review.

Registration and Fee:

Registration is available on a first-come, first-served basis through our website (www.chisumpatentacademy.com). Our registration fee for the March 5-6, 2015 Cincinnati seminar is $1,400 per person. We have applied to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Commission on Continuing Legal Education for 12.00 total CLE hours instruction.

Location:

The Cincinnati seminar will be held in seminar meeting facilities of the new and unique 21C Museum Hotel, located in downtown Cincinnati at 609 Walnut Street. T

For more information or to register:

Please visit our web page (www.chisumpatentacademy.com) or e-mail info@chisum.com.

  Print This Post   Email This Post

Challenges abound with regards to litigation, outsourcing and monetization; and are currently increasing on a national and international level. It is essential to understand these issues in order to have an upper-hand in overcoming these obstacles.

IP and patent professionals are planning to invest in several services and solutions, some of which include:

  1. Valuation Services
  2. Recruitment & Talent Management
  3. Patent Litigation
  4. Patent Drafting & Filing

IQPC surveyed a senior group of in-house IP and patent professionals to discover which services and solutions they plan to invest in over the next six to twenty-four months to help them build a cost effective, robust and future proofed IP and patent strategy.

ipqcinfographic

To learn more about these issues, join IQPC at Global Patent Strategies Summit this March 11-13, 2015 in San Jose, CA.

IQPC’s Global Patent Strategies Summit will provide you with the opportunity to familiarize yourself with some of the most important issues at play in the industry today by participating in an interactive forum designed with engagement and open discussion in mind. Join us in order to:

  • Improve your company’s proficiency with regards to efficient & effective patent portfolio management
  • Collaborate with outside counsel in order to maximize results while minimizing costs
  • Understand, and respond to, changes in the patent reform landscape and recent SCOTUS rulings
  • Take a deep dive into the International space through sessions focused on the EU’s Universal Patent Court plan & an update on the Patent space in India/China

For more info on topics and sessions, download the agenda here.

To save an extra 20% off of standard pricing use the code: GPS_BARISTABLG

For more information visit www.GlobalPatentStrategies.com, email enquiryiqpc@iqpc.com or call 1-800-882-8684

 

  Print This Post   Email This Post

PatentStat.com is a new patent-related website that claims to use peer-reviewed patent valuation methodologies to rank patent attorneys and to profile patent examiners.

PatentStat uses comprehensive data-mining and cutting-edge analysis to help you choose the most appropriate patent attorney, and profiles patent examiners to help you manage patent prosecution.

The use-cases are to help patent filers intelligently select appropriate counsel in any one of 33 technology areas, and to help attorneys better know the examiners who are reviewing their applications.

The methodology is transparent (http://patentstat.com/methodology.php), and the listings are dynamic, allowing sorting based on each individual priorities (e.g. a patent filer may prioritize time-to-grant over any other metric).

Law firm and attorney profiles are developed through a transparent process:

  • All patents granted in the past ten years are grouped by technology area and by filing year
  • Each patent is scored based on intrinsic factors such as time to grant, back citations, claims, etc.
  • The patents in each group are ranked based on these factors
  • For each technology area, law firms and patent attorneys are profiled based on the average rank of their patents

Why have these metrics been chosen?

The metrics used by PatentStat have been validated through independent peer-reviewed research, or through use by international bodies such as the OECD

What if I disagree with these metrics?

PatentStat is transparent and flexible. No weighting is applied to the metrics — they are all considered at par — and the website also allows you to sort the lists by any of the metrics. So, you are free to play with the metrics and order the law firms and attorneys as you see fit.

Think this is a good idea or a not-so-good one?  Let us know.

  Print This Post   Email This Post

A new blog just out by Michael McCabe, Jr., is IPethics & Insights, which focuses on ethics and discipline in the field of IP law.  It’s self-described as a resource for intellectual property attorneys regarding patent and trademark ethics, professional liability, and discipline, including the latest USPTO and court decisions, trends, news, and analysis.

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”
                             ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

A recent article focuses on U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison’s decision in in Tesco Corporation v. Weatherford International Inc., in which he dismissed a patent infringement action with prejudice as a sanction for counsel’s misrepresentations to the court.

The district court stated, “Counsel owes the Court a duty of complete candor at all times, regardless of whether the jury is in the courtroom, or opposing counsel rejects other sanctions.

McCabe points out that lying to a judicial officer is a serious matter and one of many ways that Intellectual Property practitioners can be professionally disciplined.

If you get a chance, check it out this new resource.

  Print This Post   Email This Post

The USPTO began accepting applications for the Glossary Pilot on Monday, June 2 as part of ongoing efforts to improve the U.S. patent system. The Office initiated the pilot program to study the impact of glossary on claim clarity in the specification of software-related patent applications by encouraging the use of glossaries by patent applicants and will run for 6 months.

Participation in the Glossary Pilot requires an applicant to include a glossary section in the patent application specification to define terms used in the patent application. Applications accepted into this pilot will receive expedited processing and be placed on an examiner’s special docket prior to the first Office action, and will have special status up to issuance of a first Office action.

To qualify for the Glossary Pilot Program, all of the conditions and requirements set forth in the Federal Register Notice dated March 27, 2014 must be satisfied.  In particular, applicants are reminded that:

1.         The application must be an original, non-reissue, non-provisional utility application that does not claim benefit of a prior filed non-provisional U.S. application, unless the application is a continuation-in-part application filed for the purposes of providing a glossary.

2.         The application and the petition to make special using Form PTO/SB/436 must be filed on or after June 2, 2014 and before either 200 petitions are granted and/or six months after the June 2, 2014 start date, whichever occurs first.

3.         The claimed invention must be classified in one of the following Art Areas (see USPC class [PDF] ) information to determine if the utility application would be subject to examination by one of the technology areas listed).

4.         The application must include a glossary that is placed at the beginning of the detailed description portion of the original specification of the application, identified with a heading, and presented on filing of the application. The glossary should include definitions that will assist in clarifying the claimed invention, creating a clear application file wrapper history, and must comply with all of the requirements set forth in Section III.B of the notice[PDF]

5.         The applicant must file the application, the petition to make special, and all follow-on papers using EFS-Web.

6.         The application must contain at least one claim, but no more than four independent claims, and no more than 30 claims total.

For more information about the Glossary Pilot, contact Seema Rao 571-272-0800 or visit the initiative here.

  Print This Post   Email This Post

Congress directed the USPTO to submit a report on virtual marking after enactment of the AIA. The AIA made many changes to United States patent law, including an amendment to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), the so-called “marking” statute. The purpose of marking an article is to provide constructive notice to the public that the article is patented. Failure to appropriately mark an article can preclude the recovery of damages for infringement until effective notice is given. In the AIA, Congress intended to modernize and update the statute.

Prior to the AIA, the marking statute required patented articles to be physically marked by placing the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.,” along with the patent number, on the article itself or its packaging. The amendment to § 287(a) introduced in the AIA provides patentees with the option of using “virtual marking,” i.e., affixing onto the article or its packaging the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.” followed by an address of a posting on the Internet that associates the patented article with the number of the patent, as an alternative to physical marking.

This report analyzes the effectiveness of the new virtual marking provisions of 35 U.S.C. 287(a), which allows patent owners to mark their products with an internet address that provides the patent numbers associated with the product.  The report also analyzes the impact of such virtual marking on public access to patent information and any issues (legal or otherwise) which virtual marking creates.

On the basis of the public comments and independent research, the USPTO concluded that virtual marking has likely met its intended objectives of reducing manufacturing costs, facilitating marking of small articles, and improving the general public’s access to patent information. However, the USPTO believes it could be beneficial to revisit the issue at a later date, to account for further user experiences, additional data, and case law developments.

  Print This Post   Email This Post