The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in cooperation with the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), today announced the launch of a new online database where U.S. government agencies are now posting information about the intellectual property rights (IPR) training programs they conduct around the world.

I don’t doubt that the Google Legal Team is an excellent department, and undoubtedly praiseworthy. It is also correct to say that they are dealing on nearly a daily basis with cutting edge issues that relate to the use of intellectual property in a still young medium — the Internet. It is also true to observe that they have had to deal with antitrust matters, patent litigations, copyright and trademark matters, not to mention the undoubtedly countless private matters that we haven’t yet learned about and many we won’t ever learn about. Nevertheless, I wonder whether there is a premature victory lap or recognition that is just slightly ahead of accomplishment. Certainly if Google scores a final victory in the Rosetta Stone appeal on trademarks (more below) and can resurrect the book settlement (more below) that would go a long way to justifying this award, I just wonder whether it might be a year ahead of schedule and a bit akin to President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize after only a few months in Office.

The Patent and Trademark Office is once again sponsoring the USPTO Patent Experience Externship Program (PEEP) for the Summer of 2011. Time is extremely limited to get in an application. The deadline for making application to the program is Friday, May 20, 2011.

Typically I let what Hal writes slide off my back because I don’t take him seriously. Having said that, the other day he did one of his trademark hatchet jobs on an article I wrote titled The Constitutional Underpinnings of Patent Law This was actually the second Constitutional article I wrote in as many weeks. One week earlier I wrote Patents, Copyrights and the Constitution, Perfect Together. Hal’s newsletter, sent out with the subject “naive and wholly incorrect understandings,” grossly misrepresented my writings, and was incorrect on the law in places as well. That being the case, and given the particularly prickly and fallacious subject heading, I thought I might set the record straight. I think it is also time to challenge Hal to a debate so he will either put up or shut up.

Overall there will be few large paydays for small and mid-size companies against the Fortune 1000, and fewer still for those who do not engage an appropriate strategy and simply rush head first into litigation or licensing negotiations. Notwithstanding, cultivating or acquiring a patent portfolio will allow small and mid-size companies to hold assets that are capable of being leveraged in the event a large corporation comes knocking. Additionally, as the business grows and revenues become available having a patent portfolio can enable small and mid-size companies to pursue litigation against Goliaths, but the odds of prevailing and having critical leverage go up if the plaintiff is a practicing entity. Simply stated, without the threat of a permanent injunction the Goliaths of the corporate world are exceptionally likely to just push you around.

While many people believe that alternative energy is at least several decades away, what is clear is that if we do not set out about making that future a reality it will never been the future we realize. There is tremendous research ongoing relative to battery technologies, solar energy, biofuels, geothermal energy, wind energy, hydroelectric energy and much more. In all likelihood no one, single solution will replace our dependence on fossil fuels, at least not in the foreseeable future, but there does seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel. We only need to choose the path to obtain that reality.

On Friday, May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued the latest decision in a long line of Rambus decisions stemming out of conduct of Rambus as it participated in the JEDEC standard-setting body, as well as litigation events that followed. A five judge panel of the Federal Circuit (per Judge Linn) affirmed the district court’s determination that Rambus destroyed documents during its second shred day in contravention of a duty to preserve them and, thus, engaging in spoliation.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced the Full First Action Interview Pilot Program, which is an expansion of the Enhanced First Action Interview Pilot Program so as to include all utility applications in all technology areas and filing dates. As with the previous First Action Interview pilot programs (which included the Original and the Enhanced pilots), the applicant is entitled to a first action interview, upon request, prior to the first Office action on the merits. This pilot will run through May 16, 2012.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange there have been 131 cases where a permanent injunction has issued and 43 cases where a permanent injunction has been denied. Some have tried to pass this off as not much of a departure from the practice prior to the Supreme Court’s decision. Such a viewpoint is, however, not correct. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision it was virtually unheard of for a district court to deny a victorious plaintiff a permanent injunction in patent infringement case. So the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange has been one that has significantly altered the patent litigation landscape and, therefore, is easily one of the most important Supreme Court patent cases in recent memory.

Social media has taken the world by storm. Everyone from college students, to politicians, to news media outlets, to business professionals, to small and big businesses, to musicians and artists and other individual people both young and old have jumped on the social media bandwagon. When creating a marketing campaign, no matter what the business is, social media is an obvious choice for those who wish to expand their reach beyond that of the local phone book. Be that as it may, given that social media is still quite new to the business arena, there are still so many opportunities missed because of common yet avoidable mistakes.

It has always been my belief that the PLI course is the best, and now I think there is absolutely no doubt. Yes, there are some competitors out there but how many other courses have two faculty members that are practicing patent attorneys and law professors? John and I both have a private practice and we have made legal education an important part of our careers. We are even patent attorneys, which might sound like an odd thing to tout but there are actually courses out there that don’t have patent attorneys developing the course and creating materials. The patent bar exam is hard enough as it is, the rules of patent practice are almost ridiculously archaic and you think you can take a patent bar course taught by someone who hasn’t ever even passed the exam let alone represented anyone in real life? Yeah, right. Think again.

The United States Constitution grants to the Congress the power to grant patents; this power residing in the Congress is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Unlike most of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the Constitution, the Intellectual Property Clause is a qualified grant of power, which does limit Congressional discretion in significant ways. The Congress does not have free reign to decide that patents should be easily or freely given, but rather must limit their exercise of power to the dictates of the clause itself. See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989). See also Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 5 (1966) (“The clause is both a grant of power and a limitation. This qualified authority, unlike the power often exercised in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by the English Crown, is limited to the promotion of advances in the ‘useful arts.’”).

Imagine a world where the dulcet tones of “Inagaddadavida” never graced the airwaves. Gasp you should! According to the artist currently known as, but formerly known as “The Artist Formerly Known as, Prince,” once a song is covered the original artist’s version doesn’t exist anymore. Soooo…Iron Butterfly’s iconic song no longer exists because Slayer remade it in the late 1980s. Yeah, I don’t think so, but let’s explore, because Prince does make an interesting point and he’s kind of right to be miffed, even if it’s for the wrong reasons. He was talking about the compulsory licensing requirements in copyright law and the “original work is banished to music purgatory once it’s covered” argument is his way of explaining his indignation.

To help what might be the best ideas and inventions percolate to the top Foreman has created what he refers to as a “Patent Attorney Referral Program.” This program is designed to benefit patent attorneys and patent agents whose clients submit innovative ideas and concepts. This isn’t one of those unethical referral programs though, so no worries there. If a client of a patent attorney or patent agent is selected and accepts the offer of assistance from the Innovation Fund then the patent attorney or patent agent representing that inventor will be retained by the Innovation Fund to provide the legal services required to pursue patent rights.

Criminals are finding that the penalties for intellectual property crimes pale in comparison to the penalties they would receive for trafficking drugs and engaging in other illicit activities. At the same time, the profit margin for counterfeit software is extremely high. So the combination of great riches, relatively low penalties and a low likelihood of being caught and you can see why criminal enterprises, including terrorist networks, are becoming major players in the counterfeit software black-market. In fact, one of the most vicious drug cartels in the world makes an estimated $2.4 million per day selling counterfeit software.