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.

On Friday, February 4, 2011, the USPTO will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking on “Track One” of the program, which will give applicants the opportunity for prioritized examination of a patent within 12 months of its filing date for a proposed fee of $4,000. Sadly, because the Patent Office does not have fee setting authority there will be no reduction in fees available to small entities who otherwise normally pay 50% of most Patent Office fees. Because the Congress controls which fees qualify for small entity preference everyone will need to pay $4,000 to accelerate under Track One.

A tip of the hat to Wheelpump Corporation and all other start-up and established companies seeking to be more environmentally friendly and energy conscious. We need more independent inventors pursuing these technologies, we need start-up companies to attract venture capital and we need clean, home-grown American jobs. Incremental innovation is what will bridge the gap between our current energy economy and whatever the sustainable energy economy of the future will be. Let’s just hope that the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit don’t kill incremental innovation by rendering steps in the right direction obvious because they were inevitable eventually.

Yesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a split decision with Judge Lourie writing and Judge Bryson joining, took a step forward in the evolution of the law of obviousness that confirms my worst fears about obviousness in this post-KSR era. It has been argued by many that even after KSR it is not an appropriate rejection, or reason to invalidate an issued claim, that it would be “common sense” to modify elements within the prior art in a wholly new way and then combine the “common sense” modifications. I did agree that was true, at least until yesterday.

While 2010 was quite an eventful year for IP in Australia and New Zealand, this still does not equate to dozens of potential stories to pick from, given the relatively small populations involved. So in the end it was not hard to come up with a “top eight.” As for my selection criteria, I have simply chosen those cases, events and themes that seemed significant to me from a professional perspective, or that captured the attention – and even the imagination – of the broader public.

If you are anti-patent then you are anti-innovation because those who innovate are not the behemoths of industry, but rather start-up companies that absolutely require patents in order to attract funding, expand and create jobs. Thus, given the hostility toward patents it is entirely accurate to characterize the Roberts Court as anti-innovation. The Roberts Court increasingly puts hurdles in the way of high-tech job growth. You see, it is easy for anyone to characterize the Supreme Court as “pro-business” because selecting a victor in a “business case” almost necessarily means that a business has been victorious. But what business? One that is likely to innovate, expand, create jobs and form new industry? Or one that once innovated and expanded, but now finds themselves stagnant and laying off employees?

When asked to name the Social Media Site most widely used by the business community, (in your opinion), I would venture a guess that more often than not people think of LinkedIn. LinkedIn is one of the few non industry specific Social Media venues that is widely utilized by professionals. But there is so much more to LinkedIn than just housing your resume. Since I wrote my series about LinkedIn there has been new capabilities that have emerged and new ways to customize your LinkedIn Profile. You can now even add a list of patents!

While the market is recovering, I suggest finding something to keep your spirits up, and I do believe that it’s different for everyone, depending on personality. My advice to individuals seeking employment in this market, particularly this legal market, is to do good works that make you feel successful in at least one facet of your life. Take this time to focus on small things and improve yourself. Work on maintaining relationships with your friends and family. Work on your marriage. Reduce clutter in your home or apartment. Become more health conscious and physically fit. Learn a new skill. Find a way to excel in whatever professional capacity you are currently serving in. See the positive, navigate around the negative, and carry a pleasant expression on your face; no one wants to hire or be around a sourpuss. Howl to some Warren Zevon and watch some funny YouTube videos. Hold a puppy. Things will get better.

It is unfortunate for businesses, but China is becoming practically synonymous with intellectual property theft, piracy and counterfeiting. On top of that, many technology companies are learning that doing licensing deals with the Chinese means they turn over the technologies and as soon as the Chinese corporation is capable of employing the technology the sever the relationship and then compete against American companies with American technology, they just don’t have to recoup the research and development costs and they have a cheap labor force.

Monster.com®, the leading job matching engine and flagship brand of Monster Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE: MWW), is now allowing its millions of job seekers to have the opportunity to update their behavioral targeting settings, thus ensuring even more relevant matches. The Career Ad Network uses patent pending behavioral targeting technology to reach candidates where they spend time online and present them with relevant job ads.

Apple, the company known for such popular devices as the iPad, iPhone and the iPod, has obtained a patent on a glove. Yes, the company known for pushing the envelope with high tech gadgets has entered the clothing market with a patented glove. Not just any glove mind you, but rather one that will be sure to help you keep your hands and fingers warm while still being able to use your favorite smart-gadgets. With respect to claim 1, I do wonder whether a double layer glove with a hole in the outer layer might be infringing, which of course would mean that it should have anticipated the claim.

The log jam in patents issuances is not the only impediment to start-up job creation. Although it is certainly a big one. Tax and regulatory burdens on start ups have reached a critical mass in the last 10 years. A fact recognized by President Obama when he signed an Executive order last Tuesday ordering the removal of burdensome regulatory rules on business. Also a problem are the post 9-11 immigration policies that are driving many of the world’s best and brightest scientists and engineers to other countries. But the biggest job killer beside the patent backlog is the systemic destruction of our high tech manufacturing capacity.

I wonder why we are discussing the definition of “use” under § 271(a) at all. It would seem that the Federal Circuit is potentially broadening the definition of “use” under § 271(a) in a manner that expands direct infringement to start to include those types of things that normally would have been infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Of course, the Supreme Court in Festo together with the Federal Circuit in Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation have eviscerated the doctrine of equivalents to the point of its non-existence. Perhaps Centillion v. Qwest, NTP and other cases yet to come will breathe new life into the theory under the guise of a direct infringement “use” of a system under § 271(a).

Specifically, we learned that the USPTO projects an average first action pendency of 23 months by the end of fiscal 2011, that participating in the First Action Interview Pilot Program more than doubles the likelihood of getting a first action allowance, that Track 1 rules are imminent with rules for Tracks 2 and 3 to follow and during FY 2010 nearly 6,000 USPTO employees worked from home at least a portion of their work week. We also heard an ominous and declarative statement from Kappos, who told the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property that the diversion of fees will cause the patent backlog to rise.