Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

Did you know that the Tarzan yell is a registered trademark? So is the Looney Tunes theme song. And Homer Simpson’s “D’oh!” Trademarking a sound or series of sounds is really not that hard to do. The Trademark Manual of Exanimation Procedure (“TMEP”) §1202.15 tells us “A sound mark identifies and distinguishes a product or service through audio rather than visual means.” OK. That’s fairly straightforward. We all know that in order to be eligible for trademark protection, a mark has to be unique, arbitrary, or distinctive and it has to function as a source identifier. This means the consuming public will see that mark and automatically know that it is the brand for a particular product.

Last week I attended the Association of Patent Law Firm’s (APLF) Annual Meeting at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Chicago, IL. The APLF is currently in it’s 13th year of existence and was formed as a result of IP litigation increasingly going to big firms rather than smaller boutique firms. The organization decided to add discussions on Social Media to this year’s annual meeting agenda. Those that follow me on IPWatchdog know that I write on business related topics including Brand Building, How to Build Credibility and Share Your Expertise, Increasing Website Traffic and the Importance of Social Networking for Small Business. Because of my expertise on Social Media, I was invited to speak on the topic as it pertains to the IP Attorney. I opted to speak on using social media to demonstrate expertise and build credibility. Because so many interesting topics were covered, following is a recap of day one of the event. Subsequently, the second half of the event, including my presentation will constitute part 2 of this series.

Claim #1, the broadest claim in this patent, says that this “animal toy” has a solid main section, at least one protrusion and is adapted for floating in the water. While not every stick would infringe claim 1 of this patent, I would venture that there are many which would. No need to worry, however. This patent fell into the public domain on March 26, 2010, for failure to make the first maintenance fee payment. The lesson here, however, is not that the Patent Office occasionally makes a mistake (true though that may be). The fact that a patent can be obtained or has been obtained does not mean that a valuable asset has been obtained, and this “invention” is a wonderfully vibrant example of that.

What Motorola should do is file a motion to dismiss with prejudice. These types of complaints are an embarrassment and must be stopped. They should simultaneously file a Declaratory Judgment Action seeking a determination of noninfringement and invalidity in a federal district court of their choosing, perhaps in Chicago, which is close to their headquarters. They will lose the motion to dismiss with prejudice in Seattle, and likely have the DJ action kicked out in Chicago, but they will have preserved the matter for appeal to the Federal Circuit. It is high time that the Federal Circuit weigh in on what is undoubtedly the biggest problem facing patent litigation defendants, which is bogus, crappy, non-informing complaints that clearly violated the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The first “new” Office within the USPTO is the Office of the Chief Communications Officer, which is formerly the Office of Public Affairs within the Under Secretary’s Office. The second “new” Office is the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity, which was formerly the Office of Civil Rights within the Office of the Chief Administrative Offices. These two “new” Offices now report directly to the Under Secretary and Director and are represented on the Agency’s Executive Committee.

In part 1 of my interview with Mark Lemley we discussed whether the Supreme Court will take the i4i v. Microsoft case and address the presumption of validity, as well as what implications such a ruling would have on the value of previously acquired property rights. In part 2 of the interview, which appears below, we move past the presumption of validity to several other patent matters, including reverse pharma payments and In re Ciproflaxacin, the Stanford Patent Prize, patent misuse, patent trolls and the usual fun questions with a heavy emphasis on science fiction.

The trouble with explaining what prior art is stems from the fact that everyone already thinks they know what it is. Conceptually we do not want to issue patents for inventions that are not considered new, which seems fair enough. The trouble is defining what is “new.” For now, let’s just say that prior art must be a reference of some type (i.e., a patent or a printed publication) or some type of knowledge or event (i.e., public knowledge, public use or a sale of a product) that demonstrates that the invention in question is not new.

Now comes the curve ball you have probably been expecting. Not all references, knowledge or events that can demonstrate that an invention is “old” or already known can be used by examiners or during litigation against an invention.

On September 3, 2010, IHOP IP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the owner of various IHOP registered trademarks in the United States, sued the International House of Prayer alleging various trademark infringement theories. The plaintiff IHOP brings two causes of action against the defendant. The first being the claim that the defendant through the use of various IHOP marks is engaging in dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c). The second claim is straight trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114. Notably, the plaintiff IHOP did not bring a cause of action alleging likelihood of confusion, which is typically a ubiquitous cause of action in these types of cases.

In May 2009, Genzyme Corporation acquired the worldwide rights to a potential breakthrough treatment for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) along with three marketed oncology products from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. In February, the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and AstraZeneca forged a new collaborative research agreement, featuring a significant licensing component, that makes use of their respective talents and resources to generate new Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) drug candidates for the clinical development pipeline.

On Friday, September 17, 2010, I had the opportunity to chat with Professor Mark Lemley, who is the William H. Neukom Professor at Stanford Law School and partner in the San Francisco law firm Durie Tangri LLP. Lemley is well known both in the academic community and the practice community. In fact, he is one of only a select few that have managed to simultaneously have a stellar career both in academia and in private practice. I chat with Lemley via e-mail from time to time on various matters, and we have talked about an interview for some time. Then a draft of a amicus brief Lemly filed today with the United States Supreme Court arrived in my inbox and I knew this was the issue that would make for an excellent interview. Lemley is leading the charge of law professors who are asking the Supreme Court to review i4i v. Microsoft and address the presumption of validity enjoyed by an issued patent, pegging the presumption to those references considered by the patent examiner during prosecution.

Saying that Congress controls the Patent Office is something of a misstatement really. It would be far more accurate to say that Congress starves the Patent Office and is constantly demanding more and more with less and less. At a time when $1 trillion is spent like Monopoly money to put Trump like towers on Boardwalk and Park Place it is not only irresponsible, but down right embarrassing that our political leaders in Washington are starving our innovation agency while they hit the campaign trail with all the required high-tech, innovation and job growth platitudes that the evening news demands in 15 second intervals. There is plenty of blame to go around with respect to how we got into this state, but does anyone think we can realistically get out of this mess without thoughtful Congressional assistance? Then the real nightmare question becomes: Does anyone really think we will ever get thoughtful Congressional assistance?

In this edition of News, Notes & Announcements, the USPTO announces it has signed an agreement with the Russian Patent Office to act as an International Searching Authority; the USPTO announces expansion of the Patent Prosecution Highway; PLI’s Patent Litigation 2010 starts next week and will travel across the US with stops in Virigina, Atlanta, Chicago and New York; BIO is hosting a Technology Transfer Symposium next week in San Francisco; Howard University will hold an IP Empowerment Summit on November 5, 2010, aimed at trying to help indigent inventors — USPTO Director David Kappos will participate; and BlackWeb Technologies sues two computer giants — IBM and HP — on patents covering methods for transmitting information between a remote network and a local computer.

Abandons per action can be interpreted as a level of speculation in applications. Applications that have high abandon rates are highly speculative. Most of the inventions described in these applications ultimately have little value and the applications are abandoned quickly. If a portfolio of speculative applications as a whole, however, has value, then that value is concentrated in a few “breakthrough” applications. For some investors, this is a very desirable characteristic and they may wish to seek out portfolios with high abandon ratios.

The State of Washington has just entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with LegalZoom relating to charges that LegalZoom is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The Attorney General of the State of Washington initiated an investigation into the business practices of LegalZoom, who offers certain legal forms over the Internet to consumers throughout the United States and including the State of Washington. As a result of this investigation LegalZoom offered and the Attorney General accepted an Assurance of Discontinuance. The Assurance of Discontinuance is not considered a finding of fact or admission of any violation or the commission of any particular act, but the failure to comply with the Assurance of Discontinuance would constitute prima facie evidence of such violations. Notwithstanding the unauthorized practice of law charges, LegalZoom was also investigated for turning over sensitive, privately identifying personal and financial information to third parties.

In order to increase your company’s visibility, internet traffic and ultimately search engine ranking for your website you have to implement some relatively simple Search Engine Optimization or SEO techniques. These are techniques that you can utilize through the use social networking sites to draw people to your website as well as others you can put into place throughout the pages of your own website and blog. Following are some key techniques that when executed will improve your search engine ranking, help you drive more traffic to your website, increase visibility of the content within your website and expand the audience you can reach.