According to Abulfas Garayev, Minister of Culture and Tourism, the Ministry has received a patent for the Azerbaijan breakfast brand.

According to the Minister:

“The new brand will be introduced in several hotels for the first time during the European Games to be held in Baku this June. Later it will be introduced in all the hotels of the country in compulsory order. Azerbaijan breakfast is a brand, which will not only promote the national cuisine but also will contribute to improvement of service quality in hotels.”

301935153According to the Minister, the patent was issued only for breakfast because usually tourists have only breakfast in hotels and prefer to spend the rest of the time outside hotel territory.

It’s a little hard to understand exactly what the patent covers for a breakfast consisting of items like sheep-cheese, honey, yogurt, fruit, scrambled eggs with tomato, bread and tea among other items.

Given the translation between languages and the overall propensity of journalists to confuse patents and trademarks, I wonder if this isn’t actually a trademark for the name Azerbaijan breakfast.  On the other hand, inventor Eugene Gagliardi made out with his patent on the Steak-Umm (US Pat. No. 5,346,711).

If anyone has a copy of the referenced patent, please send us a note.  We’d love to see the claims…

  Print This Post Print This Post  

Last week, John Oliver on his HBO show Last Week Tonight. During Sunday’s episode, Oliver went after so-called “patent trolls,” companies whose sole mission is to purchase patents covering broad ideas who then sue others for patent infringement.

In one part of the segment, Oliver goes on that:

“Most of these companies don’t produce anything — they just shake down anyone who does, so calling them trolls is a little misleading — at least trolls actually do something, they control bridge access for goats and ask fun riddles. Patent trolls just threaten to sue the living shit out of people, and believe me, those lawsuits add up.”

Now, Patent Yogi has produced what it says is an “epic takedown of John Oliver’s video on patent trolls.”

According to Patent Yogi:

“John Oliver is on the spot in most cases. However, in his video on patent trolls, most of what of he said was essentially wrong.  Therefore, we have prepared a response to present all sides of the debate.”

Decide for yourself and see the video here:

  Print This Post Print This Post  

111883965XI received a copy of First to File: Patents for Today’s Scientist and Engineer (Wiley 2014), by M. Henry Heines a while ago and have just had time to sit down and read through it.  Overall, I really liked the book and its coverage of topics.

As the title suggests, this book covers patent law from the perspective of post-enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011.  First up, the book covers the transition by the U.S. to a first-to-file system and delves into just who is first. In a Who’s on First? analogy, Heines takes us through the difference between competing filers (applicants) versus competing inventors.

The examples and figures do a good job of highlighting the important points of the law.  The most critical piece is the coverage of canceling prior art and the derivation proceedings process.  As pointed out by the book:

Where patent applicants have previously been able to prevail over competing patent applicants as well as eliminate certain prior art by producing laboratory notebook pages, internal memoranda, research reports, and other documentation of an early invention date, the AIA shifted the applicant’s emphasis from this type of documentation to the effective filing date of the patent application…  What value then does record keeping still have?  It has considerable value…

The 196-page book includes appendices on patent fees, patent searchers, two glossaries, a bibliography, lists of patent applications and legal cases sited and an index.

While not light read for the average scientist or engineer, it certainly provides practical insight into the current state of patent law and practice.

You can get your own copy here: First to File: Patents for Today’s Scientist and Engineer (Wiley-AIChE; 1 edition; October 13, 2014), by M. Henry Heines

About the Author

Author M. Henry Heines is a patent attorney, consultant, and author and speaker on patent-related topics, with a publishing history that includes over sixty articles in technical and legal journals and two books and a third in production, all on patent law for the technical business community. The third book, entitled “First to File: Patents for Today’s Scientist and Engineer,” complements and expands on the first two by incorporating the America Invents Act plus other topics of current and emerging interest supplemented with case histories. In addition to his legal credentials, Henry holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering supplemented by additional coursework in Molecular Biology and Immunology, and has practiced patent law in a wide range of fields including chemistry, chemical and mechanical engineering, laboratory, industrial, and medical equipment, materials science including metallurgy and nanotechnology, and alternative fuels and energy sources. Recently retired from the full-time practice of law, his professional career began with three years as a research engineer with a major chemical corporation, followed by seven years in corporate patent practice and finally 31 years in private practice. Henry’s personal website is

  Print This Post Print This Post  

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced the release of the Patent Application Alert Service. This system provides customized, email alerts to the public for free when patent applications of interest are published. Additionally, the system offers direct access to the published applications that meet your search criteria.

Third-Party Preissuance Submissions
35 U.S.C. 122(e) provides a mechanism for third parties to submit patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of a patent application with a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted.

process-map-horizontalUnder 35 U.S.C. 122(e), such submissions may be made before (1) the later of (i) 6 months after the date of publication or (ii) the date of a first Office action on the merits rejecting any claims, or (2) before the date of a notice of allowance, if earlier. Section 122(e) also provides for such fees as the Director may prescribe. This new provision was effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent application.

After receipt of these customized, email alerts, the public may identify prior art for “pre-issuance” submission into these applications. The pre-issuance submission process was established under the America Invents Act (AIA), and to date, the agency has received more than 2,600 submissions across all technologies. More information on the pre-issuance submission program and how members of the public can participate can be found here.

User Note:

Screen Shot USPTO passwordAfter having to make up my own Class III, super-secure, Defcon level Ernie password* just for a webpage to be able to receive an email that some publicly-available patent has published, alas I was unable to register for the Patent Application Alert Service in the end on an Apple (MacBook Air) computer using either Safari or Firefox browsers.

Send me a note if anyone is able to register under other means.

Follow-up 04-27-15:

Dave Abbott, Vice President at Reed Technology and Information Services called me personally and helped me quickly resolve my registration problem.  I’m not too proud to admit it was user error.  The registration page won’t allow you to click the checkbox to agree to the Terms and Conditions without scrolling down through the aforementioned terms.

In small, light grey print, it does state:

You must scroll through to the bottom to accept Terms and Conditions

While I believe no one is going to read the Terms and Conditions — scrolling or no scrolling, Abbott did say they’d look into making this note a little easier to see on the page.

*Read here to understand why this is a stupid password policy.

  Print This Post Print This Post  

Mergers, acquisitions, in-licensing and out-licensing have dramatically increased in popularity as a revenue stream for life science organizations. This is due to both the length of time it can take to research a new product from the ground up, and the progressively crowded marketplace. The life sciences industry has experienced success through increased licensing, which has moved it from a secondary activity to a necessary measure to ensure a healthy bottom line.

C613execsummimgBig pharma, innovative biotechs and medical device companies have millions of dollars riding on the success of licensing deals. A deal gone wrong can mean massive debts and wasted resources on all sides. It’s crucial to be able to find a licensing partner you can trust, and to be able to search out and identify potential partnerships and valuable products.

ExL Events’ 2nd Due Diligence Summit for Life Sciences, convening in Boston on June 9-10, 2015, was designed after conducting extensive research with your peers and learning about challenges you face and the thought leaders who can help you solve them. This is an educational event focused on how to run a tight ship throughout the due diligence process by presenting you with experienced speaking faculty members from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and more!

Download the brochure for a complete list of the dynamic interactive sessions, brand-new case studies and innovative tool kits you’ll want to use in 2015.

Want to know more? Download the executive summary from ExL Events’ inaugural forum for an in-depth look at the key findings and final thoughts from the event.

Register by April 24th to receive the early bird pricing and be sure to mention priority code C613PB. If you have any questions, feel free to email

  Print This Post Print This Post  

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 and follow them on twitter @PatentFix.

  Print This Post Print 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.

© 2014 Innovate Product Design

URL to Infographic:

  Print This Post Print 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 ( 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.


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 ( or e-mail

  Print This Post Print This Post