Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

Indeed, more then 80 percent of most companies net value consists of intangible assets such as intellectual property. There is an increasing need to protect these assets in order to mitigate risk and avoid litigation. Even the most powerful companies in the world have a need for protection of their IP portfolios. In order to help defend themselves against patent litigation, Google put in a bid of $900 million for the patent portfolio of Nortel Networks which includes over 6,000 patents.

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.

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.

In a bit of a twist this year, the party nominating the National Inventor of the Year will also be recognized. Most nominations come from patent attorneys, so this is a great way for the IPO to recognize the team behind the inventor, as well as honoring the inventor. The nomination deadline is June 1, 2011, so now is your chance attorneys and agents to nominate those inventors you work with for their innovative contributions. I can’t think of a more worthwhile endeavor for our industry than to recognize remarkable innovators, so I encourage everyone to go through their client rosters and nominate those outstanding inventors who deserve recognition.

One of the costliest mistakes a startup can make is mismanaging intellectual property rights. A company needs to not only manage its own IP rights, but also avoid those of third parties, including competitors. To be on the safe side, therefore, intellectual property management should include efficiently protecting the startup’s IP rights while also avoiding the IP rights of others.

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 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.’”).

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.

Everywhere I go, I meet entrepreneurs whose ventures either failed or are slowly dying on the vine because of the outrageous delays they suffered in getting patents. Who would invest the huge sums needed to develop a new medical treatment, for example, without at least the promise of exclusivity and a return on their investment that a patent provides? But because of delays stretching up to seven or more years in getting a patent, these startups lost crucial funding opportunities—or in some cases, even went bankrupt—as a result of the backlog of 1.2 million applications now throttling America’s overburdened and underfunded “innovation agency.”

As James Madison stated in Federalist Paper No. 43, the usefulness of the Congresses power to award both patents and copyrights “will scarcely be questioned.” Madison, Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, at 512-13 (Hunt and Scott ed. 1920). Given that today’s business world is increasingly based on a company’s ability to innovate and acquire intangible assets in the form of both copyrights and patents, it would appear as if the constitutional goal of stimulating creativity and invention has been wildly successful.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that a digital library of this size would provide access to works that would otherwise never be seen, or worse, destroyed. The idea of a digital library is, quite frankly, awesome and one that I thoroughly applaud. More people would have access to works, the knowledge base of humans would increase exponentially, and there would be more availability of audio and Braille books for the hearing and vision impaired. Out of print and otherwise forgotten and falling apart books would be rejuvenated, precious written words would be rescued from certain ruin, and a whole world heretofore unheard of would take center stage. The heavens will part, champagne will fall from the sky, and unicorns will prance gleefully in the tulip fields. Ok, maybe not that last part, but still…

The China Road Show is a series of two-day China IP events that the USPTO is hosting across the country to help educate businesses about the realities of piracy and counterfeiting—which cost the American economy approximately $250 billion annually. Day 1 is largely devoted to understanding the patent, trademark and copyright laws in China, as well as enforcement of those rights. Day 2 of the seminar will address § 337 Infringement Investigations by the International Trade Commission (ITC), the challenges presented by counterfeiting and piracy on the Internet and the development of global IP strategies even for small businesses.

Many clients are unaware that the commercial general liability insurance (CGL) policy they hold is not fully protecting their most valuable assets, the ability to sell their products. And, most IP attorneys do not know that IP insurance is available to help fund their client’s IP litigation risks. If a client’s IP becomes involved in litigation, specialized IP Insurance products will help ensure that there are funds available to pay the associated legal expenses. Without specific IP Insurance in place, the client may be left with a less desirable way of protecting their IP assets.

Believe it or not, Patents are enforceable in China. Trademarks are enforceable in China. Copyrights are enforceable in China. The devil is in the details. Certainly if you are trying to enforce your patent against a company in the boondocks far west of Chengdu, and that company happens to be the largest employer in the district, then you are going to have problems. No one can / should tell you differently. However, can you tell me with a straight face that these same problems would not occur in the US if the situation was reversed – where a foreigner is asserting a patent against a local, respected employer in a rural area of the US?