IP concerns range from highbrow to hilarious. It’s time to wake up, do your due diligence, and make sure you have the comprehensive IP protection you need in place when you start a business so you can stay on track creatively without fear of being derailed. Securing IP protection should now be at the top of your “to-do” list – not just an afterthought.

So why would large companies be such supporters of first to file? What if first to file was the Trojan Horse that carried prior user rights? Prior user rights will not benefit the individual or the small business. Prior user rights unambiguously will benefit the large corporations who innovate and then shelf technology for one reason or another, or those who exploit the technology in secret. Perhaps they choose not to pursue a patent because it isn’t perceived to be a meaningful innovation, or worth the cost and time of pursuing a patent. Perhaps the innovation gets weeded out along the way, never getting green-lighted past a certain point. These trade secrets today are not prior art thanks to 102(g). Remove 102(g) and insert a prior user rights regime and all those secrets that large companies hide, fail to pursue or willfully keep from the public will allow them to ignore the patent rights of those who innovate and actually disseminate that information to the public.

The effort to shoehorn foreign patent priority concepts and torture a well-developed 200 year-old American patent system that has a proven record as the best in the world into foreign structures that are inconsistent with the American Constitution and its laws is a futile effort that would likely be met with successful challenge on constitutional grounds. The illusory “harmonization” goal with no demonstrated tangible benefits compared to the existing system does not justify embarking on a risky legal adventure that will destabilize the American patent system and will doom it to decades of economically taxing legal uncertainty.

The coming together of Ted Olson and David Boies for the purpose of advocating for a judicial system was not by happenstance. As you will read in the interview that follows, the men are aware they are high profile attorneys and hope that their fame will enable them to capture the attention of legislatures, lawyers and the public. They are each committed to advocating for a judicial system starved for resources and without lobbyists of its own, but which is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government along with the Legislative and Executive Branches of government.

Currently, the term for copyright protection is life of the author plus 70 years. To put this into perspective for you, Steamboat Willie initially aired in 1928. The copyright is ruled by the 1909 Act and has a shorter term of protection that the current scheme. Steamboat Willie is due to go into the public domain in 2023 unless Congress extends the copyright term again. I’m not sure if nearly one hundred years is a limited term (almost everybody alive during the initial air date will be dead before they can use it), but I guess Congress and Disney think so.

Today the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is carefully studying the important en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson to assess how it may impact agency practices and procedures. The agency also announced that it expects to soon issue guidance to applicants related to the prior art and information they must disclose to the Office in view of Therasense.

The Task Force is on the Preservation of the Justice System, and is chaired by perhaps the two most well-known lawyers in the United States, David Boies and Ted Olson. Olson and Boies are lending their considerable clout to shining light on a true crisis — an inadequately funded Judiciary. We have long known that a stable business climate is important for thriving, growing businesses. That is why organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce provide rankings of State Judicial Systems in terms of friendliness toward business. Said as straight as I can, if you don’t think a functioning Judicial System is a huge business issue then you just aren’t paying attention or haven’t seriously thought about the issues.

Judge Rader wrote: “Left unfettered, the inequitable conduct doctrine has plagued not only the courts but also the entire patent system.” Chief Judge Rader would go on to say that materiality is a “but-for” test, and actually breathed real life into the intent requirement, saying: “Proving that the applicant knew of a reference, should have known of its materiality, and decided not to submit it to the PTO does not prove specific intent to deceive.” The Federal Circuit did decline to adopt the USPTO version of the duty of candor outlined in Rule 56, which I have advocated for, instead opting for an even better, more patentee friendly standard than I myself have advocated for over the years. Today is a good day no doubt. Intent now actually requires intent, and a reference must actually be material in order to satisfy the materiality requirement. What a radical concept!

PPH will permit each office to benefit from the PCT work previously done by the other office, which reduces the examination workload and improves patent quality. The expedited examination in each office allows applicants to obtain corresponding patents faster and more efficiently in each country. The PCT-PPH program will use international written opinions and international preliminary examination reports developed within the framework of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

The Navy filed two applications for trademarks on May 13th. The first is application serial number 85320305 for “Seal Team”. The identified class is “membership in an organization in the Department of the Navy”. By the way, there are 8 Navy SEAL teams that we are aware of, which may be one explanation for the application for just “Seal Team”, as opposed “Seal Team 6”. The other is serial number 85320473 for “Navy Seals” to be used on posters and clothing. Both applications are section 1(a), meaning the Navy is currently using the marks in commerce, and has been for quite some time. The Navy also owns the trademark registration “Seal” (registration no. 3285473), which indicates “membership in an organization of applicant that develops and executes military missions involving special operations strategy, doctrine, and tactics.”

Between 1995 and 2009 the overall median patent litigation damage award was $5.2 million, but between 2002-2009 there was a huge discrepancy between the average damage award for practicing entities versus non-practicing entities. The median award for non-practicing entities was $12.9 million, while the median award for practicing entities lagged far behind at $3.9 million. No wonder there is ever increasing activities by those the Federal Trade Commission refers to as “patent assertion entities,” which seems to be yet another sanitized name for patent troll.

Earlier today Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) poked a finger straight in the chest of alleged patent troll Lodsys, LLC, saying in no unmistakable terms — back off Apple App developers! For several weeks Lodsys has been sending threatening letters to Apple App developers and Apple has had enough and isn’t going to take it any more!

It is still early to know whether this is irrational exuberance or whether this is a meaningful event for the companies that follow LinkedIn to IPO. In all likelihood it is a little of both, namely a meaningful event that demonstrates at least some irrational exuberance. With the economy and the IPO market having been in the tank for so long a little zeal never hurt anyone, right? In any event, regardless of what LinkedIn does from here on out the fury of trading and interest suggests that good things are on the horizon for the economy and perhaps for job creation as well.

Earlier this year Intellectual Property Today announced its annual Top Patent Law Firms for 2011. Just recently they also announced the Top Trademark Firms for 2011. I thought it might also be interesting to see which firms were mentioned on both lists. In fact, there were 11 law firms that appeared on both the Top Patent Law Firms List and on the Top Trademark Law Firms List.