Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S), the wireless powerhouse, has announced that they have entered into an agreement that will allow them to acquire the remaining shares of the wireless broadband provider Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR). Sprint already owns approximately 50% of the shares, and will buy out the rest for $2.97 a share, which equates to $2.2 billion paid to the remaining shareholders. This buyout will bring Clearwire’s total value to roughly $10 billion, which includes the $5.5 billion debt Clearwire currently has.

the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of California abused its discretion when it refused to award a victorious patent plaintiff a permanent injunction where the patentee directly competes with the infringer. The case is Presidio Components v. American Technical Ceramics. The opinion was authored by Chief Judge Rader and joined by Judge Plager and Judge Wallach. Perhaps this case will be a turning point, something of a Twisted Sister moment. You know — “we’re Not gonna take it, no, we ain’t gonna take it, we’re not gonna take it anymore…” I sure hope so!

I understand it is prudent to proceed with care and not needlessly waste money, which is why I try and help inventors understand how best to start the patent process on a budget, but a couple hundred dollars is not really a budget. You might as well go to Vegas and put it all down on black and let it ride. At least you have close to a 50% chance, which is a greater chance of success than having only a few hundred to spend on your invention. Inventors really need to know and fully understand that there is a big difference between inventing and describing an invention. For well over 100 years courts have marveled at how difficult it is to draft a patent application.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is revising the rules of practice in patent cases to implement the micro entity provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Certain patent fees set or adjusted under the fee setting authority in the AIA will be reduced by seventy-five percent for micro entities. The USPTO is revising the rules of practice to set out the procedures pertaining to claiming micro entity status, paying patent fees as a micro entity, notification of loss of micro entity status, and correction of payments of patent fees paid erroneously in the micro entity amount.

The Federal Trade Commission initiated a review in 2010 to ensure that the COPPA Rule keeps up with evolving technology and changes in the way children use and access the Internet, including the increased use of mobile devices and social networking. The FTC has now adopted final amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule that strengthen kids’ privacy protections and give parents greater control over the personal information that websites and online services may collect from children under 13.

Eastman Kodak Company, the once mighty technology juggernaut that has fallen on hard times and found itself fighting to get out of bankruptcy, has completed a series of agreements that successfully monetizes its digital imaging patents. Under the agreements, Kodak will receive approximately $525 million, a portion of which will be paid by 12 intellectual property licensees organized by Intellectual Ventures and RPX Corporation, with each licensee receiving rights with respect to the digital imaging patent portfolio and certain other Kodak patents. Another portion will be paid by Intellectual Ventures, which is acquiring the digital imaging patent portfolio subject to these new licenses, as well as previously existing licenses.

In Part I of the interview I spoke with Barber and Lewis about the AIPLA generally and how it manages to specifically accomplish its mission, which seems to be to voice an opinion of the membership on virtually every intellectual property issue both domestic and foreign. In Part II, which is the finale, we start off talking about the assault on intellectual property rights, particularly the erosion of patent rights.

Yesterday, the Judge Koh of the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction in their ongoing patent war over smartphones with Samsung. The denial of the injunction will allow Samsung to continue to sell phones found to infringe Apple’s patents. How can that make sense to anyone? The patentee, who has already won, must establish entitlement to an order to exclude ongoing and future infringement under a four-factor test that balances equities? What good is a patent? Why did the Patent Office even bother reviewing the patent in the first place then? Why do we pretend that there is an exclusive right in the first place? And the most ignorant elements of the anti-patent community have the audacity to refer to a patent as a monopoly? Give me a break!

WIPO Director General Francis Gurry welcomed the constructive spirit of engagement among member states and the decision to convene a diplomatic conference in 2013 to agree on the provisions of an international treaty. “Member states took an important decision today in our collective efforts to facilitate access to copyrighted works by the visually impaired and persons with print disabilities” Mr. Gurry said. He added “The future treaty will improve access to published works for millions around the world.” The Director General thanked Morocco’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador Omar Hilale, for his country’s generous offer to host the diplomatic conference.

The Federal Trade Commission issued orders requiring nine data brokerage companies to provide the agency with information about how they collect and use data about consumers. The agency will use the information to study privacy practices in the data broker industry. The nine data brokers receiving orders from the FTC are: 1) Acxiom, 2) Corelogic, 3) Datalogix, 4) eBureau, 5) ID Analytics, 6) Intelius, 7) Peekyou, 8) Rapleaf, and 9) Recorded Future.

Patent exhaustion is one of the most fundamental restrictions on patent rights. Under this doctrine, an authorized sale of a patented article moves it outside the scope of the U.S. patent monopoly. With respect to the vended article, the patent right is extinguished and the patentee can no longer sue for infringement. One question that remains unsettled, however, is the role of territoriality. That is, where must the authorized sale take place? For well over a century courts have struggled to answer whether extraterritorial sales qualify for purposes of patent exhaustion.

Christmas is just around the corner and many are already done with their Christmas shopping. There are folks who are not, and we confess to be among those who still have one or more things to pick up for one or more people. But there is no need to panic! You can still get gifts via Amazon.com in time for Christmas, so it can’t really be the last minute, can it? For those looking for those last minute, hard to find gifts for the geek in your life — perhaps a beloved patent attorney or maybe an engineer, scientist or inventor — here are a few can’t miss gifts for your consideration. As of the time of publication all are still available to be received before Christmas.

Just ahead of the 2012 AIPLA Annual Meeting I had an opportunity to go on the record with Bill Barber, then President and now Immediate Past President of AIPLA. Also joining the discussion was Jeff Lewis, who was then President-elect and is now President of AIPLA. In part 1 of this 2 part interview we talk about the organization and how it operates, as well as the time commitment they invest.  We also discuss getting “buy-in” from their law partners and their families.

During the last six days of a session the Speaker of the House of Representatives is allowed to suspend Rules in order to expeditiously dispose of non-controversial matters quickly before the end of a session. This year there will be several intellectual property bills that will move under suspension of House Rules on Tuesday afternoon, December 18, 2012. One is a substitute version of HR 6621, the America Invents Act (AIA) technical corrections bill. Another is a bill to undo a recent decision of the Second Circuit relative to trade secrets and the Economic Espionage Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision on November 8, 2012 effectively canceling Viagra® Canadian patent a year and a half before its natural expiration date. This ends Pfizer’s exclusivity on the blockbuster erectile disfunction drug and opens the market up to generics. While certainly a press- worthy event, this decision does not change the Canadian patent landscape – but rather reinforces it.