During his contemporaneous, unscripted speech, Chief Judge Randall Rader made several remarks about the access to justice that raised some eyebrows. On Friday we were told that we need to tolerate the injustice of certain rules that might lead to an unfair result, but then on Saturday morning during the Judges’ panel we were told that rules of thumb couldn’t and shouldn’t apply to the law of damages. Rader on one hand was saying that certainty and relatively bright line rules are necessary to control the process of litigation, but then on the other hand saying that a flexible, case-by-case approach needs to be what we pursue. In short, it seems to me that Judge Rader wants to have his cake and eat it too! I dissented in person, and I dissent here and now.

There is much to write about the event, but I will start my week long coverage with an overview of the event. As the week progresses I will delve into some interesting substantive discussions that took place over this Intellectual Property weekend in the Granite State, including: (1) Chief Judge Rader tell me during the Judges’ panel: “You aren’t making any sense…”; (2) Chief Judge Rader daring anyone to come up with proof that the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR did anything to change previous Federal Circuit case law on obviousness (I’ll take that challenge!); and (3) Jon Dudas, the former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, succinctly (and correctly) explaining that the funding of the United States Patent and Trademark Office is similar in ways to a Ponzi scheme.

Last week the Association for Intellectual Property Firms (AIPF) held its 2011 Annual Meeting at the W Chicago City Center Hotel. The theme for this years event was “Enhancing IP Rights in a Time of Erosion.” The program covered topics and featured and a variety of professionals from across the IP spectrum and beyond, including Philip S Johnson, Chief IP Counsel for Johnson & Johnson, Kirk Goodwin, Senior Counsel for Whirlpool, Bruce Hendricks, Associate GC for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and of course, yours truly, The Social Media Diva of IPWatchdog.com. You could say the program technically started Sunday evening when the Board of Directors and Speakers got together at Mike Ditka’s in Chicago. The food and service were amazing, the company was friendly and conversations were stimulating. The only thing that could have made the night better was being able to stay and watch some football after the meeting. It was, after all, a sports bar. But I digress.

Indeed, the new Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property at the University of New Hampshire School of Law will formally open with a bang! Chief Judge Randall Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will deliver remarks at a dinner hosted by UNH Law on Friday, September 30, 2011, and will participate in a Judge’s panel on Saturday, October 1, 2011. Rounding out the Judges’ panel will be Judge Pauline Newman and Judge Arthur Gajarsa, both also of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Three Federal Circuit Judges at the opening event for the new IP Center is a great way to start.

I like writing about esoteric patent law topics and the question of “intervening rights” in reexaminations/reissues is one of the more esoteric. See my 1998 JPTOS article entitledIntervening Rights: A Potential Hidden Trap for Reexamined Patent. The case of Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. is one of those rare instances in this esoteric area of patent law where the Federal Circuit announced a new “wrinkle” on when “intervening rights” apply in reexamination. Unfortunately, the rule announced by the majority in Marine Polymer Technologies (“intervening rights” apply to unamended claims based on statements made during reexamination) is squarely in conflict with the express language of 35 U.S.C. § 307(b), as Judge Lourie’s dissent vigorously (and more importantly, correctly) points out.

There will be plenty of time to drill down on the particulars of the America Invents Act. The Act is dense, language choices from section to section in some places change and in other places remains the same, making you suspect that different terms must mean different things but the same term in different places has to mean the same thing, right? That being said, I thought I might take this opportunity to provide a high level overview of the America Invents Act.  What follows is discussion of 5 provisions contained in the Act.  Look for an overview breakdown of additional provisions (prior user rights, supplemental examination, post-grant review, etc.) coming soon.

The basic argument in Myriad is whether DNA that is isolated from the chromosomes is statutory subject matter, or whether it is a product of nature. The stakes are high in the Myriad case, since the isolated DNA claimed by Myriad encodes mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins that can be used to detect breast cancer. Myriad has the only test offered in the United States because of its aggressive enforcement of its several patents. The numerous plaintiffs in the case speak to the core of the patent versus non-patent debate: whether patents actually “promote the progress of science and useful arts” as required in the U.S. Constitution. Myriad and other companies heavily reliant on biotechnology patents, would support the argument that strong patent enforcement allows companies which have invested millions or billions in assay or drug development for clinical use to recoup their investment and provide a return for investors. The plaintiffs would argue that such patents not only hinder the useful arts, but also endanger lives and/or drives up the cost of providing potentially life-saving testing and treatment.

Those of you who follow IPWatchdog, know that my passion is Brand Development, Brand Building, and Online Marketing using social media. I try to educate our readers on how they can use social media for their businesses regardless of size. However, I decided to take a different approach and compare the social media campaigns of Apple, Inc, Coca Cola, Nike and Dell Computers. Let’s take a look at how these four industry giants use social media today.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host the 2011 National Trademark Expo on Friday, October 14th, and Saturday, October 15th, at the USPTO’s headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. The free two-day event is designed to educate the public about the value of trademarks in the global marketplace. If you have young children and are looking for something exceptionally fun, and free, I highly recommend the Trademark Expo. While there are seminars aimed at adults, which are quite good, children will have a blast because costumed characters will be walking about and mugging for photos with children, families and adults too!

As an aside, and somewhat related to the boring concept, is the idea that intellectual property practitioners are all basement-dwelling nerds. OK, maybe we’re a little nerdy in some ways, but I swear I do not live in a basement, my summer reading did not include the cheat guide to World of Warcraft, and I have NEVER been to Comicon. So what if I have the blueprints to the Millennium Falcon on my office wall and my favorite TV show is “How it’s Made”? You gotta admit some of the stuff we get to do and see in our professional lives is pretty freaking cool. The seediest infringement cases. The bleedingest edge of technology. The next rival to the power of McDonald’s logo or Coca-Cola trade secret. I wear my nerd moniker proudly.

It is fair to say that enactment of the AIA is not what most stakeholders championed early on. Many small inventors and innovation companies feel that some of the provisions are not in their best interest. IT would have preferred a bill that did more to change how patents are valued and enforced. Nevertheless, to most stakeholder, the final version of the bill is an improvement over previous versions of patent legislation. When patent reform legislation was first introduced in 2005, its primary objective was to reduce the infringement liability of large technology aggregators by significantly limiting equitable and monetary remedies, restrict venue, and make issued patents far easier to invalidate through post-grant review. In addition, earlier versions of the bill would have given the USPTO unprecedented substantive rulemaking authority and increased the cost and burden of filing a patent application. In combination, these measures would have significantly undermined the enforceability and value of patent rights, while increasing the cost, complexity, and uncertainty of obtaining patents. All of these reforms were advanced by a IT interests set on weakening the ability of small innovators to obtain and enforce patents.

There have been a number of inquiries from the public regarding the fees due when payments are made by postal mail just prior to the effective date of the 15 percent surcharge (September 26, 2011). The fee due is the fee in effect on the date the document is timely filed. At this time the USPTO may not offer the micro entity discount (75%) on any fees. As provided for in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Public Law 112-29) these fees will be adjusted under the fee setting authority provided for in Section 10 of the AIA.

It isn’t exactly a newflash to announce that Washington, D.C. is dsyfunctional, anyone paying attention over the past few years has long since come to that conclusion. Thus, it is hardly breaking news to report that Congress is on the verge of passing a Continuing Resolution rather than actually doing their job and passing a budget for fiscal year 2012. Why do today what is required of you to fulfill the responsibilities of your job when you can just kick the can down the road? Of course, by so doing Congress will embark upon a path that will divert some $600 million from the USPTO during FY 2012.

As global demand for energy continues to grow and the price of oil and gasoline continue to rise we must pursue solutions for cleaner, renewable energy. The technology that will ultimately support an alternative energy driven economy is not where we want it to be, if we do not aggressively pursue such technologies and build on early stage successes we will never get to the finish line. Complaining about the fact that the finish line is so far away and the technology incapable of providing a solution today is exceptionally myopic. Nothing worth doing is ever easy and without taking critical first steps the final celebratory steps are simply impossible to take.

For example, the new provision retains the existing notion of “public use” and “on sale” under current law; however, a key difference is that the one year grace period of current law will not be available under new 102 (Another key difference is that activities outside the United States may create a so-called public use or on sale bar under new 102). The new grace period under the America Invents Act is personal to the inventor and relates to “disclosure,” which many believe could be interpreted not to cover “public use” or “sale” as those terms are presently understood. Therefore, there is a possibility that your client’s invention may already be unpatentable in the United States by the time he or she contacts you (such as if a “public use” or “offer for sale” even took place the day before he or she consults you).