But how exactly do patents do all of these wonderful things for companies? Unlike trademarks and copyrights, patents are incredibly difficult to acquire. But a patent, once acquired, grants the holder a fairly long monopoly over their creation. No other individual or corporation can use the patent holder’s creation without negotiating a license (or some other arrangement). Thus, patent holders have a huge advantage over the competition via exclusive use or a profit from licensing. Because, the technology companies heavily market new and cutting-edge products, there is a constant need to acquire new patents to stay ahead of competitors.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that the University of New Hampshire School of Law Library, which was designated as the Concord Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC.) on January 30, 2012, is now open to serve the intellectual property (IP) needs of the public.

It is one thing to cut costs, but to borrow a popular political phrase – you want to cut with a scalpel, not a cleaver. Thus, keeping in mind the ultimately end goal at every step will allow you to engage cost cutting strategies without compromising your patent project. Of course, the end goal is to obtain the broadest, strongest patent portfolio; obtaining patents in a variety of jurisdictions where meaningful business opportunities exist.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host its second Clean Technology Partnership Meeting on Tuesday, June 12, 2012, to bring clean technology stakeholders together to share ideas, experiences and insights and provide a forum for discussion on how the USPTO can improve and expand on its clean technology programs.

It is with an indescribably profound sadness that I write this article. In the early morning hours of May 17, 2012, my mother — Mary Catherine Quinn — passed, succumbing to her fight against cancer. My mother was my closest friend and I will miss her more than any words could possibly describe.

At what point does an idea take enough form to be considered an invention that can be protected? First, it is completely correct to say that ideas cannot be patented. Having said that, it is equally correct to say that every invention starts with an idea. The patent laws in the United States differentiate between a mere idea and conception. When you have a conception you have an invention, and the easiest way to define the term “conception” in lay terms is as an idea plus some knowledge regarding how to bring the idea into being, whether your idea is a compound, a product, a process or unique software.

Trademark owners who attempt to file and prosecute their own trademark applications are really being pennywise and pound foolish. I appreciate the reasons for filing your own trademark applications, particularly in this economy. Many times, trademark owners are small companies in their infancy, or individuals that are trying to minimize legal fees while attempting to obtain valuable trademark protection. Nevertheless, there is significant long term damage that can be caused by filing your own trademark, or relying on a one-size-fits-all service provided by non-attorneys.

Which brings us to the recent gem of an opinion from the Sixth Circuit. Maker’s Mark has been using red sealing wax on its bourbon bottles since the 1950’s, which it trademarked in 1985 (Reg. No. 1469925). Then, in 1997, the company making Jose Cuervo brand tequila started using red sealing wax on some of its special bottles, which were sold beginning in 2001. Needless to say, the Kentucky bourbon company took issue with the tequila company’s use of dripping red sealing wax and requested that such practice immediately stop. Cuervo said “Nope”, so in 2003, Maker’s Mark sued them. It appears that Cuervo stopped using the dripping wax seal in favor of a straight edged seal around 2006, but it countersued to cancel the mark.

Despite the reality that history teaches about the high-tech industry, shareholders/investors and the popular press will dive in and report what is being said by the newsmakers. Little is ever done, however, to figure out what all this actually means. Perhaps this is because the very nature of preparing a patent strategy is something that requires both understanding of the patent laws and a healthy understanding of business realities and evolving technologies, and not just business realities or technological advances in the abstract. Rather, in order to truthfully plot a course calculated to succeed company leaders need to be cognizant of the actual business realities facing the company, not the talking points of lobbyists or those who write SEC filings. Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding of the companies own research and development, as well as where the industry is heading, is crucial when attempting to create the patent strategy.

Those with Twitter accounts who are looking for some good folks to follow look no further. Likely everyone in the industry is already familiar with folks like Professor Dennis Crouch of PatentlyO, who tweets @patentlyo, so I tried to focus (for the most part) on some lesser known tweeters. Below are some of my favorites on Twitter; people who in my humble opinion are excellent to follow. Of course, you can follow me @ipwatchdog and Renee @ipwatchdog_too. See you on Twitter!

It is important for employers to be open-minded when considering employing someone with autism or other disabilities. Those who are open-minded will find employees who are diligent, hard-working, and who take extreme pride in their jobs. Services exist for employers who are open-minded to potentially hiring a person with autism, but are concerned with how to hire or train someone with autism.

In the QPIDS pilot, IDS submissions will be considered by the examiner before determining whether prosecution should be reopened. Prosecution will only be reopened where the examiner determines that reopening prosecution is necessary to address an item of information in the IDS. When the items of information in the IDS do not require prosecution to be reopened, the application will return to issue, thereby eliminating the delays and costs associated with RCE practice.

The moral of the story is this: First, pick the countries where you want to seek patents wisely, filing obtaining a patent in a country only when there is an articulable business strategy. Second, remember to consider not only the cost of obtaining a patent in the first instance but also the cost of maintaining that patent once it has been obtained, if you can’t afford to keep the patent maintained then what in the world are you doing obtaining the patent in the first place? Finally, for goodness sakes don’t waste precious resources by negligently or accidentally allowing patents to go abandoned, only to have to revive them once you realize the mistake.

Information on the world’s specialized intellectual property courts can now be found in one place. The Study on Specialized Intellectual Property Courts, a joint effort published by the International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI) and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), is the first study to catalog the world’s specialized intellectual property court regimes. Not surprisingly, the study concludes that governments around the world should adopt some form of specialized IPR court to handle intellectual property cases. Specialized IPR courts were found to enhance efficiency, lead to more timely resolution and foster more consistent rulings and outcomes. Such courts are also an important signal to individuals and industry that a country takes intellectual property enforcement seriously, which we in the industry know is a precursor to economic development and outside investment.

Now the Patent Office and the courts have the unenviable task of trying to figure out what the Supreme Court really meant in Mayo v. Prometheus. If Diehr remains good law, which it clearly does, and Mayo v. Prometheus is good law, which it has to be as the last pronouncement, then it becomes clear that the proper statutory analysis is to go step by step through the statute analyzing patentability under the separate and distinct patentability requirements of 101, 102, 103 and 112. That is unless there is something that allows for the short-circuiting of the appropriate analysis as in Mayo v. Prometheus. What is that something?