Today it is quite difficult to demonstrate that a patent claim issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office is invalid and should not have been issued. Microsoft, along with a great many others, is urging the Supreme Court to change that and make it easier for them to demonstrate that patent claims, and thereby the associated patent rights, are invalid and should not have been issued. A strange association of those who are large patent owners themselves are urging the Microsoft position because they are tired of getting sued on patents that they infringe and having to pay tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars because they have trampled on the rights of innovators. So in order to excuse their own infringement they are asking the Supreme Court to throw the entire patent system under the bus, which is sadly more likely to happen than not.

Earlier today Chief Judge Paul Michel (ret.) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit testified before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. In a nutshell, Chief Judge Michel explained that “[t]he PTO desperately and immediately needs: several thousand additional examiners, dozens of additional board of appeals members, and major modernization of its IT systems, which are antiquated, inadequate and unreliable.”

The Trademark act of 1946 specifically allows a person to obtain a trademark in her name provided the proposed name mark meets certain criteria. And the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) tells you what those criteria are. As shocking as it may sound, people trademark their names all the time. It’s pretty much standard operating procedure for celebrities and athletes. Granted, it is a bit uncommon for politicians, but it’s not unheard of. Besides, last time I checked, Governor Palin is no longer serving in public office and is more of a public figure anyway, so what’s with the hullabaloo?

Congress is at it once again, with the Senate Judiciary Committee reporting out a bill last week that remarkably resembles the bill that has been unable to gain any traction in the Senate for the last several years. That would suggest that the same fate is in store for this legislation. Not so fast! I have a suspicion that this year things are different and that we really could be on the cusp of patent reform. Whether that is for better or for worse will largely be in the eye of the beholder, but what is emerging feels different and I think we are closer to change, and perhaps an end to fee diversion, than we have been at any point over the last 6 years.

Of course, it will be most useful for patent examiners to review and truly internalize the guidelines, but there is some excellent language here that is quite practitioner and applicant friendly. There is explanation of situations where a rejection should be given, but more importantly from a practitioner standpoint will be those examples and illustrations of when a rejection is not appropriate. The discussions of what an appropriate Office Action should include will no doubt be particularly useful as well as practitioners try and hold examiners feet to the fire to provide the type of information required in order to truly appreciate any problems identified by the examiner and how to appropriately respond. Indeed, it is my guess that patent practitioners will be yelling “AMEN” from the top of their lungs as they read various portions of the Guidelines.

Staffers worked with us to coordinate the interview with Congressman Chaffetz, which took place earlier today. I was told I would have 15 minutes with the Congressman, and graciously he allowed the interview to go a little long. We talked about the President’s States of the Union address, patent reform, the USPTO budget, innovation generally, manufacturing, job creation, China and more. I think many will find what Congressman Chaffetz has to say quite interesting and very encouraging. I myself found him to be well informed and refreshingly candid.

Over the last two election cycles it has become clear how important it is to have a social media strategy. President Obama masterfully used various Internet and social media communications to ride a wave into office, leaving the Republicans well behind. In the 2010 election cycle the Democrats tended to do quite well on Facebook, but the Republicans gained momentum and did much better on Twitter and enjoyed greater overall “digital energy,” at least according to research conducted by the EmergingMedia Research Council. It is safe to assume that Members of Congress are getting more involved with Social Media, and that trend should only continue to grow in coming years.

Many people assume that there’s no way American manufacturers can compete with cheap Chinese labor. It’s just basic economics, right? Wrong. It’s the U.S. government’s myopic policy, not China’s lower payroll costs, that make our nation uncompetitive in the all-important solar and other high-tech manufacturing sectors. With manufacturing friendly tax policies and a permanent 20 percent R&D tax credit equal to what other nations offer China’s advantage drops to 1 to 2 percent, and that the U.S. can compete with.

Copyright infringement has nothing to do with citation or linking back. A copyright owners rights have been infringed if another reproduces the work without their permission with or without citation. In the minds of some copyright infringement is synonymous with plagiarism. Plagiarism, however, is the passing off of the work of another as your own without citation. Legally, however, copyright infringement is merely copying, with or without appreciation of the wrong. So those who cite and link back are not absolved from copyright infringement. They are misappropriating an original work and free-riding. There is nothing creative, laudatory or commendable about free-riding.

The gene patents issue had been simmering in Australia for some time, with a Senate Enquiry into the subject having been underway for over a year, but with the Myriad decision in the US, and the Australian litigation, it exploded into the headlines. Within the space of a few months, gene patents became the subject of numerous news articles and opinion pieces (including one by the former leader of the Opposition, and current Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband, Malcolm Turnbull), and a major report on the Australian national broadcaster’s flagship current affairs program Four Corners. Almost all of this coverage was generally critical of ‘gene patents’, without ever providing a satisfactory definition of the term.

The stories of abusive cease and desist orders are legendary. In fact such letters are indeed typically referred to as being “a dime-a-dozen.” Trademark owners and their representatives have long been believed to grossly overstate the rights a trademark conveys when they send letters to unsuspecting and often legally unsophisticated individuals who are immediately petrified and will do nearly anything to resolve the matter. These individuals and small businesses are frequently coerced to give up legal rights they have without justification, which alters their business plans without justifiable reason.

A common misconception is that a website that just advertises your goods or services can be a trademark. It can’t. The domain has to be a unique source indicator all on its own, meaning it has to tell people what your goods or services are on its own. Basically, if your domain name is just an Internet address where your customers can find you, it can’t be registered. It just tells people where to find you. It is merely incidental to your primary business purpose.

One approach to promoting IP protection at the State/regional level would be for the State/incubators to create targeted “IP Protection Funds.” These Funds could be used to both educate the entrepreneurial community about IP protection and to finance protection for qualifying local startup companies. For example, the fund may directly pay IP legal fees, either as grants or convertible loans, on behalf of a startup, thereby ensuring that IP protection is an integral focus of the company. Administration of the Funds, along with company qualification, may be handled through the grass-roots incubator networks that are already actively counseling the startup community. Such a Fund may also serve to bridge the gap between the under-funded start-ups that desperately need IP protection (yet do not always value it), and the patent practitioner community that is sometimes reluctant to accept under-funded ventures as clients.

The Coburn Amendment would create a specialized fund within the Department of Treasury known as the ‘‘United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund.” The PTO Director would have access to monies in the Fund for expenses ordinarily and reasonably necessary for running the Office. Perhaps most importantly, the Fund could grow so monies in the Fund could be accessed by the Director without fiscal year limitation. This could allow the Fund to grow in certain years to a critical mass that may be needed for capital expenditures. This is a brilliant idea and one that the industry needs to get behind wholeheartedly.

About ten months ago I wrote, The Importance of Having a Web Presence where I discussed why you should have a website, where you can buy your domain name and how to find webhosting services. No matter what type of business you have, whether it be a brick and mortar retail location, a consulting business, a law firm or any other type of business, large or small, you need to have a company website if you are to have any real chance of keeping up with the competition. But what makes a successful website? How can you get consumers past the home page? What do you feature on your website? How do you set it up? Whether you are starting from scratch or simply trying to improve the website that you already have, there are key components that every website should possess, eleven of which I will share with you today.