With the economy still unsettled, extravagant gifts aren’t likely in many budgets. That means creativity will reign supreme. With a little extra thought you can give a really cool gift to that special someone, whether they are a patent attorney, inventor, law student or computer geek. With that in mind, below are some suggestions in order to help you find some fun, thoughtful and appropriately cool gifts for the geek in your life. The best part is the price means that one or more of these items should fit almost any budget.

Frustration with registration and login isn’t limited to mobile devices, of course. As the web has become more participatory and an integral component of our lives, the average web user has accumulated dozens of accounts at different websites — each with a distinct username and password to remember. Even more problematic, many people try to cope with this problem by recycling the same password across multiple sites, thereby jeopardizing their online security. Social login alleviates this “password fatigue” problem and offers up benefits both for online users and online businesses and other websites.

This was a very interesting discussion, although I was surprised at how little Bilski was mentioned. Although the hearing did digress on some tangents, the Justices’ questioning was generally on point and indicative of the difficult questions a case like this presents. Surely, the Court will be thinking of the impact a decision might have on the healthcare industry, as well as the information technology industry. Also, Justices are no doubt aware of other pending cases which may find their way to the Supreme Court, such as AMP v. USPTO, Classen v. Biogen, and the divided infringement cases of McKesson and Akamai. I will leave the reader to reach their own conclusions, but my best guess is that the Court is leaning toward the position that §101 should be a coarse filter and that §102 and §103 would be more appropriate to challenge the validity of the claims in this case. We will learn the answer in the spring.

All in all it seemed to me that the majority of the court seemed more skeptical about the Mayo position and more supportive of the Prometheus position. That being said, it is extremely troubling to contemplate the possibility that Chief Justice Roberts was more in tune with the thinking of Justice Breyer. It is also disheartening to see such a fundamental misunderstanding of patent law on the part of the Chief Justice. At the end of the day the Justices of the Supreme Court will say what the law is on this issue, but sometimes it is hard to imagine a less qualified bunch to opine on a patent issue.

Beginning January 31, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office will update the content of the patent registration examination to cover two new rules issued September 26, 2011 that relate to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. These new rules permit prioritized examination of patent applications (Track I) and revise the standard for granting inter partes reexamination requests. Additionally, the patent registration examination will also include questions concerning the November 22, 2011 rules governing practice in ex parte appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

If you believe that prior user rights are insignificant and don’t deserve discussion you have permission to keep your head firmly planted in the sand. Everyone else keep reading. Think of all that will easily be fair game in discovery. The defendant has the burden of proof and controls the evidence. Judges are going to allow liberal discovery, particularly where the evidence is uniquely held by the defendant and cannot otherwise be obtained by the patentee. When things go wrong it will be the lawyers who are at the short end of the pitch-fork. Don’t let that be you!

The doctrines of “secret prior art” and “inherency” both merged in the case Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP to surprise, and unpleasantly upend the patentee. Judge Linn’s opinion ruled that “[a]n inventor need not understand precisely why his invention works in order to achieve an actual reduction to practice.” Relying upon the collective holdings in Dow Chemical, Mycogen Plant Science, and Invitrogen, the Federal Circuit panel then concluded that “it is apparent that the district court correctly entered summary judgment” of invalidity of the asserted claims in the ‘502 patent under 35 § 102(g)(2).

Over the years IPWatchdog.com has continued to try and add additional perspectives from a wide variety of guest contributors, ranging from well respected practicing attorneys and agents to high profile academics to inventors and pro-patent lobbyists. It is hard to imagine providing such depth of analysis on such an array of topics without having truly wonderful guest authors. So we take this moment to say a very special thank you and to shine the spotlight on them. Each deserve to share in any recognition of IPWatchdog.com. Without further ado, here are the guest contributors in alphabetical order, along with their contributions for 2011.

My list is heavily dominated by California locations, and there are probably a couple surprises, but Albuquerque, New Mexico and Syracuse, New York? I make the case for the leading candidates and a few that definitely deserve short list consideration. In addition to the 9 criteria set out by the USPTO I have added a 10th of my own. If you look at the criteria it is hard to understand why Detroit was selected. Detroit doesn’t have a reputation as a particularly livable city, so will it really help retain and recruit examiners? It seems that there were some other considerations at play, and I can’t help but notice that traditionally blue Michigan is a swing state in 2012. With this in mind, I have a hunch that politics will play a big part of the awarding of satellite patent offices. Therefore, I am going to add a tenth criteria – From a purely political standpoint does the location serve a purpose?

The USPTO always also points out that PPH agreements increase patent quality. That is likely true, but probably not as directly as you might expect. As far as I can tell the benefit to quality comes as the result of primarily three things. First, it takes less time to examine a patent application that has arrived to the Office of Second Filing (OSF) because allowable matter has already been identified somewhere else, which substantially focuses the prosecution of these applications. Second, by requiring less time on some applications there will be more time for other applications, at least in theory. Finally, there is no doubt a self-selection that goes on from the applicants side, which means better patent applications, and the overwhelming number of those using the PPH accept the claims they get and do not circle back for more claims, or broader claims, with supplemental filings.

1.3 billion people simply cannot be ignored, that much is certainly true. In my experience, however, when potentially ridiculous sums of money are at issue people, including otherwise shrewd business executives, suddenly seem to lose double digit points off their IQ. Believing that you can successfully navigate the potentially treacherous waters of doing business with China without careful planning and competent, experienced counsel is simply naive.

The USPTO sees the establishment of satellite offices as an important component of their continued efforts to recruit and retain a highly skilled workforce, reduce patent application pendency and improve quality, and enhance communication between the USPTO and the patent applicant community. It is easy to understand why satellite offices would enhance efforts to recruit and retain patent examiners, after all there is a limited pool of technically sophisticated applicants and employees willing to locate in Northern Virginia and endure the ridiculous traffic, among other things. Thus, satellite offices should make a position as a patent examiner more attractive, at least if locations such as Denver or California are considered, as they should be.

By eliminating certain briefing requirements the PTO hopes to reduce the number of non-compliant appeal briefs and the number of non-compliant examiner’s answers. Non-compliant briefs and non-compliant examiner’s answers needlessly delay consideration of an appeal by the Board, which contributes to the long delays applicants on the appeals track face. Delays due to non-compliant briefs and answers are particularly unconscionable given the average pendency for an application that must proceed to appeal, which as of October 2011 stands at 81.8 months! That is nearly 7 years from the filing of an application to resolution if action by the Board is required. When the non-compliance is minor or relates to information the Board could well obtain for itself right in the Office files it is downright nonsensical to interject delay by kicking non-compliant briefs and examiner answers. Hopefully these new rules will help at least a little bit for some applicants.

Many people situated variously within and outside of the patent system of the United States urged the adoption of first-to-file. There are, however, many questions about the scope and possible impact of the AIA. Exactly how it will all play out remains to be seen. A significant question is what will be the likely impact of the AIA upon the operations of the USPTO, an organization that has been so greatly over-burdened in recent times. Anyone interested in reading this is likely old enough to have heard the old saying “Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.” Now we have it.

With most provisional patent applications the 80-20 rule applies. To get to 80% complete it takes 20% of the time and the final 20% will take 80% of the time. Thus, the approach to provisional patent applications is to make sure you have all the disclosure we need later when we will prepare the nonprovisional patent application. This can include attaching one or more supplemental documents to a drafted provisional patent application, it can and usually does include filing many drawings, sketches and even photographs.