Who is a Top Prosecutor?

A Top Patent Prosecutor is any patent attorney who has achieved a reputation among their peers for high quality work product and counseling skills in patent preparation and prosecution. In order to receive recognition, you must be a registered patent attorney who is actively engaged in the preparation and prosecution of U.S. Patent applications. No more than ten percent of all patent prosecution attorneys will be awarded this recognition.

What does it take to become a Top Prosecutor?

Patent Buddy believes that very few of America’s best patent prosecutors get the recognition they deserve. In order to provide recognition to these attorneys Patent Buddy has created the Top Prosecutor’s recognition program. To qualify for this recognition, a registered patent attorney must have obtained a high degree of accomplishment in patent prosecution.

Patent Buddy Nomination Process

How does the nomination process work? Any registered patent attorney with five or more years of experience can nominate a Top Prosecutor.  Just simply fill out an on-line ballot to nominate up to ten registered patent attorneys either within or outside your organization, either in private or corporate practice, and that you feel should be recognized for their distinguished abilities and achievements. You may designate any one of a variety different technology or legal specialties for your nominees.

Nominations are being received through September 15th, 2010.

Related posts:

1. AwakenIP: Helping to Reignite Recognition of the Value of Intellectual Property Jeff Kuester, a technology attorney with Taylor | English in...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Where once we were isolated legal students, practitioners, and academics who could share our thoughts only with those in proximity, blogging and social media have turned us all into a kind of “other memory” for one another. ~Colin Samuels, Blawg Review Sherpa Emeritus

Blawg Review #276 is out at the Securing Innovation business blog, published by IP.com.  This is from a blog site that encourages and participates in discussions and topics regarding anything IP.  Securing Innovation provides some wonderful guest posts including “Patent an Idea?” by Vincent LoTempio.

In this week’s version, the focus of Blawg Review is not Intellectual Property but Indigenous Peoples in honor of International Day of the World’s Indigenous People.

“The theme of this year’s Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples is indigenous filmmakers, who give us windows into their communities, cultures and history. Their work connects us to belief systems and philosophies; it captures both the daily life and the spirit of indigenous communities. As we celebrate these contributions, I call on Governments and civil society to fulfill their commitment to advancing the status of indigenous peoples everywhere.”  ~Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

The stated objectives of the United Nations with respect to Indigenous Peoples include developing strong monitoring mechanisms and enhancing accountability at the international, regional and particularly the national level, regarding the implementation of legal, policy and operational frameworks for the protection of indigenous peoples and the improvement of their lives.

Obviously, the top item is the Wall Street Journal Law Blog report this week, “The battle between oil giant Chevron and Ecuador’s government continues to rage. The parties were back in court on Thursday to discuss the latest item in their long-running dispute over environmental damages in the country’s Amazon region.”

For background and references to the movie “Crude” about this case, see this YouTube video of a Voice of America news report. In a blog post on Opinio Juris, Roger Alford reports that the “ongoing saga regarding Chevron’s legal travails in Ecuador took an interesting twist this week. As I reported earlier, Chevron has secured key outtakes of the movie Crude that appeared to show alarming collusion between the plaintiff lawyers and the Court-appointed expert.”

In another post on Opinio Juris, Roger Alford says one of the key arguments that the Ecuador plaintiffs are making in response to Chevron’s Motion is that the damaging quotes are being taken out of context. Without question, writes Alford, one of the most damning excerpts is when lead plaintiffs’ lawyer Steve Donziger is quoted as saying that “Because at the end of the day, this is all for the Court just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bullshit. It really is.”

Additional must-see items in this week’s Blawg Review includes a report by Kevin Noonan at Patent Docs that describes how intent generally is not required for patent infringement, a strict liability tort.  Now, pharma and software companies have filed a joint Amicus Brief in the Therasense case arguing that it is only in “extraordinary situations” that intent becomes an issue for infringers when the allegation is for inducing infringement, and for patentees when the allegation is inequitable conduct. The brief argues that specific intent, defined as “[t]he intent to accomplish the precise act with which one has been charged” (reflecting the origins of the concept in criminal law) is the standard that a court should apply when establishing inequitable conduct.

Also, don’t miss Gene Quinn at IP Watchdog where he has posted an Interview Exclusive with USPTO Director David Kappos.

Related posts:

1. Vote: Blawg 100 Law Blogs The ABA Journal has released third annual Blawg 100 –...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In its coverage of the recent UK case, Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited v. Comptroller-General of Patents, 6 May 2010, Case No. [2010] EWHC 976 (Pat), EPLAW Patent Blog details how the English High Court upheld a decision not to grant a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for a product containing the active ingredient melatonin.  Article 3(d) provides that an SPC will only be granted if the authorisation granted to market the product as a medicinal product under article 3(b) is the first authorisation to that effect.

In this case, Neurim had filed an application for an SPC in September 2007, based on an authorisation to market melatonin for human use given in June 2007. The examiner had objected to Neurim’s SPC application because of a March 2001 authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product which contained melatonin as the active ingredient.

The judge followed the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 3(d) in Pharmacia, MIT and Yissum, holding that the authorization required under 3(b) is the first authorisation to place the product on the market as “any” medicinal product. A different indication of the product or the fact it is used for a different species, here the use for treatment of primary insomnia in humans as opposed to increasing the reproductive performance of sheep, were held to be irrelevant.

About EPLAW Patent Blog

The EPLAW Patent Blog aims to be a top-quality, free, independent European blog on patent law, providing speedy access to patent judgments and patent information from various European jurisdictions.

The blog intends to -over time- cover all relevant European national patent case law and news from all European jurisdictions. Also, the blog contains posts providing in-depth analysis of current developments. Of course, the blog provides a perfect platform for discussion.

The content of the blog is provided by an international team of patent specialists acting as editors/correspondents. Third party contributions are welcomed (although we do reserve the right to not publish all materials sent to us).

We think you’ll enjoy following this site as well.  (via Hal Wegner)

Related posts:

1. Changes in the Implementing Rules of the European Patent Convention (EPC) The Administrative Council of the EPO decided, in March 2009,...
2. Professor Gets 4 Years In Prison For Exporting Technical Information on UAVs University of Tennessee (UT) Professor John Reece Roth, 72, of...
3. Just a Reminder: EPO Fees Increase April 1 The European Patent Office (“EPO”) recently announced that most of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This website is an attempt to help reignite broader recognition of the full value of intellectual property. Much criticism has been levied against the usefulness of intellectual property and its place in our new economy, but there are those among us who continue to recognize the wisdom of maintaining strong intellectual property protection for worthwhile contributions that “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”

AwakenIP is also attempting to maintain the most comprehensive online resource of all information related to the Bilski case.

I wanted to give a shout out to AwakenIP since Jeff’s original website, KuesterLaw (launched in March of 1995), was the inspiration for my starting Patent Baristas.

Good luck, Jeff.

Related posts:

1. Book Review Monday: Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries I aim to shed light on the extent to which...
2. Spy v. Spy: BIO’s Intellectual Property Counsel Committee Conference BIO’s Intellectual Property Counsel Committee is holding its Fall Conference...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In general, I’m uncomfortable in trying to put blogs into any kind of subjective ranking since many are narrowly tailored and have different priorities and audiences.  There’s even the question of what is the definition of a blawg, such as, should the The Am Law Daily by American Lawyer reporters be called a  blawg or a commercial news site?

Even then, it’s quite subjective as what category to place a blawg.  In the Journal’s rankings, just 16 blawgs are in the Practice Specific category.    Paul Caron’s TaxProf Blog is under the Legal Theory and not the Practice Specific category [Disclaimer: Paul lives directly across the street from me.]

Intellectual property law is heavily dominated by tech geeks so there are just flat out a lot of great blogs in the practice area (witness Gene Quinn’s earlier rankings).  Among IP listings, Dennis Crouch at Patently-O and Gene Quinn at IP Watchdog were recognized in the Practice Specific category.

Again this year, you can go vote for your favorite in each of the 10 categories.  They’ll be counting votes from Dec. 1st through Dec. 31st.

Having a short attention span, my personal favorites change weekly, if not daily, depending on my immediate mood and interests.  Blogs I’m currently following closely include:

• 271 Patent Blog
• Chicago IP Litigation
• FDA Law Blog
• Holman’s Biotech IP
• Intellectual Asset Management
• Invent Blog
• IP Think Tank
• Patent Docs
• Pharmalot
• Securing Innovation

Of course, I also follow The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs and PhotoshopDisasters so you may not want to take advice from me.

Anyway, the winners of the Blawg 100 will be announced in the February edition of the Journal.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.