There are two stages of litigation in the Supreme Court.  There’s what’s called the petition stage and the merit stage.  This is a phenomenon that doesn’t exist in the Federal Courts of Appeals, which are courts of mandatory jurisdiction.  There’s no doubt that if you lose a patent trial you have a right to appeal to the Federal Circuit.  You don’t have to come hat in hand begging the Federal Circuit to take your case or making it appear so sexy that they’re smitten and they take it.  But the Supreme Court of the United States has very, very little mandatory jurisdiction.  It’s almost all discretionary jurisdiction.  It gets 10,000 petitions a year and it currently grants review in about 75 cases a year.  And so there is a whole level of advocacy that begins with the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari and then it’s followed by a brief in opposition by the winning party below and then a reply brief.  And whatever amicus briefs are filed by friends of the petitioner or the respondent in 10,000 cases in which the court is picking a few for plenary review.

First, remember that Steve Jobs once referred to the smartphone patent wars as the patent equivalent of global thermonuclear war. But will this be more like the Cold War or the Apocalypse? The only patent war that I can recall that actually approximated a patent version of the Apocalypse was the battle between Polaroid and Kodak. That saw a $909 million verdict in 1990, and ultimately settled for $925 million about a year later, but required total aggregate attorneys fees in the neighborhood of $550 million. The war lasted 15 years and didn’t achieve the $2.5 to $5 billion that once upon a time was believed possible. This was also at a time when these numbers were real money.

The other thing I think that’s at play here, and maybe it’s the principal reason is a point that I made earlier which is our economy depends utterly on intellectual property. That is in fostering innovation and inventiveness in the manner in which the framers of the Constitution understood needed to be fostered. That is within appropriately countered system of protections for discoveries and inventions and novel expression. But that doesn’t smother innovation by competitors and by others. And because our economy is so utterly tied to intellectual property the Supreme Court correctly understands that this is a substantive area in which it is very, very important for the correct balance to be struck.

I fail to see how the increase in individual suits suggests in any way, shape or form that the AIA has failed. Because there was a spike in litigation leading up to September 16, 2012, and because the AIA by its express terms requires more patent infringement cases of smaller scope, patent reform has failed. Unbelievable! How can something fail when it is working as intended?

I have just learned that David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, will be stepping down and leaving the agency effective the end of January 2013.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Bosch’s acquisition of SPX’s Service Solutions business would give Bosch monopoly power in the U.S. market for ACRRR devices. Following the transaction as proposed, Bosch would control an overwhelming share of the market. Four other firms are in the market, each with a very small share. The acquisition also would eliminate the current direct competition between Bosch’s RTI and Bosch brands and SPX’s Robinair brand, and would allow the combined firm to raise prices by unilaterally exercising its newly gained market power, in violation of the FTC Act, the FTC alleged. The FTC complaint also alleges that SPX has been pursuing a strategy of suing to enjoin competitors from using patents that may be necessary to meet the standards for manufacturing ACRRR devices.

On November 1, 2012, a federal district court (EDVA) issued an order that may have profound consequences for calculations of patent term adjustment (“PTA”). The district court believed that the PTA promised by 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B)(i), which relates to Requests for Continued Examination, only comes into play if a RCE is filed within the three-year period from the application’s filing date. Before discussing the court’s order, let me review the law and regulations about PTA—which can be complex. In 1994, Congress altered the calculation of U.S. patent terms. Previously, Congress set the patent term as 17 years from patent issuance. After the change, Congress set the patent term as generally 20 years from the filing of the patent application.

Waxman on the advantage of not being a “Patent Specialist”: Perhaps paradoxically, it seems to me, the advantage in litigation with respect to esoteric areas of the law and technology goes to the generalist. All too often, experts apply all sorts of mental shortcuts in explaining why their view is correct. It’s difficult for anyone with expertise to put herself in the mindset of someone who isn’t, and is approaching the issue as a generalist adjudicator. Even Federal Circuit judges with technical training lack expertise with respect to the vast majority of the kinds of innovation that comes before that court.

The injunction, approved by Judge Rogers means that Diageo Chateau must stop production and sales within Sonoma County, California, which was the geographical limitation put on the injunction by Judge Gonzalez. The issuance of the preliminary injunction is contingent upon the plaintiff filing proof of issuance of a bond in the amount of $500. That is not a mistake, the bond required was only $500.

It is a bit difficult to take this invention too seriously for several reasons. First, according to Oregon State University poultry scientist Tom Savage, turkeys are “smart animals with personality and character, and keen awareness of their surroundings.” That being the case, exactly which turkeys are likely to be attracted by a 6 foot turkey plastered onto a giant umbrella laid on its side, as pictured in the main drawing in the patent? Furthermore, Figure 13 (see below) is exactly an umbrella with a turkey decoration, yet the patent describes Figure 13 as a “fully deployed configuration of a blind as as to illustrate turkey decoy image.” Really? A hunting blind? This is an old fashion umbrella.

In this agriculture search Article One Partners is not only looking for those with superior scientific training or advanced degrees. They are also hoping to expand the universe of those who will submit information relative to the study to include many who you might not ordinarily expect would have the such peculiar or specific knowledge or expertise. This call for additional researchers seeks farmers, commercial gardeners and others to rack their brains in an effort to recall things they may have seen, which could make them $5,000 richer due to the reward money that is guaranteed to be paid to the individual who submits the most relevant prior art.

I don’t know what is going on at Chadbourne & Parke, but I do know I know that Walt and John were both at Morgan & Finnegan and left for Chadbourne over 7 years ago. Morgan & Finnegan subsequently filed for bankruptcy ?several years later. Over time the best attorneys were slowly bled from Morgan & Finnegan, and virtually all of the rainmakers left. There were obviously internal problems of one kind or another, likely of a structural nature compounded by top earners and rainmakers leaving. Now I see top level attorneys leaving Chadbourne & Parke, one of them my friend who had enough sense to get out of Morgan & Finnegan years before they went bankrupt. Could this be a sign of what may become over the next several years for Chadbourne & Parke?

Scientifically speaking, there is really very little time the point in time that work in a university laboratory is concrete enough to call “an invention” and capable of description in a patent application until the 30-month deadline to pursue rights in various countries around the world. What that means is that universities are constantly faced with a difficult decision. Do they undertake the expense of seeking patent protection in a variety of locations or do they forego the invention? This decision is particularly problematic for universities engaged in the life sciences where there is of necessity a very long time horizon from conception of the invention to even knowing whether there is a legitimate opportunity for commercialization.

This workshop will examine the economic and legal implications of patent assertion entity (PAE) activity, as distinct from prototypical “non-practicing entity” (NPE) activity, such as developing and transferring technology. By contrast, PAE activities often include purchasing patents from existing owners and seeking to maximize revenues by licensing the intellectual property to (or litigating against) manufacturers who are already using the patented technology.

The white paper outlines just how these counterfeit parts are entering the global supply chains. Even though there are government regulations and precautionary measures taken by the industry, there seems to be a growing problem with counterfeit parts that can cause damage and even fatalities. The introduction of the whitepaper claims: “The complex and distributed nature of supply chains has created vulnerabilities for companies and organizations. Governments and regulations can only go so far. As such, industry can benefit from taking a more proactive approach to protecting the supply chain from counterfeit products and pirated materials.”