IP STRATEGY

March 17, 2008

In defense of offense...

A couple of months ago I came across Mike Dillon’s blog – The Legal Thing – covering all things legal from the perspective of General Counsel at Sun. 

As GC for Sun, Mike’s daily routine must entail a significant amount of attention to intellectual property issues and his blog plows a lot of ground concerning this topic.  The posts are informative – albeit they have a “big corporate shine” to them, much to the dismay of a lot of “anonymous commenters”.   If you read many patent blogs, you can probably guess the identities of many of these “anonymous commenters” – but they do make for an interesting peek at the more reactionary component of our niche of the legal world. 

That is a lot of setup for a recent post of Mike’s dealing with how Sun defends against patent “troll” lawsuits – namely, a good offense.

 

I recently shared dinner with a few other GCs of local technology companies. It was a nice evening in which we were able to relax and share insights (and commiserate) about topics of common interest. During the course of our meal while we were discussing rising legal costs, one of my table mates made a statement that I found somewhat bothersome. He said that when faced with patent "troll" litigation, he knows he is going to pay something to get rid of the lawsuit and so he economizes on the use of defense counsel. After all, the thinking goes, if your intent is to settle a case, why spend money on a strong defense?

His view is completely contrary to how we think about this problem at Sun. It's also symptomatic of the way many companies view this issue as a quarterly "cost of doing business" without considering the long term consequences of settlement both for individual companies and our industry.

Before going further, let me state that we respect the intellectual rights of third parties. When a third party claim has been clear and the terms reasonable, we have entered into licenses. However, those situations are easily distinguished from the cases that make up almost all of our present docket of patent litigation. These lawsuits have usually been filed with no advance notice, by plaintiffs that don't commercialize their patents (i.e. create and sell products) and in venues considered favorable to them. It's also almost always the case that these plaintiffs have done little or no investigation to ascertain whether our products infringe prior to filing their lawsuit.

 

I think the approach that Mike outlines is a good example of how to frame decisions when confronted with a freedom to operate issue – whether the FTO issue is brought to your attention through an offer to license, or a cease and desist, or a patent search, or even when you have been served with a complaint — i.e., “How do we play offense in this particular case or instance?”

As Mike mentions, oftentimes it makes sense strategically and economically to simply license the patent – especially if the license allows you to preclude other competitors in the marketplace. 

On the other hand, a careful analysis may lead to a determination that a license is unworkable – e.g., that the patent is invalid or because the license fee does not make economic sense.  In such a circumstance, a zealous defense against an accusation of infringement may be in order – including the invalidation of the asserted claims.

In either case – taking a license or defending zealously – the accused infringer is approaching the case in an active/offensive manner and judging each case on its relative merits.  Defaulting into paying to settle every case is no better than defaulting into aggresively defending every case. 

The best defense to a patent infringement lawsuit?

Early analysis of the case and its relative merits (including the type of entity bringing the lawsuit).  As each case and situation is unique, arbitrary “blanket rules” – while being easy to implement – don’t necessarily increase value to the corporation.  Licensing everything or defending against everything is not a strategy – it is simply an invitation for disaster.

In any event, go on over and read Mike’s blog – I can guarantee that you will learn something.

The best offense...is a good defense.: the legal thing... by Mike Dillon.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:33 PM.
Permalink: In defense of offense...
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

March 14, 2008

Viva Las Vegas! IP CLE in Sin City...

Nipper, as usual, beat me to the punch in announcing a reunion of sorts for the Rethink(IP) guys in Las Vegas next month.

Namely, all three of us will be speaking (along with a host of other great IP panelists) at Dunes’ “Patent Drafting & Prosecution” CLE that is happening on April 11th, 2008 in shiny Las Vegas, Nevada.

The title of my sesion is “Current Issues in U.S. and Foreign Patent Prosecution” – specifically, I will be addressing:

As the world continues to become flatter, patent professionals in the United States are receiving increasingly complex requests from clients as to the patent procedures found in many foreign jurisdictions.  As such, the U.S. patent professional must be able to quickly identify foreign patenting issues early and implement U.S. and foreign patenting activities in a coordinated manner.  In Current Issues in U.S. and Foreign Patent Prosecution, Mr. Sorocco will discuss newly implemented U.S. and foreign jurisdiction rules and regulations that may impact U.S. based practitioners and the clients they serve.  Representative topics include the current status of rule changes at the USPTO, the Hague Agreement on Industrial Designs, the London Protocol Agreement and the possibility of a European Community Patent.

I always appreciate the tips, tricks and insight that come from PHOSITA readers – so, feel free to send them my way.

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:28 PM.
Permalink: Viva Las Vegas! IP CLE in Sin City...
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

October 03, 2007

All New PatentFizz - The Good Stuff Always Rises to the Top

All around intellectual property and web wunderkind Matt Buchanan has taken his hugely popular PatentFizz site to the next level this past week – bold new colors, new layouts, and useful new content and tools.

According to Matt, on his summer vacation he has been anything but slothful:

You'll notice right away that the site has been completely redesigned. It's a bit easier on the eyes, you might say. The FizzDisplay pages present the abstract, claims, and bibliographic information in an attractive, easy to read format that loads quickly. The FizzDisplay is sweet, instant gratification.

The improvements are not just cosmetic, though. Nope....PatentFizz has an impressive slate of all new features designed to more effectively deliver patent-based information. I'll be detailing these features on Fizzure, the PatentFizz blog, over the coming weeks, so be sure to subscribe to the RSS feed.

We failed to mention last month that PatentFizz was featured as part of the Economist magazine’s article on patent commenting, examination and intelligence sites.

Check it out and if you have some “scoop” on a particular patent and be sure to share it with the world!

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:28 PM.
Permalink: All New PatentFizz - The Good Stuff Always Rises to the Top
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

September 26, 2007

New Blog to Check Out: Financial Aspects of Intellectual Property

One of my new favorite blogs is the Financial Aspects of Intellectual Property blog by the folks at the Innovation Asset Group.

According to their “about” page:

Innovation Asset is a leading provider of software for intellectual property (IP) and contracts management. Founded in 2002, we set out to design fresh solutions to the challenges today’s companies face in managing their intangible assets. We’ve quickly gained a national reputation for our flagship product, Decipher™.

So far, their blog has really been a fun and informative read – dealing with meta trends in intellectual property acquisition and valuation.  As a sample to whet your appetite:

We are seeing an evolution – perhaps revolution. Not just in terms of the recognition of IP as the fundamentally core asset for businesses today; but also in terms of the way in which that IP is managed (I think “where” remains the same).

Initially, IP is managed out of the legal department. In a non-strategic mindset, IP management equates to docketing in some of these companies.

As companies embrace the strategic importance of IP and understand the need to move beyond simply docketing, there is an evolution of the role of the legal department. Much the way IT departments in corporate America evolved from a cost center and service provider to a strategic enabler of the business in the past couple of decades, legal departments are making a similar evolution today.

If you picture a pyramid similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and similar to the one described in “Edison in the Boardroom,” the bottom of the pyramid represents the least sophisticated IP companies, and the top of the pyramid the most sophisticated.

Well worth a read for anyone interested in intellectual property and what I would consider a “must read” for those within corporate intellectual property departments who must identify, protect and communicate the importance of intellectual property assets.

Sorry for the disruption in the middle of all the “Rules Mess” – we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 07:41 PM.
Permalink: New Blog to Check Out: Financial Aspects of Intellectual Property
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

Round 2 - Part 3 – Review of the New Continuation Rules

As you may or may not already know, on November 1, 2007, the USPTO’s new claims and continuation rules become effective.  The new rules change various aspects of continued examination filings, requests for continued examination, and divisional filings.  This post covers the key rule changes regarding to related applications.   

I digress, before reading the rest of this article, think of the great song of the late 70s, We are Fa-mily, I got all my sistas with me!  We are Fa-mily, get up ev-rybody and sing!  It sets the tone for the remainder of this article since this post discusses patent Fa-milies.   

According to the new rules, an applicant must identify other pending and issued patents within its patent family.  This means, the applicant must identify patents that:

1. Other commonly owned applications  -OR-
2. Patents that have:
1. an inventor in common with the application; and
2. a filing date within 2 months of the filing date of the application.

 

1. Are commonly owned,
2. have an inventor in common with the application; AND
3. have a priority date within 2 months of the priority date of the application. 

Also, the new rules state that a rebuttable presumption exists that the application contains at least one claim that is not patentably distinct from at least one of the claims from its patent family if the related family patent:

1. has an inventor in common with the application
2. has a claimed filing or priority date that is the same as the claimed filing or priority date as the application; and
3. has substantial overlapping disclosure with the application. 

Where there is a rebuttable presumption, the applicant must:  

1. rebut the presumption that the claims are not patentably distinct by explaining how the application contains only patentably distinct claims
   -OR-
2. submit a terminal disclaimer. 

For additional information click here.  Also click here for a chart detailing the rule changes to “Commonly Owned Applications and Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims”.

Posted by Emily Campbell at 01:47 PM.
Permalink: Round 2 - Part 3 – Review of the New Continuation Rules
| Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

September 20, 2007

Patent Reform Act of 2007 - Part 4

You are no doubt on the edge of your seat waiting to see what other changes are in store if the Patent Reform Act of 2007 is enacted.  Well, wait no longer, this blog post brings to you not one, but two more proposed changes to the current Patent System:  (1) Prior User Rights and (2) Best Mode Requirement Violations. 

You might be asking yourself, “Self, what are prior user rights?”  Well, prior user rights (also called the first inventor defense) stem from 35 U.S.C. § 273.  Currently, 35 U.S.C. § 273 provides a limited defense for actions that would normally constitute infringement if the person “actually reduced the subject matter to practice at least 1 year before the effective filing date of such patent, and commercially used the subject matter before the effective filing date of such patent.”  The defense is narrowly tailored so that “[a] person may not assert the defense under this section unless the invention for which the defense is asserted is for a method.”  In other words, the defense is limited to business method patents. 

After the State Street Bank decision, the USPTO experienced a huge surge of business method applications as well as a huge lack of adequate prior art to judge the novelty and obviousness of these applications.  Consequently, litigation erupted and the prior user defense was enacted to remedy the effects of the enforcement of poor-quality business method patents.   

The Patent Reform Act proposed to widen the scope of the prior user defense by eliminating the business method patent limitation so that users of all types of inventions would have been able to use the defense.  But as amended and passed, the legislation does not include any such changes to the prior user defense.  Instead, the legislation requires the USPTO to prepare a report for Congress detailing their findings and recommendations on the operation of prior user rights in several selected countries. 

The Patent Reform Act, if enacted, would also affect violations of the best mode requirement.  What is the best mode requirement, you might ask.  Well, funny you ask, because I just so happen to have a brief explanation.  Currently, under 35 U.S.C. § 112 a specification must, among other elements, “set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”  Under the current law, a defendant in an infringement action could assert invalidity as a defense if the patentee failed to set forth the best mode of carrying out his invention.  35 U.S.C. § 282(3). 

But according to the Judiciary Committee Report there were several problems involved in litigating violations of the best mode requirement since it is so subjective.  So the Patent Reform Act amended the defenses available to potential infringers by making failure to meet the best mode requirement unavailable as a defense to infringement.  Now, the Patent Reform Act, if enacted, replaces Section 282(3) and states that invalidity of a patent or failure to comply with any requirement of Section 112 “other than the requirement that the specification shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention” is an available defense. 

Posted by Emily Campbell at 04:11 PM.
Permalink: Patent Reform Act of 2007 - Part 4
| Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

September 16, 2007

Dunes CLE - Vegas Legal Fun!

Dunes CLE has all the fun - all the while providing an informative and timely panel of experts on intellectual property matters.  It can't get much better than a little gaming, some sun, a beverage of your choice after a day of in-depth legal information.

Dunes' Fall, 2007 seminar is rapidly approaching on October 12th at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas.  The theme of the conference is "Current Issues in Patent Law 2007" and features a double helping of J. Matthew Buchanan updating everyone on Patent Law and Policy Updates from within the legislative, executive and judicial realm.

Other topics include:

• Inequitable Conduct After McKesson: Has The "Plague" Returned? - Thomas M. Hardman
  
• USPTO Claims and Continuation Practice Files Rules: Where Are We Now? - Mark Sandbaken
  
• Statutory Subject Matter in 2007 and Beyond - Robert Ryan Morishita
  
• The Supreme Court's Decision in KSR v. Teleflex - Eric L. Maschoff

PHOSITA has been an avid fan of Dunes' from the beginning - and, as they say, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 04:05 PM.
Permalink: Dunes CLE - Vegas Legal Fun!
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

August 09, 2007

Tell the USPTO what you think.

Although we have all seen how important the USPTO believes our comments to be on substantive issues, they have asked me to post this so readers of PHOSITA can weigh in.

Complex Work Units Pilot at the USPTO

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking participants for a Complex Work Units (CWUs) Pilot Program scheduled for late 2007.  CWUs are chemical structure drawings, mathematical formulae, protein crystal data, and table data, which often add significant complexity and cost to the examination and publication of patent applications in which they are contained.  

The CWU Pilot Program will be conducted in an effort to:

• Investigate filing practice options for CWUs
• Gather information about existing CWU formats and their use in the Intellectual Property community
• Evaluate rule changes to allow applicants to submit CWU files
• Determine other acceptable file types

The pilot will allow applicants to submit original source files for CWUs through EFS-Web or on a CD, supplementing the traditionally-filed application parts.  The CWU source file submissions will not be considered when calculating the application size fee, which will reduce the cost of filing for pilot participants.

The USPTO is requesting participants in an effort to gather more information about CWUs from the intellectual property community.  If you have any questions or would like to participate in CWU Pilot activities, please send an e-mail to cwupilotsupport@uspto.gov today!

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:41 AM.
Permalink: Tell the USPTO what you think.
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

August 05, 2007

Herring and Patents - And no, I don't mean fish.

The other day I mentioned a chart from the Economist outlining the largest patent granting countries – with Japan coming out on top.

The Intellectual Asset Management Magazine also picked up on the online chart and added some additional thoughts to the debate concerning software patents.  They posit that it is the certainty of the legal protections afforded rather than the existence of protection for information technology that ensures a competitive industry.  In other words, patent protection for software is a debate that has little, if anything, to do with maintaining open and competitive IT industries.

Some food for thought…

Is the software patent debate a red herring?

That said, the EIU sees the legal infrastructure in a country as being much less important than other factors, such as IT infrastructure, human capital, R&D environment and support for IT industry development. Of course, it could be that all of these are actually affected by the IP infrastructure of a country (in other words, for example, maybe a company is more likely to invest in R&D or to attract funding for R&D, if the right IP protection is available); but it could also well be that, if the EIU is right, the vitriolic nature of the debate around software patents is actually little more than hot air because, in the end, as long as there is legal certainty – of whatever kind – other factors are far more important in ensuring strong competition in the IT industry. (Emphasis added)

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:15 PM.
Permalink: Herring and Patents - And no, I don't mean fish.
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

July 30, 2007

Legal Imperatives on Intellectual Property Management

Market Research Reports has released a new title on intellectual property asset management and protection entitled “Legal Imperatives on Intellectual Property Management”. 

It appears to be an interesting read, although not inexpensive (550 Euros).  If any PHOSITA readers have a copy, let me know your thoughts/reactions so other readers can make an informed decision on purchasing.

From the Market Research Website:

Only in recent decades have issues related to the protection of intellectual property rights come to be seen as significant sources of legal and business uncertainty. In part, this uncertainty derives from the fact that intellectual property is importantly different from physical property. Intellectual property can be stolen by an act as simple as broadcasting an idea without the permission of the originator. -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Allan Greenspan in his remarks at a 2004 conference on Economic Policy Research, at Stanford University

The business landscape is littered with intellectual property landmines. Microsoft, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Medtronic, Research in Motion and Nintendo are just a few of the companies that have settled patent infringement disputes for hundreds of millions of dollars. Toshiba paid a $425 million judgment to Lexar for violating trade secrets. Pfizers patents for Viagra were ruled invalid in China and Microsoft faces similar concerns over its Office product in South Korea. In the battle of protecting intellectual property, the IP lawyer is on the front lines. It is the IP lawyer who:

-Drafts the patent applications, knowing that the defensibility of the firms intellectual capital hangs on each word that the IP lawyer crafts.

-Must have the prescience to secure valuable IP rights throughout the world in anticipation of his company later doing business in remote markets.

-Must defend his company against attacks by patent trolls.

-Must have the business savvy to transform fierce litigation into mutually beneficial licensing agreements.

-Must retain patent, trademark, and copyright exclusivity while avoiding anti-trust challenges.

This report includes interviews with many of the nations foremost authorities on the intellectual property law. Intellectual Property Litigation is extremely expensive and becoming increasingly common. From 1984 to 1999, the mean loss absorbed by companies faced with IP litigation was $28.7 million in total losses. Microsoft, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Medtronic, Research in Motion and Nintendo are just a few of the companies that have settled patent infringement disputes for hundreds of millions of dollars. Cisco Systems reports that it is named as a defendant in at least one IP lawsuit each week.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 02:13 PM.
Permalink: Legal Imperatives on Intellectual Property Management
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

July 20, 2007

say it aint so - incompetence at the USPTO?

Morningstar reports that four individuals have sued Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez for appointing an allegedly unqualified Deputy Director of the USPTO, Margaret Peterlin.  But really, incompetence in government, where’s the beef?

Well, as amended in 1999, 35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(1) requires that the Deputy Director be a citizen of the U.S. “who has a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law.”

According to her executive biography, Ms. Peterlin was Counsel for Legal Policy and National Security Advisor for the Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, . . . where she advised the Speaker, House and Senate leadership, and senior staff on legislative policy and strategy, including judiciary issues such as IP protection . . . .”  Prior to that,  Ms. Peterlin was General Counsel to Richard Armey, Majority Leader of the House; clerked on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; and served as a Naval Officer in the communications field.  Ms. Peterlin also earned her legal degree sum laude from the University of Chicago.

No doubt an impressive resume, but is it really “a professional background and experience” in patent or trademark law?  Many patent and trademark practitioners would probably be insulted by the suggestion.  In fact, the complaint filed Monday alleges that Ms. Peterlin is not, and could not become, registered to practice before the USPTO; has never drafted or prosecuted a patent or trademark application; and, overall, has never had direct exposure to patent or trademark practice.  And so, these four plaintiffs have asked the D.C. District Court to declare Peterlin’s appointment illegal and order appointment of a qualified alternative.

Morningstar quoted the USPTO as responding, in an emailed statement, “Margaret Peterlin is well qualified for her job as Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Director, having had direct involvement in oversight of the USPTO and every piece of patent, trademark, and copyright-related legislation considered on the House floor over the past five years . . . .”  Well there you have it, the USPTO, of which Peterlin is second in command, says Peterlin is qualified.

On a side note, the suit alleges Peterlin’s appointment “perpetuates USPTO management’s inability to handle egregious delays” in processing applications.  Suing the Secretary of Commerce does seem like an innovative way of attempting to fast-track their applications.  No word yet on whether the plaintiffs plan to file a patent application for a business method of expediting patent prosecution by suing USPTO personnel.

Posted by Eagle H. Robinson at 10:44 AM.
Permalink: say it aint so - incompetence at the USPTO?
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

May 30, 2007

don't tell anyone, it is a secret

Via IAM Blog (worth adding to the aggregator for IP types):

Speaking today at the second plenary session of the CIP Forum in Gothenburg, Sweden, Randall Rader, a judge who sits on the CAFC in Washington DC, revealed that he believed the recent KSR v Teleflex decision handed down by the Supreme Court would not lead to “great changes” in the way the Federal Circuit looks at obviousness. In fact, he told delegates that the judgment in the first CAFC decision on obviousness post-KSR had actually been written before the Supreme Court’s decision was handed down and “did not require one iota of change”. Make of that what you will.

KSR is going to prove more and more interesting as time goes on.  As a very vaunted commentator recently said, "All the patent practitioners went "Huh?" when the KSR decision was released."

Huh, indeed!

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 07:40 PM.
Permalink: don't tell anyone, it is a secret
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

February 15, 2007

New FedCirc.us Search Tool Released

The master plan for the FedCirc.us site includes several web features designed to deliver patent caselaw information in a more effective manner.  The first - the GimmeTen! feature - has quickly become the most popular page on the site...and for good reason.  Not familiar with it?  Simply bookmark http://10.fedcirc.us and visit regularly.  That page always provides concise summaries of the ten most recently posted case reviews.  We're confident you'll quickly be hooked.

Today we announce the second feature in our bag of tricks - the travelling FedCirc.us search engine.  By following the steps below, you'll be able to search the FedCirc.us site from anywhere on the web.

The best part is the simplicity -- 5 easy steps (4 for most people).  Five minutes tops.

1.  Make sure you're using either Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox 2.0 as your browser.  If you're not, download the latest IE here or Firefox here (both are free).  For the record, FedCirc.us is optimized for Firefox.

2.  Start your browser.

3.  Visit FedCirc.us.

4.  Pull down the drop-down search box in the upper right hand corner and select "Add FedCirc.us" (in Firefox) or select "FedCirc.us" with the gold star next to it (in IE, see image at right).

5.  Surf the web.  Whenever you want to search the site, simply enter a search string in the box in the right hand corner, pull down the list, select FedCirc.us, and hit return.  You can do this from any page on the web...and you'll immediately be transported to a listing of search results from the site.

I've quickly gotten used to searching by party name or full case name as I'm reading on the web.  This little trick has changed my surfing habits for the better...it's a wonderfully efficient way to find information quickly.  We hope you find it useful as well.

As always, if you have any comments or suggestions, please let us know.  You can e-mail Matt directly at jmb @ rtipllc.com.

Enjoy!

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 05:24 PM.
Permalink: New FedCirc.us Search Tool Released
| TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

February 11, 2007

Patent Rights Do Not Hinder Research

A report on a survey conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science details how international intellectual property rights are affecting scientists' ability to conduct research.  AAAS_IP_Survey_Report.pdf (477 KB)

According to the report, patents do not hinder research: 32% of the 2,117 U.S. respondents had acquired rights to use a patented technology, method, or material and of this group, only 32% reported having had difficulty accessing the technology. 

See also AAAS’ slides from its 2006 IP Workshop.

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 03:35 PM.
Permalink: Patent Rights Do Not Hinder Research
| Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

January 31, 2007

The Resolution(tm) -- a new Fedcirc.us Product

FedCirc.us (Matt/Steve/and I) announced earlier today the availability of a free preview issue of The Resolution, the inaugural issue of our quarterly magazine, The FedCirc.us Reader.  Download the .pdf here.

According to Matt:

The Resolution will give you a sneak-peak at the features of the magazine.  It's jam-packed with all sorts of patent-caselaw goodness, including a 'Trend Spotting' article, a featured case review, prosecution- and litigation-focused digests, chronological and alphabetical listings of cases from last quarter (including summaries), and a fun "Quotables" section that includes some of our favorite quotes from cases issued during last quarter.

For this issue, we've even included a brief note about the story behind the FedCirc.us name and domain.

We think you'll agree that the magazine is an exciting and effective new tool for staying current on patent caselaw developments.

Of course, the free preview issue includes subscription details for the magazine.  The site will be ready to accept subscription payments starting tomorrow.

Please download our first copy and let us know what you think.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:20 AM.
Permalink: The Resolution(tm) -- a new Fedcirc.us Product
| Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

January 02, 2007

A Little Something New - Fedcirc.us

Happy New Year!  – and – Happy Birthday PHOSITA! 

Wow – it is amazing to think we just stepped into 2007.  When we started PHOSITA three long years ago, we had no idea how this little project would turn out or even how long it would stay in existence.  Thanks to all of our readers for the great tips, the snarky criticisms and the amazing friendships that have occurred.  We are looking forward to our fourth year and we have a couple of new things up our sleeves to trot out down the road.

Speaking of friendships and new things, Matt, Steve and I are happy to announce the launch of FedCirc.us – the patent caselaw portal!  Built largely upon Matt’s stellar leadership and insightful writing, we have been tiddying up the tents and getting the main ring ready for y’all to come and explore.  A few folks have been testing the lines and unfurling the flags for us, but today…. well, today – WE GO LIVE!

Yes – it lives.  FedCirc.us is alive.  Visit it at http://www.fedcirc.us (and just because we have a wierd sense of humor, http://www.fedcircus.com will work, too).

Currently, FedCirc.us is a website that allows patent professionals and other patent stakeholders to access, digest and manage patent caselaw information.  The site is built on a foundation of timely, accurate, and considered reviews of patent decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Check out some of these great features:

• GimmeTen!(tm) - Get concise summaries of the last ten case reviews written...all on one page.  Bookmark it at http://10.fedcirc.us.
• Read the Latest Review - Hit this button in the left menu to immediately get the full monty on the last case review written.
• Case Data - Check out the Case Data box that appears in every case review.  There's a bunch of goodness in that box, including citation information and a link to download a .pdf of the opinion.
• Case Flags - Red flags.  Big red flags.  Believe us, you'll known 'em when you see 'em.
• Tags - Navigate the site by keywords.  Conduct legal research with your head in the tag cloud.
• Practice Alerts - We issue specific practice alerts when we detect something important.  Sign up to receive these alerts, free!
• Feature article - We're working to put together a team of authors that will publish timely and insightful analyses of the latest developments.  We'll provide more details on this soon.
• E-mail and RSS subscriptions - A lot of the FedCirc.us content is available without even visiting the website.  Go ahead and subscribe.

We're extremely excited about this project, mostly because the website is just the beginning.  FedCirc.us is merely the leading edge of the most ambitious and significant RTIP LLC (otherwise known as the Rethink(IP) guys…) project yet.  We've got a slate of informational products and services - all built around the FedCirc.us foundation of case reviews - that we'll be announcing over the next several months.

So come on by and stay awhile – we just might buy you some Circus Peanuts!

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 06:49 PM.
Permalink: A Little Something New - Fedcirc.us
| Comments (0)

IP STRATEGY

December 13, 2006

2007 Corporate Patent Congress Conference

One of the greatest benefits of blogging the last couple of years has been the ability to speak at different conferences and CLE programs.  Both Matt and I have greatly enjoyed our experiences and travels this past year and look forward to meeting many more of our readers and colleagues in 2007. 

Our first stop in 2007 is the American Conference Institute’s Corporate Patent Congress 2007 (link to program).  It will be held January 22–23, 2007 at the New York Marriott East Side Hotel in New York City. 

I must confess that I am really looking forward to participating in this conference.  All of the speakers are incredible and I think that the topics are quite timely and engaging.  Matt and I will be speaking on a panel along with Stephen R. Albainy-Jenei of the Patent Baristas Blog (a PHOSITA favorite) on “Maximizing Your Corporate Patent Portfolio and Harnessing Its Value in Changing Times”. 

The topics we will be covering include:

• Utilizing aggressive offensive and counter-defensive measures to generate a steady revenue stream from your IP portfolios
• cross-industry considerations
• Increasing corporate prowess and maintaining your competitive edge in the market through strategic patent acquisition
• Incorporating patent portfolio management into your business planning and valuation strategies
• pharma/life sciences v. tech

For a full list of all of the conference sessions, download the attached conference flyer (PDF 206kb).  As a special bonus for PHOSITA readers, mention discount code 662L07.SBLG and you will receive $200 off of the registration fee.

We look forward to seeing everyone in New York City in January!  Let’s us know if you are coming and we can set up a time to meet over a beverage or two of your choice – Matt will be buying, of course!

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:49 AM.
Permalink: 2007 Corporate Patent Congress Conference
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

November 02, 2006

Flickr Interestingness Rankings Patents Released

Over at the SEO by the SEA blog, William Slawski has posted on newly published patent applications filed by Yahoo convering an implementation of the concept of “interestingness search.” 

There is a pretty good exchange in the comments between William and Thomas Hawk – a celebrated photographer on the Internet and someone who is directly involved with the Zooomr web photo service. 

Zoomr is a direct competitor with Flickr, which is now owned by Yahoo.  Presumably Zoomr may have some issues if the patents are ever issued.  As a word of caution to Thomas (and all other bloggers out there) – I would be very careful in what you say about your technology and when/how/who it was developed.   All of your comments could be used as admissions down the line.

Anyway…

While the discussion between Thomas and William follows the typical “software patent discussion framework”(TM) of outrage, more outrage, denial, and chest thumping about how “Person X, Y, Z” came up with the idea 1, 2, 4 or 100 years ago… I was pleased to notice that William and Thomas actually took some time to thoughtfully discuss what Yahoo was trying to do with its patent applications and how they fit in with the overall search and photo-sharing market out there.

My only quarrel with their discussion: like all that fall within the “software patent discussion framework”(TM) — they failed to look at the actual claims of the patent and instead debated the description that the inventor drafted.  Once again – it is the claims that control the scope of the patent, not the description directly. 

All discussion of patents or patent applications should start first and foremost with the claims… it is the claims that control.

As a taste of what to expect over at SEO by the SEA:

Flickr Interestingness Rankings Patents Released

posted @ 2:17 am in [ Social Search ] by William Slawski

I’ve posted some pictures to Flickr, but I’ve never really paid much attention to the “interestingness” rankings the site uses.

Interestingness and clustering were first used in August of last year, as announced by Stewart Butterfield on the Yahoo Search Blog and the Flickr blog.

Blog posts about Flickr’s interestingness, and a February Flickr forum post on changes to the interestingness rankings, show a lot of interest in the “secret sauce” on how photos are determined to be interesting. A couple of patent applications were published by Yahoo this week that delve into interestingness rankings, clustering of pictures, and metadata associated with Flickr images.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 12:32 PM.
Permalink: Flickr Interestingness Rankings Patents Released
| Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

October 30, 2006

Research Help: How many patent attorneys sit on corporate board of directors?

Help! 

I know the erudite readers of PHOSITA may have valuable information I need:

I am working on article regarding the makeup of corporate board of directors and I am trying to get a sense of how many patent attorneys are directors.

If you know of anyone or have a suspicion, please send it my way.

Thanks and hopefully this will be picked up around the IP corner of the blog-o-sphere... hint, hint, hint, hint, hint, hint...

Image via Flickr.

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:50 AM.
Permalink: Research Help: How many patent attorneys sit on corporate board of directors?
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

October 17, 2006

Continuation Rule Implementation May be Delayed til 2007

As many readers know, the U.S. PTO has been pounding its chest over the past year with threats of implementing a draconian and, as believed by many, unconstitutional rule limiting the availability of continuation applications.  Matt has a couple of great posts on the subject of the ‘continuation rule’ over at Promote the Progress.

According to a news blast from Hal Wegner this morning, a reliable source has informed him that the implementation of the rule may be delayed into 2007 and possibly killed altogether. 

Specifically, according to Hal:

An always previously reliable PTO official has stated that the dreaded, notorious "continuation rules" package is hung up within the PTO with uncertain implementation. Per this official, the continuation rules, if implemented, will be significantly delayed well into calendar year 2007.

The information has been provided by Leon Radomsky, Chair of the AIPLA Chemical Practice Committee, in his notice of the meeting later this week in Washington, D.C. The relevant information on the continuation rules has been highlighted in red.

Rob Clarke noted at the beginning of the meeting that the proposed rule changes regarding Continuations and Representative Claims are still being considered, that more comments were filed in response to these rules than ever before, and that if they do decide to go forward with the rule changes, they have to be submitted through a special rulemaking procedure because they are substantive rule changes.  That internal administrative review will take at least 90 days, and the result may be a refusal to allow the rules to go forward.  And after that, it will be at least another 30 days before the rules become final.  Rob Clarke did state that he expects the IDS rules to come out before the continuation and representative claims rules.

If any reader has any additional information – please post in the comments or send to me via an email —– your anonymity will be safe with us.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 09:01 AM.
Permalink: Continuation Rule Implementation May be Delayed til 2007
| Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

October 05, 2006

Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!

We’ve done it again! Yes, that’s right, we’ve discovered yet another way to cure your boredom blues. But seriously, this is actually interesting stuff. When you get a chance, check out www.oyez.com. Oyez® provides access to over 2,000 hours of Supreme Court audio, biographical information about the justices, and a virtual tour of portions of the Supreme Court building including the judges chambers.

I first learned of Oyez® in my constitutional law class when my professor played audio clips of oral arguments from several first amendment cases. In addition to first amendment cases, Oyez® offers a variety of other cases including several noted patent, trademark, and copyright cases.

If you are curious where the term Oyez comes from or want to know other facts about Oyez®, you can check it out here. F.Y.I., the phrase “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!” (AKA “Here ye! Here ye!”) is used by a court marshal to introduce the opening of the court.

Posted by Emily E. Campbell at 04:25 PM.
Permalink: Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!
| TrackBack (0)

IP STRATEGY

July 25, 2006

a nanopatent takes longer than a nanosecond

In a press release, Lux Research called attention to their report on “Nanotech IP Battles Worth Fighting” that suggests there may be a problem with filing your next nanopatent.  The press release indicates there is an issuance stall in the USPTO regarding nanopatents with a wait time of about four years while the rate of new applications has grown by 52% (this sounds very familiar).  Based on those figures, Lux Research states that “overlapping claims” may have initiated the stall.  They reviewed 2,738 patents as well as industry considerations, and gave a glimpse at some of their conclusions:

• Carbon nanotube and quantum dot applications in electronics, where many crowded and vulnerable patents indicate a high likelihood of legal wrangling, are battles worth fighting. The large addressable markets relevant to these nanomaterials justify the cost of navigating the unfavorable patent outlook.
• In healthcare/cosmetics applications nanomaterials with crowded or vulnerable patent landscapes like dendrimers, ceramic nanoparticles, and metal nanoparticles represent battles worth fighting because of the broad applicability of these materials to a number of large addressable markets.
• Hidden opportunities - characterized by a favorable patent outlook and large market potential - occur in energy applications of ceramic nanoparticles like high-performance cathodes in the $48 billion battery market, and in electronics applications of nanowires which could keep Moore's Law going in the next decade.

Unfortunately, only clients get to see the entire report and in the press release they did not hint at which nanotechnologies represent “a low opportunity to payoff.”  Pretty sneaky…

Posted by Laura Wood at 03:29 PM.
Permalink: a nanopatent takes longer than a nanosecond

IP STRATEGY

July 07, 2006

how to review a patent application - google video - treasure trove of information

Google Video is like the big brother to YouTube – Google provides the information while YouTube provides the laughs (and outright childish gross out).

Google Video actually includes a couple of seminars on patents, patent law and inventor resources.  A terrific example is Patent Attorney Katherine White’s video seminar outlining the process by which a patent application should be reviewed. According to the “liner notes,” Ms. White is a member of Enterprise Partners Venture Capital and the video provides advice for inventors on securing successful patents.  Ms White’s talk was sponsored by the Von Liebig Center for Entrepreneurism and Technology Advancement at UCSD's Jacobs School of Engineering.  A PDF is also available and is a nice booklet to give to people on how to read a patent application.

Enjoy the video – and, if you happen to run across any others, shoot them my way and I will post them for all to enjoy.

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:21 AM.
Permalink: how to review a patent application - google video - treasure trove of information

IP STRATEGY

June 18, 2006

Rethink(IP) Aloud - New Podcast Available at Rethink(IP)

There is a new podcast available over at Rethink(IP):

We are proud to announce that our newest podcast is available for your down loading and listening pleasure – Rethink(IP) Aloud #6. 

The audio is approximately 47 minutes long and the file is a 41.1MB file.  If you want to grab the RSS feed and subscribe to the Rethink(IP) Aloud podcast – you can get it via FeedBurner at Rethink(IP) Aloud Podcast.

This podcast is the audio portion of Matt’s lecture on U.S. patent reform in 2006 and covers the efforts happening in the 109th Congress and at the Supreme Court and USPTO.  We posted the video of the presentation over at Phosita last week and received many requests for an audio only version.  Matt’s PowerPoint slides to go along with the Patent Reform lecture are also available.

The intro and ending music is “Patricia” by Billy May and his Orchestra off the Ultra-Lounge Vol. 11 album.

Happy father’s day!

 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 02:11 PM.
Permalink: Rethink(IP) Aloud - New Podcast Available at Rethink(IP)

IP STRATEGY

June 13, 2006

Rethink(IP) Announcement: New Weekly Newsletter Covering Trademark Litigation

The fine folks over at Rethink(IP) (ok – it is Steve, Matt and I) announce a new service based upon our highly successful “lawsuit filing” email subscription service.

The fact that a lawsuit has been filed can be an incredibly valuable piece of information, especially in the practice of trademark law.  To wit, Rethink(IP) has released a new weekly e-mail newsletter.  Called Trademark Lawsuit Mojo, the newsletter consists of a list of Federal trademark lawsuits that surfaced in the previous week. 

Why is the existence of a lawsuit being filed such a valuable piece of information?

First, the defendant might not know that he/she/it has been sued!

Your company, or your client, might have no idea that a lawsuit has been filed. How can this be? Remember that in the United States, a plaintiff has 120 days from the date of filing to serve a Complaint upon the defendant(s). To reserve a preferred venue/forum, many times a plaintiff will preemptively file the suit and not serve the Complaint, spending up to the next 120 days putting their case together, acquiring additional evidence, and (sometimes) attempting to settle the dispute.

Knowing that your company or client has been sued (but hasn't been served) can be priceless information when counseling them. How's that for a valuable "heads up?"

Second, the filing of a lawsuit can also be a valuable piece of competitive intelligence.

Knowing that competitor X just sued competitor Y may change discussions you're having with competitor X, Y, and/or A! It could also help in decision-making on several issues, such as marketing and product development. Best of all, it may allow you to monitor the case for information that might be helpful in a variety of situations.

As one reader recently put it:

I subscribed last week and already impressed a client yesterday by being aware of a lawsuit filed by one of its competitors.

You can subscribe to Trademark Lawsuit Mojo using one of the below links.  Current rates are $99.99 a year or $9.99 a month.  The first three weeks are free (free trial).  After the free trial expires you can decide whether you would like to continue your subscription.

We don't expect any of us will be quitting our day jobs anytime soon … commercialization of this project (and eventually Copyright and Patent newsletters) is done to fund the “Rethink(IP) Projects Account” and let us provide additional cool tools and services to the legal community.  Apparently computer programmers don’t work for free. 

Please contact Stephen M. Nipper at steve@rethinkip.com for additional information.

$99.99/year
$9.99/mo

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 04:48 PM.
Permalink: Rethink(IP) Announcement: New Weekly Newsletter Covering Trademark Litigation

IP STRATEGY

June 12, 2006

patent reform lecture - j. matthew buchanan

A couple of weeks ago, the IP Section of the Oklahoma Bar Association conducted its annual CLE seminar at Tanglewood Resort on Lake Texoma.  My partner, Nick Rouse, was in charge of the weekend and did a phenomenal job.

The lecturers were top notch and although I am a bit biased, I would have to say that Matt Buchanan was one of the two best speakers over the course of the weekend.  Matt blogs about patent reform issues and patent legislation over at Promote the Progress.

Matt spoke on the recent patent reform efforts underway in the United States and the impact any such reform may have on practitioners and patentees. 

Considering the timeliness and importance of Matt’s talk, I recorded the lecture and DCR is presenting it here for your review and comment. 

The video stream can be viewed below (or you can grab it at Google Video as a stream, as a download or as a video iPod download).  The PowerPoint slides are available for download as a PDF file (2.2MB).

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 01:42 PM.
Permalink: patent reform lecture - j. matthew buchanan

IP STRATEGY

May 29, 2006

Recently on Rethink(IP)'s RSS Mojo Blog

• Listings of recently filed IP Lawsuits
  
  
• Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 27, 2006)
• Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 27, 2006)
• Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 27, 2006)
• Trademark Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 21, 2006)
• Patent Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 21, 2006)
• Copyright Lawsuit Filing Update (through May 21, 2006)
  
  
• USPTO Notices:
  
  
• Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Japan Patent Office (signed 22May2006)
• Notice of Collection of Practitioners’ E-mail Addresses
• Commerce Deputy Under Secretary to Address Midwest Businesses On U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Counterfeiting and Piracy in China
• USPTO Exam Guide for Geographical Indications Used on Wines and Spirits
• Request for Comments on Patents Search Templates (16May2006)
• Commerce Deputy Secretary to Speak at USPTO's Community Day
• U.S. GOVERNMENT BRINGS ANTI-COUNTERFEITING AND PIRACY PROGRAM TO OHIO

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 10:58 AM.
Permalink: Recently on Rethink(IP)'s RSS Mojo Blog

IP STRATEGY

May 18, 2006

speaking engagements - bookending the summer

I have been winding down the Spring speaking engagement schedule and have been looking forward to some R&R over the summer – but a couple of opportunities have come up that were just too interesting to turn down.

First, I will be speaking at ALM’s Small Firm Business Forum in Los Angeles on June 7th.   This looks to be a great seminar and I am especially looking forward to speaking with both Tom Mighell from the Inter Alia blog and William Kellermann of CT Summation on the topic of “The Cyber-Ethical Lawyer: How Not to Commit Malpractice With Your PC.” 

We will be covering a lot of items in our session, but here is a sneak peak of the highlights:

• Technology and a Lawyer's Ethical Obligations
• E-Mail Communications and the Duty of Confidentiality
• Ethics and the Online World -- Blogging, Web Sites, and Advertising
• Keeping Client Data Safe

Second, I am also honored to be invited to speak at Dunes CLE’s Current Issues in Patent Law on August 25th in Las Vegas.  In fact, both Matt and I will be speaking at this conference – so come on out, get some CLE and hang out with at least 2/3 of the Rethink(IP) gang. 

At Dunes I will be speaking on the role of strategic patenting and proactive patent management strategies in light of the Supreme Court’s sudden interest in patent cases.  I work with a lot of companies on strategic patenting initiatives and I am looking forward to discussing how best to implement them in light of the recent decisions.

So it is gonna be a busy beginning and end to the summer. 

My calendar is also starting to fill up for the Fall, so if you are looking for a speaker – let me know.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 11:25 AM.
Permalink: speaking engagements - bookending the summer

IP STRATEGY

May 07, 2006

universities as patent trolls?

Ahh… someone finally put into print what a lot of us patent practitioners have wondered for awhile – when would someone claim that universities are patent trolls?

The managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation – i.e., WARF – does a nice job battling the inference, but still – it does seem to be a narrow line one must walk to avoid the obvious connection.

Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of WARF, takes it a step further. Patent trolls "don't exist. Trolls are imaginary creatures," Gulbrandsen said. "I think the whole issue is overblown."

WARF, a middleman organization that owns patents on discoveries made at the UW and licenses them, could be considered a patent troll under some definitions, he said.

"Patents are a piece of property. To say that it's wrong that a company acquires property and then expects to be paid for use of that property, I think, is a pretty simplistic approach," Gulbrandsen said.

Once again, those who seek to define the phrase “patent troll” better use carefully crafted language – the company/institution/individual/innovator you love today, just might be the patent troll of tomorrow.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 05:00 PM.
Permalink: universities as patent trolls?
| Comments (8)

IP STRATEGY

April 18, 2006

Trying to Burst the bubble - Just another troll?

So last week we asked ya'll to give us your best shot at a litmus-test definition for the term "patent troll."  It's an understatement to say that the response was somewhat underwhelming.  We received a grand total of......zero definitions.

We've decided to take that as an indication of the difficulty associated with defining the term and not a statement about the readership of the blog (which, for the record, is reaching all time highs right now).

We do believe that the issue is important enough for a follow-up, though.  How about a real life example?

Check this out - Burst.com recently filed a patent infringement suit against Apple Computer.  The patents at issue relate to technology that speed the delivery of data, including audio and video files, over a network.

We've got a question for you.  A simple one.  Is Burst.com a patent troll?

Wait...don't answer.  Consider a few facts first:

The company has two (count 'em, 2) employees and a portfolio of ten (count 'em, 10) U.S. patents.  It routinely asks companies to license its patents, and sues them if they don't.  It focuses on software and high-technology companies for some reason (must have something to do with the fact that the technology relates to that area).  Just last year, it successfully settled a dispute with Microsoft for a reported $60 million.

Hmmm...smacks of a patent troll by most definitions, right?

Consider this description from the company's web site:

The company focuses exclusively on licensing activities and strategic relationships.

(emphasis is ours)

Are you serious?  An exclusive focus on licensing and strategic relationships?  Does that mean they don't actually produce anything?  (based on the web site, it's hard to tell if any "products" are available from the company at this time)

Surely there must be a bridge running over the Burst.com headquarters in Santa Rosa.

But, don't answer the question yet...Here's a few more facts:

According to a recent article in BusinessWeek, the Microsoft settlement reportedly earned the lawyers a fee of about $20 million.  That lawsuit was apparently financed by "an investor."  Oh, and the company openly states that its goal in the Apple lawsuit is to seek a chunk of the growing revenues for online music distribution. 

A troll for sure, right?  These guys are Pure Evil.  Damn trolls.

Humor me, though.  Don't answer yet.  As Lee Corso would say, "not so fast, my friend."

Here are a few more facts that you should consider:

The founder of Bust.com is recognized by many as a true visionary in computer network technology.  He's an inventor.  His technology apparently wowed the crowd at the Consumer Electronics Show in 1991.  He had invented improved methods for transmitting data over computer networks long before large video and audio files were of concern to the masses.  The company was once viewed as a real tech startup success story, and had even grown to include 110 employees in the late 1990's.

But when Microsoft upgraded its Media Player software, Burst's product, Burstware, stopped working.  Strange.  Payroll shrank immediately from 110 to 4.

Ok...now give us your answer (or keep it to yourself, we don't care...just try to answer the question).  Is Burst.com a patent troll?

Or is it just an angry innovator seeking to protect its property?

Do you see the challenge?

 

 

Posted by J. Matthew Buchanan at 10:40 AM.
Permalink: Trying to Burst the bubble - Just another troll?
| Comments (10)

IP STRATEGY

March 23, 2006

handbook on patent mapping from Japanese patent office

Steve Nipper sent me a handbook from the Japanese Patent Office outlining different methods of mapping patent information and data. (JPO Patent Map Handbook (294 KB))  Steve always comes up with these little jems that he finds while scouring the Internet.

As Steve knows, Matt and I are deeply interested in the use of software, such as the excellent mindmapping software “MindManager” by Mindjet, to graphically display and present patent information. We have used this type of a system for freedom to operate opinions, state of the art searches, competitive intelligence reviews and strategic patenting initiatives.  The JPO Patent Map Handbook is an interesting read that presents patent mapping initiatives from the point of view of a national patent office.

Well worth a glance if you, or your clients, do any kind of strategic patenting activities. 

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 03:09 PM.
Permalink: handbook on patent mapping from Japanese patent office
| Comments (1)

IP STRATEGY

February 15, 2006

How Should States Encourage Entrepreneurship?

Interesting commentary by Joshua Hall over at The Independent Institute considering Oklahoma’s interest in creating a billion dollar investment pool for innovation and entrepreneurship.

While of specific interest to me because of the Oklahoma connection, I would recommend it as an interesting twist on the debate occurring right now on the role of state investment in early stage innovation.

A snippet:

Using the number of sole proprietorships and patent activity in a state as measures of entrepreneurship, Kreft and Sobel find that increased entrepreneurship causes more venture capital to automatically flow into the state. More importantly, they find that influxes of new venture capital do not then cause entrepreneurship to increase. Crowding out of private venture capital is one possible reason why state funded venture capital fails to increase entrepreneurship. This suggests that the trend of state-sponsored venture capital funds have the cart before the horse. Since entrepreneurial activity appears to be what attracts venture capital into a state, the best way to encourage entrepreneurship within a state is to focus on creating a policy environment where individuals are free to be innovative.

Unfortunately Wisconsin is currently planning to invest $50 million from its $66.5 billion state employee trust fund state into venture capital firms that invest primarily in local companies. Similar efforts have been undertaken in other states, including Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Minnesota. However Kreft and Sobel’s new research shows that state financing of venture capital in these states is unlikely to stimulate entrepreneurship.

How Should States Encourage Entrepreneurship?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 07:07 PM.
Permalink: How Should States Encourage Entrepreneurship?

IP STRATEGY

February 14, 2006

eff rascals going after clear channel

Those EFF rascals are at it again – this time seeking the reexamination of Clear Channels' patent No. 6,614,729 covering system and method of creating digital recordings of live performances.

According to the EFF press release:

Clear Channel claims that its patent creates a monopoly on all-in-one technologies that produce post-concert live recordings on digital media and has threatened to sue anyone who makes such recordings with a different system. This has forced bands like the Pixies into using Clear Channel's proprietary technology, and it hurts investment and innovation in new systems developed by other companies.

"Clear Channel shouldn't be able to intimidate artists with bogus intellectual property," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "We hope the Patent Office will take a hard look at Clear Channel's patent and agree that it should be revoked."

The request for reexamination filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office shows that a company named Telex had in fact developed similar technology more than a year before Clear Channel filed its patent request. EFF, in conjunction with Theodore C. McCullough of the Lemaire Patent Law Firm and with the help of students at the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic at American University's Washington College of Law, wants the patent office to revoke the patent based on this and other extensive evidence.

"The patent system serves an important public purpose in our economy," said Schultz. "Keeping illegitimate patents out of that system helps up-and-coming artists and entrepreneurs succeed for all of us."

Schultz’s comments are well taken – incorrectly issued patents are a bane to our system of intellectual property.  A comprehensive and well reviewed reexamination is in both the patentee and the public’s best interest.

Posted by Douglas Sorocco at 08:46 PM.
Permalink: eff rascals going after clear channel

IP STRATEGY

January 16, 2006

guy kawasaki on patents as defense tools

I am a bit behind the curve to welcome Guy Kawasaki to the blogging world, but you should stop by his new blog and sign up.  His first 30 days of blogging have been insightful and funny and the The Top Ten Lies of Entrepreneurs post doesn’t disappoint.

Of course, being PHOSITA, the point I like the best is #10:

“Patents make our product defensible.” The optimal number of times to use the P word in a presentation is one. Just once, say, “We have filed patents for what we are doing.” Done. The second time you say it, venture capitalists begin to suspect that you are depending too much on patents for defensibility. The third time you say it, you are holding a sign above your head that says, “I am clueless.” Sure, you should patent what you're doing--if for no other reason than to say it once in your presentation. But at the end of the patents are mostly good for impressing your parents. You won't have the time or money to sue anyone with a pocket deep enough to be worth suing.

As they say in Texas, a patent is nothing more than an opportunity to sue and a 50/50 chance to lose money — 40/60 if the judge ate a burrito for breakfast! 

Happy New Year and PHOSITA turned two years old over the weekend.  Thanks for the support!