Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

Foley & Lardner LLP announced today that Sharon R. Barner has returned to the firm’s Intellectual Property Department in its Chicago office. Barner most recently served as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Intellectual property law is premised on incentivizing innovative and creative activities by providing limited property rights for the fruits of such activities in order to increase the storehouse of creative and innovative knowledge for the betterment of society. Excessive overlapping protection undermines the careful balance individually developed under each body of intellectual property law. Expansion of the subject matter protected under either patent, copyright, or trademark law should only occur if it does not undermine the careful balances struck under each of the other bodies of intellectual property law. Being mindful of the balance between protection and public interest can prevent unintended over-protection of intellectual property that would work to skew the balance in favor of rights to creators and innovators at the expense of the public.

Carrier goes on to detail the comprehensive research of Professor John Walsh who in 2007 surveyed 1125 biomedical researchers in universities, government labs and nonprofit institutions. Walsh received 414 responses and the responses were overwhelmingly clear. Carrier explains that only 3% of respondents indicated that they stopped pursuit of a research agenda based on an excess of patents present in the space. Furthermore, Carrier explained that a mere 5% of respondents even regularly checked for patents related to their research and “no respondents reported that they had abandoned a line of research because of a patent.”

If you look at the list, when they first started doing these ranking we were number one, then we were number four, and then we dropped. Now we’re number nine, and they only rank through number ten. So we’re tied for ninth with Duke, which is amazing given our size and our location. Now, the schools ahead of us are Michigan, Harvard and Stanford. In many ways we would never be on that list. To remain on the list, we needed to be in a bigger boat. We needed more resources. Otherwise, we might be pushed off the list, and we don’t want to fall off that list. So I think in some ways we were entrepreneurial as the school has always been, in ensuring our long term vitality. I think our capacity to be a larger player potentially with more resources, with more interdisciplinary activity in our IP center, has been enhanced.

On January 28, 2011, the recently retired Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, John Broderick, became the Dean and President of the University of New Hampshire School of Law. The new UNH School of Law is the law school formerly known as Franklin Pierce Law Center, renowned around the world for its intellectual property program. On January 31, 2011, I had the opportunity to chat with Chief Justice Broderick, who prefers to go by his first name these days.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Earlier this evening President Barack Obama delivered the 2011 State of the Union Address to a live audience in the House Chambers at the Capitol. Not surprisingly, President Obama mentioned “innovation” repeatedly. The use of the “innovation” rhetoric is to be expected any more from our elected leaders, but it is typically little more than rhetoric. Perhaps that is how this speech will ultimately go down in history, but I must confess near complete shock that President Obama did utter the word “patent” during his speech this evening.

The Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Intel Corp. that resolves charges the company illegally stifled competition in the market for computer chips. Intel has agreed to provisions that will open the door to renewed competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future. Under this agreement Intel must modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement.

Yesterday I had the honor of spending 30 minutes interviewing Francis Gurry, the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The Director General spoke substantively about issues facing the Patent Offices of the world, as well as some possible solutions. Gurry also discusses harmonization attempts, work-sharing agreements and the crushing worldwide backlog of patent applications that could lead to irrelevance of the system. As you read the interview you will also see that he thinks it is possible that the rest of the world will adopt a US-like grace period.

What follows are pieces of Director Kappos’ remarks at the session prior to taking questions and answers. While it is probably unfair to call these remarks prepared remarks, it was clear that he referred to his notes as he provided detailed information and statistics. He also seemed to be reading what he said when he spoke about the ACLU case against Myriad Genetics, but who can blame him given the USPTO was a nominal party to the case and it will be appealed to the Federal Circuit. It is also worth mentioning that during the Q&A there were a few interesting things that came up, chief among them was Kappos’ explanation of the long odds facing a small entity claiming to be the first to invent but who filed the patent application second. Kappos likened the odds of such a Junior Party prevailing to the odds of being bitten by a Grizzly Bear and a Polar Bear on the same day. He then went on to say that you have to go back to FY 2007 to find a prevailing small entity Junior Party in an interference.

For 2010 the US Trade Representative reviewed 77 trading partners for this year’s Special 301 Report, and placed 41 countries on either the Priority Watch List, Watch List, or the Section 306 monitoring list. The Priority Watch List for 2010 names the following countries:China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand and Venezuela.

How is it possible that a calendar that tells me that January 2 is a bank holiday in the UK, that February 6 is Waitangi Day in New Zealand, that March 13 is Eight Hours Day in Australia, and that July 12 is Battle of the Boyne Day in Northern Ireland, could possibly forget to mention that April 26 is World Intellectual Property Day! After all, World Intellectual Property Day is one of those global holidays celebrated all around the world, right? It is sort of universal, almost like Christmas and New Years Eve, although with substantially less hoopla. But not too much less hoopla this year given that today marks the 10th Anniversary, or birthday if you prefer, of World Intellectual Property Day.