Facebook Scores Patent Coup In Social Networking Portfolio Purchase

Gigaom: Liz Gannes highlights Facebook's recent acquisition of a portfolio of patents from the seemingly defunct social website, Friendster, in her recent piece Facebook Buys Friendster Patents for $40M. She writes:

The Friendster patents, which date back to the early days of social networking, are incredibly broad. They cover things like making connections on a social network, friend-of-a-friend connections through a social graph, and social media sharing. Friendster had received its first patent back in 2006, when it was already on the decline. At the time, Friendster President Kent Lindstrom told me the company had nearly forgotten it had ever applied for the patents, but added that “We’ll do what we can to protect our intellectual property.” From then on, Friendster frequently mentioned its patents as an asset, but to the best of our knowledge it never actually tried to enforce them.

Facebook could get their 40 million dollars' worth from this significant acquisition of intellectual property (IP) related to their core business. Whether as a defensive or offensive purchase, Facebook's timely move could help them to squeeze other small players out of the growing network of social sites while helping to bolster their increasingly dominant position in the friend-network world.

Business Daily Africa: How exactly does philosopher John Locke related to intellectual property law? A good question, gentle reader. Richard Gitonga helps explain Locke's supportive position on the rule of law when it comes to protecting the creative fruits of one's labor in his topical piece, Protect intellectual property to gain from creativity. Here's what Gitonga offers on Locke along with a little Karl Marx thrown in, just for good measure:

He said people have a natural right to the fruits of their labour.

According to him, labour is an unpleasant activity people engage into not for its own sake but for benefits.

But Karl Marx said property rights exist to protect the interests of the ruling class against their less endowed brethren.

According to people who embrace this school of thought, they do not believe in the capitalistic theory of intellectual rights and believe that once goods are sold, a complete transfer of the property is done to the new owner who has every right to use and distribute the goods how he or she wishes.

This is the argument that is used by proponents of the free software foundation who believe that software should be created and distributed to as many people as possible to benefit a greater collective.

Well, whether we take the John Locke or Karl Marx pathway, our local entrepreneurs involved in software engineering and production should start hunting around for the best IP lawyers in town if they do not have any.

Protection is one of the keys, yes. But in order to have adequate protection, the public needs to understand and be educated about the rights of those people who spend their valuable time, energy and money on the legwork to get a new idea to market. Only then will the consuming public be concerned with whether or not their product is "the real McCoy" or a cheap, counterfeit copy that benefits only the faker with a small payment for an idea they didn't come up with and provides the purchaser with a shoddy and imitative good that might not be worth the reduced price paid.

ArsTechnica.com: In a detente of sorts, the United States, the European Union, and Google have all come to a mutual agreement concerning the selling of specific words that are protected under trademark law to persons other than the holder of the reserved term. And, as one might imagine, there are some concerned that are less than happy about the deal. Jacqui Cheng informs the gentle reader in her August 5th piece, US, EU agree: OK to buy trademarked terms on AdWords.

Advertisers in Europe will soon be able to buy other companies' trademarked terms using Google AdWords. Google announced Wednesday that it was changing its AdWords policy in Europe to align more closely with its policies elsewhere, meaning that a trademark owner won't be able to lay claim over all ads that use the same words.

Additionally, a judge in the US said that selling trademarked words to other companies wasn't likely to create confusion about where to find the real product.

Interesting, yes, and a blow to advocates hoping to protect trademarked words from being bought up by competing sellers who might not be providing the true item to the end user. Check out the remainder of Cheng's piece to find out the contents of US Judge Lee's ruling on the matter.

PatentBaristas: The ever-constant scribe, Stephen Albainy-Jenei, covers the ruling against drug manufacturer Eli Lilly in an ultimate decision by the US District Court in eastern Michigan. From his comprehensive Eli Lilly Loses Method Patent After the Use Was Disclosed in an Earlier Patent, Albainy-Jenei provides some of the pertinent facts and figures from the case for the gentle reader:

Eli Lilly lost an appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, finding claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,464,826 invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over its earlier U.S. Patent No. 4,808,614.  See, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries v. Eli Lilly and Co., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2010-1105).

Lilly markets the drug Gemzar® (gemcitabine) for the treatment of various forms of cancer. Both the ’614 patent and the ’826 patent cover gemcitabine and are therefore listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the Orange Book) with respect to Gemzar®. The ’614 patent claims gemcitabine, as well as a method of using gemcitabine for treating viral infections.

Sun Pharma is going to be popping open the bubbly with their generic success against Eli Lilly's patented formulation for a cancer-fighting treatment. More on the hazards of "double patenting" and why the court ruled that "[i]t would shock one’s sense of justice if an inventor could receive a patent upon a composition of matter, setting out at length in the specification the useful purposes of such composition, . . . and then prevent the public from making any beneficial use of such product by securing patents upon each of the uses to which it may be adapted" in the linked piece above.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Bloomberg Businessweek's Protect Your Intellectual Property at the Today's Tip column, courtesy of T. Craig Bott, President and CEO of Grow Utah Ventures in Salt Lake City.

And, because it's Friday, how about one more to start the weekend off on the proper footing? Should we consider EPO and foreign rulings? The German position by Jeremy at PatLit.

US Copyright Group Appear To Have Copied Website Verbatim

ArsTechnica.com: The people behind a large number of "John Doe" lawsuits have apparently "borrowed" heavily from a similar group's website and are being called out on it by none other than Nate Anderson, who reports on the matter in his topical post, Anti-P2P lawyers accused of copyright hypocrisy. He writes:

Have the copyright enforcers been caught with their hands in the cookie jar? The blog TorrentFreak today published its claim that the US Copyright Group, which has filed more than 14,000 lawsuits against anonymous P2P movie sharers, ripped off another copyright settlement group in crafting its own settlement website.

The site was tipped off by a reader, who claimed that US Copyright Group had jacked code and visual elements from Copyright Settlements, which is in a similar business: sue P2P users, then send them letters demanding a settlement to avoid trial.

The sweet smell of hypocrisy!

Anderson and like-minded intellectual property enthusiasts must be reveling in the irony of a group of lawyers whose most dearest wish is to sue others for copyright infringement have been caught copying directly from a competing lawsuit mill. Read more of Anderson's piece for additional details of this potentially serious legal faux pas.

Telegraph.co.uk: Famous British vacuum cleaner manufacturer, Dyson, deserves the kind of intellectual property protection that accompanies a valid, innovative effort to produce new and original products. According to Damian Reece, Dyson sued the maker of a copycat vacuum cleaner, but lost the case, which isn't the kind of IP enforcement in question, but rather, the opposite of honest dealings that are the hallmark of British justice. From Reece's Britain must get serious about protecting its intellectual property:

You might think it's a trick question and that both are. In fact the one on the left is a Dyson, the one on the right a Chinese product called the Mach Zen. Dyson has sued the maker, Vax, for design infringement (and you can see why) but yesterday lost its case. It's expected to appeal this most ridiculous of High Court decisions and good luck to it.

Design is crucial to our future as a high-end manufacturing exporter but if companies can't protect their designs (which are just as important as patents) we're done for. A design doesn't just mean a pretty technical drawing. It represents huge amounts of time and investment, research and development, to get something to the manufacturing stage.

Helping recoup the costs associated with inventing a novel product are part of what IP protection is all about, and if the legal system can't help make it evidently clear to entrepreneurs that they will be able to get back some of the energy/money they put into researching and developing such items, they might decide to find a more favorable venue in which to pursue their business. Like say, America!

Securing Innovation: The informatively-titled Google Patents Indexing, Retrieval of Blogs highlights the world's leading search/online advertising company's bid to search blogs by using a patent to defend its proprietary methods. Here's the scoop on what the company presents as a background for their new patent application:

The World Wide Web (“web”) contains a vast amount of information. Locating a desired portion of the information, however, can be challenging. This problem is compounded because the amount of information on the web and the number of new users inexperienced at web searching are growing rapidly.

Search engines attempt to return hyperlinks to web pages in which a user is interested. Generally, search engines base their determination of the user's interest on search terms (called a search query) entered by the user. The goal of the search engine is to provide links to high quality, relevant results (e.g., web pages) to the user based on the search query. Typically, the search engine accomplishes this by matching the terms in the search query to a corpus of pre-stored web pages. Web pages that contain the user's search terms are identified as search results and are returned to the user as links.

Over the past few years, a new medium, called a blog, has appeared on the web. Blogs (short for web logs) are publications of personal thoughts that are typically updated frequently with new journal entries, called posts. The content and quality of blogs and their posts can vary greatly depending on the purpose of the authors of the blogs. As blogging becomes more popular, the ability to provide quality blog search results becomes more important.

Indeed Google wants to lock up the ability of others to search blogs, and with the recent Bilski ruling coming down apparently in favor of software and business method patents, they just might be setting themselves up for a very lucrative IP licensing side business.

NAMAC: A group of university students have taken on the task of defending a film company against claims that their work violates the spirit of "fair use" clauses meant to allow snippets of media to be used in new, transformative works. Gilien Silsby at the University of Southern California Law News Service reveals to the faithful reader the story behind a real-life victory for students learning how to apply their classroom knowledge to the world outside academia in her related piece, the lengthily-titled USC Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic Wins Copyright Law Exemption on Behalf of Filmmaker. She reports:

Alongside a team of USC Law students from the USC Intellectual Property and Technology Clinic, NAMAC has helped secure an exemption that will allow documentary filmmakers to use material contained on DVDs and other sources that were previously off limits.

The exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was announced today by the United States Copyright Office. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 makes it a crime to break the digital locks on DVDs and other media. The restriction prevented filmmakers from making fair use of material, or using public domain material.

Together with Beverly Hills entertainment attorney Michael C. Donaldson, the students represented Kartemquin Films of Chicago, IL, the International Documentary Association, and a national coalition of documentary filmmakers and filmmaker organizations.

“This is a huge win for documentarians,” said Prof. Jack Lerner, director of the Clinic. “Instead of using DVDs, filmmakers were forced to use costly, time-consuming, and technically inadequate workarounds, like taking the footage they sought for their films from VHS tapes. It became increasingly clear that these were not viable alternatives, as such material is either unavailable, too degraded, or technically unsuitable for documentary filmmaking.”

Fair use is absolutely necessary to the creation of new works, as each additional instance of a movie, or song, builds on the roots established by those creators before them and without adequate protections for those who use small pieces of others' works in their own original creation, creativity and artistic growth would grind to a halt. Be sure to read Silsby's entire piece to hear feedback from the students involved in this winning effort.

The Blog of Legal Times: The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) got its 2010 funding from Congress, but as the process for determining the amount to be budgeted for the important intellectual property organization is flawed, the award might fall far short of what is needed to reduce patent application pendency and help hire additional examiners to backfill a serious hole left by disgruntled ex-USPTOers. Maria Coyle has more:

The legislation, which now goes to the president, stems from the rather unusual budget system for the PTO and the annual problems that system creates. The office is fully financed by user fees. Every year it estimates the amount of fees it will collect, and the House Appropriations Committee subsequently appropriates an amount equal to the estimate.

“It's imperfect because their predictions are obviously imperfect,” Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) told his colleagues on the House floor on Wednesday. “They are talking about revenues that they may or may not receive into the future.”

But it now appears that the agency will collect more fees this year than it had estimated—roughly $129 million more. Under the current budget authority, the PTO would be unable to touch that extra money. And so Congress had to step in.

3 cheers for a bit of fiscal sanity! With the windfall amount to be used by the USPTO to do just what is stated in the opening paragraph of this BLT entry. About time Congress modified the USPTO's budget methodology to make sure monies collected from patent-related fees aren't siphoned off for other uses but are applied where they are needed most.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Rambus investors gleeful over big legal victory by Therese Poletti at MarketWatch.com.

Michigan Denies Tax Break To Video Gamer Producer Over Question Of IP Control

Freep.com: Intellectual property ownership is at the center of a tax credit dispute by a video game developer who moved to Michigan to take advantage of its favorable climate for game makers. Katherine Yung reports on the CEO of Scientifically Proven, Nathaniel McClure, and his battle to get what he's got coming in her topical piece, Game maker Scientifically Proven sues Michigan. She writes:

McClure, CEO of the video game developer Epicenter Studios in Sherman Oaks, Calif., moved his family to Farmington Hills last year because of Michigan's generous tax incentives for video game development. He now employs 15 people at a new company, Scientifically Proven Entertainment, which is creating a "Man vs. Wild" video game based on the Discovery Channel show. The Farmington Hills-based company has also been providing internships for would-be game designers at Michigan State University.

The state's tax credits for video games debuted in April 2008 but no one has yet received approval to claim them, according to Ken Droz, a spokesman for the Film Office. McClure is among the first to apply.

McClure said state officials have refused to meet with him, leaving him with few options but to file a lawsuit July 15 in Oakland County Circuit Court. Both the Film Office and the Treasury Department declined to comment.

A representative for the State of Michigan says that McClure simply doesn't qualify for the tax because he doesn't own the intellectual property related to the Discovery Channel show.

In a June 8 letter to McClure, Janet Lockwood, who was Michigan's film commissioner at the time, said state officials denied a tax credit to McClure's company because it does not own or control all of the intellectual-property rights involved in producing the "Man vs. Wild" video game. "An applicant with less than overall control over the project is not an 'eligible production company' eligible for the credit," Lockwood wrote.

She said that the video game's publisher, Crave Entertainment, may apply for the tax credit because it appears that the company does own or control the intellectual property rights.

Find out why McClure thinks he's got a good case due to the wording of the related clause in Michigan's ta law by reading the rest of Yung's piece via the link above.

AFP: US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk recently reiterated the Obama Administration's push to bring Chinese IP protection and enforcement into alignment with US policies and desires. From US to press China on controversial technology policy come more details of this on-going effort to squeeze China into taking US interests to heart, especially those of protecting American innovations and products/services based on a protected status. Also of interest is a China-biased government procurement policy that is seriously crimping foreign (read: US) business interests in the world's most populous nation:

The United States said Wednesday it would continue to press China on its drive to develop homegrown technology that threatened global intellectual property protection and market competition.

Despite assurances from Beijing, President Barack Obama's top trade official said Washington would raise the issue at upcoming bilateral trade meetings.

"We did address it and we were pleased that we got them to at least agree to be more transparent but we do not have final resolution of that," US Trade Representative Ron Kirk told reporters.

"That is going to be one of the top items that we continue to engage China on," he said, commenting on criticism by the top US business lobby on Chinese industrial policies promoting indigenous innovation.

Look for the USTR and the US Chamber of Commerce to increase the pressure on China as the number of pirated American products continues to increase, despite promises by Beijing to the contrary.

PatLit: Jeremy Phillips' timely piece, Interest on damages for infringement not a correctable error, explains how a small "slip" created a serious headache for the litigants in a UK patent trial. Here's the introductory paragraph to get started on:

Yesterday's decision of Mr Justice Floyd (Patents Court, England and Wales) in the latest round of Leo Pharma A/S and another v Sandoz Ltd [2010] EWHC 1911 (Pat) (see earlier post here) picks up following the trial of an action in which Leo Pharma's patent infringement claim against Sandoz was upheld. A draft order before the court included a provision that 'The Defendant shall pay to the Claimants any sums found due on the taking of said inquiry into damages or account of profits together with interest at the judgment rate (being 8%) from the date of this Order".

Read on to find out the rest of the story, and also check out Jeremy's previous post on the court case in question: Unfortunate, but curable.

Harvard Business Review: Why China Might Never Protect IP by Chris Meyer & Julia Kirby highlights the difficulties facing those optimists who see China as just a hop, skip and a jump away from a realistic and robust IP enforcement regime. Mid-way through the piece, the authors present a case study on what things portend for IP rights in China:

The world's drug companies have a trove of accumulated research. The successful research is disclosed as part of the licensing process. The research leading to dead ends, however, sits alongside the Ark of the Covenant in the warehouse from Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark. In your Godlike view, which would be better for the economy, keeping it there or disclosing it to the world of researchers? Certainly there would be cases in which one scientist's ceiling would become another's floor, and a recombination of knowledge would accelerate progress — once again at no marginal cost. And if you add non-economic considerations like, say, the benefits of accelerated drug discovery, there's a huge welfare gain to the world's population. In a society truly based on information economics, the non-disclosure of drug research might properly be prosecuted as stealing.

Well, then. Should hard-won knowledge be "free" for the taking by under-developed, or developing nations? And if that's the supposition of nations like China, will they be willing to crack down on IP theft in the future once they get rolling on ascendancy to 1st World nation status?

CongressDaily - Tech Daily Dose: Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner speaks out on the Google-Yahoo! search deal in Japan with some very real sentiments against the antitrust-worthy arrangement. Juliana Gruenwald features Heiner's remarks in her July 27th piece, Microsoft Blasts Yahoo Japan-Google Deal. To whit:

In a blog post, Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner argued that the deal will "eliminate search competition in Japan--in paid advertising and natural search results." He noted that Google accounts for about 51 percent of paid search advertising in Japan, while Yahoo Japan accounts for 47 percent, with their natural search results "almost as high. ... If Google is permitted to proceed with its plan, it would gain nearly complete control over search and search advertising in Japan through contract, not organic growth."

Heiner said this deal is bigger than the 2008 deal Google and Yahoo, which owns part of Yahoo Japan, abandoned after the Justice Department said it would file an antitrust lawsuit to block it. While he notes that Google has said the latest deal already has been approved by Japanese authorities, Heiner said, "It will be interesting to see over the next few weeks if that is really accurate."

Here's to hoping some common sense comes to the rescue, Japanese-style!

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Study About IP On The Human Genome Shows That Patents Hindered Innovation by Mike Masnick at TechDirt.com.

Angola Aims To Join Intellectual Property Protective Nation Club

Angop: Angola is getting more serious about protecting intellectual property as evident from a recent two-day event in Luanda. Intellectual property boosts typical products from the Economic section of the Angola Press website provides more details of this encouraging development:

Kiala Gabriel, who was speaking at the opening ceremony of the National Conference on Intellectual Property, recalled that the economic development of the countries is based on knowledge and innovation which is possible only if we invest in research and promotion of human capital.

The official reported that the re-launching programme of manufacturing industry that is being implemented will contribute to the country's economic growth and lead Angola to less dependent on imports to exporting of goods of advanced technological content.

To this purpose, he called for the need to create instruments that allow the harmonious exercise of economic, scientific, technological and cultural activities through the effective protection of intellectual property.

A number of important organization were in attendance for the opening ceremonies of the Angolan IP meeting, including the World Trade Organization and World Intellectual Property Organization. Best of luck to Angola as it moves to bring its IP policies more in line with other developing/developed nations.

RGJ.com: A favorite car event in Nevada is subject to a change of venue should the owners of the Hot August Nights trademark find a better deal elsewhere. This, despite efforts of local politicians and business owners to keep the event in its hometown, Reno, Nevada. Here are the details from Frank X. Mullen Jr.'s topical piece, Hot August Nights trademark owned by local group:

Candice Pearce Bielser, the former councilwoman, said some Hot August Nights officials were talking about moving the festival to Japan in the early 1990s. She said she checked with the Nevada secretary of state’s office and found that the state trademark rights on the name had lapsed, so she registered the rights to the trademark.

“I turned (the trademark) over to the Reno-Sparks Convention & Visitors Authority with the stipulation that the name stayed with the event in Reno,” she said. “It might have given them some leverage.”

If the organizers moved, she said, the name could still be used locally.

Agency officials said Tuesday they have no record of the transaction. Bielser said she recently moved and can’t immediately find her copy of the documents.

For now, HAN, as the event is known locally, will continue to be held in Reno but the owners of the trademark certainly could move it to a new location should the right circumstance present itself. That is to say, an offer that would make more money for Hot August Nights Inc. to host the world-famous car cruise and show in a different location.

BlockShopper Philadelphia: Not sure why this deserves special notice, but what the heck, let's take a look any who.Intellectual property lawyer scores The Philadelphian condo by Carrie Reed highlights the purchase of a condo by an IP legal eagle.

Alexandra B. Gignoux and David Jon Wolfsohn bought a one-bedroom, one-bath condo at 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. in Philadelphia from Sylvia S. Sanft for $285,000 on June 17.

Unit #4A1 measures 1,262 square feet. It is part of the Philadelphian condo development, which was built in 1960.

Wolfsohn is a partner in the Philadelphia office of Woodcock Washburn LLP. He practices in the area of intellectual property litigation.

Maybe it's a groovy thing for an IP lawyer to secure a condo in the 'City of Brotherly Love' but for whatever reason, a few more people will be aware of Gignoux and Wolfsohn's good fortune due to this additional, and modest, coverage.

BrandChannel: Google is still in the middle of numerous legal battles due to its practice of selling keywords to competing companies other than the trademark holder of a given term or brand name and a recent French decision throws yet another monkey wrench in Google's AdWord works. LVMH Applauds Google Trademark Ruling by Barry Silverstein informs the gentle reader of the action from Europe:

[T]he French Supreme Court has ruled that Google "can be held liable for the sale of trademarks as AdWords on the grounds of civil liability." The court has referred Google's dispute with Louis Vuitton to the Paris Court of Appeals. Zut alors!

Apparently the French would rather support LVMH than Google — and with good reason. LVMH is a French holding company, a global leader in luxury goods, and in the greater scheme of things, rather important to France's economic well-being. LVMH is also on something of a Web warpath, also spearheading a Europe-wide move for luxury brands to block e-tailers peddling counterfeit goods.

LVMH is delighted at the French court's ruling in its Google suit, stating that the decision "helps to clarify the rules applicable to e-commerce, in order to ensure greater legal certainty to the benefit of both businesses and consumers operating online."

Looks like more of the same is in store for Google as it wades through its legal troubles both at home, and abroad.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: From The Gadsden Times comes 27 schools back Bama in trademark suitby Adam Jones relates how all of the members of the Southeastern Conference are standing behind their fellow football conference member, the Crimson Tide, as they try to resolve a trademark lawsuit over paintings that portray the team's protected intellectual property.

Mike Masnick Agrees With Intellectual Property Organization On ACTA

TechDirt.com: Mike Masnick is a vocal opponent of increased protections for intellectual property and the recent foofarah plaguing the proposed ACTA legislation has gotten some additional comments denouncing the international IP protection agreement from an unlikely corner. Masnick explains how the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) made a favorable impression on him in his topical piece, Even US Intellectual Property Organization Concerned About ACTA Being Too Broad & Changing US Laws. He writes:

The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) recently sent its own letter to the US government complaining about the scope and specifics of ACTA (pdf). The Intellectual Property Owners Association is not exactly the sort of organization you can accuse of wanting weaker intellectual property. It's also not an organization that I agree with very often (as you might imagine). But, in this letter, the group points out that ACTA appears to be way too broad and that, contrary to claims from ACTA negotiators, it seems clear that it would require changes to US law.

How did IPO voice its dissenting opinion you ask? Like this:

ACTA is unwittingly broadening the scope of the seizure power of Customs and Border Patrol forces to encompass civil action trademark infringement and raising the specter of potential abuse in many countries around the globe. The determination of whether marks are similar and whether there is a likelihood of confusion should not be conducted hastily and in an ex parte manner by a border official, but should instead be based upon the appropriate legal analysis (possibly resulting from extensive pre-trial preparation and discovery where allowed).

The complete IPO letter is available at Masnick's site along with the rest of the relevant quotes and analysis from the linked piece above. Check it out and learn why for once Masnick agrees with a pro-IP protection organization.

Law.com: For another opinion on the recent ruling regarding "qui tam" lawsuits against companies that falsely mark their products with patent protections, we join Scott E. Scioli, registered patent attorney with the law firm Feldman Gale, and his related article, Patently Unproved: False Patent Marking Defendants Breathe Sigh of Relief. Scioli covers the reversal of a previous ruling that designated a $500 fine for *each* instance of a product with a false marking:

In what will be welcome news in the offices of general counsel around the country, on June 10 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.

The decision likely deals a mortal blow to what was a burgeoning cottage industry of patent marking "trolls" filing qui tam suits for false patent marking. A huge increase in the filing of such suits arose in the wake of The Forest Group v. Bon Tool, 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009), decided last December.

In Forest Group, the Federal Circuit considered the statutory damages provision of the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292. Forest Group held that § 292(a), which provides a fine of up to $500 "for each offense" actually defined the fine on a per-article manufactured basis.

Thereafter, false marking plaintiffs began scouring store shelves for any mass-manufactured product with inaccurate patent markings, with hopes for a massive payday. Federal courts have been inundated with hundreds of false marking suits filed since December.

Pequignot will curtail the ongoing threat of such suits in the vast majority of cases.

One wonders what's in store for companies that improperly mark their goods and how the Pequignot decision will affect consumers who purchase items that show a patent protection (expecting some level of quality or the like). Scioli rightfully suggests playing it safe when it comes to patent marking:

Given the notice function of patent marking, and the risks of not marking patent numbers on products, companies can and should continue to mark their products as they deem appropriate, and should not include deceptive markings on any products.

Better safe than sorry, gentle reader.

ArsTechnica.com: A porn company is fighting for its right to include copyrighted music in its "works of art" by claiming the music is incidental to the filming location and not dubbed over or inserted after the fact. Jacqui Cheng explicity explains RealityKings' situation to titillate and entertain the concerned IP aficionado in her recent post, Porn purveyors claim fair use in record labels' lawsuit. Let's get to it:

In their complaint, Warner Bros. and gang claim that RK Netmedia "engaged in copyright infringement of the most blatant and offensive kind." Not only does the company make millions from subscribers to its website, RK also licenses videos to satellite TV broadcasters. The music labels appear to have a blanket policy not to license their works for use in porn, and therefore all of the music used in the porn videos must be unlicensed, say the music labels.

"Defendants simply stole these sound recordings and musical compositions, synchronizing Plaintiffs' works more than 500 times into the soundtrack of their pornographic videos without license or consent from Plaintiffs, apparently hoping that their conduct would go unnoticed," reads the complaint.

The twist here is the nature of the videos and the music in them. True to its name, the porn site films its videos in reality show style—that is, the studio takes its stars to "real, operating nightclubs" and records whatever unscripted action may occur, RK Netmedia attorney Marc Randazza told Ars. As such, the music used in the videos isn't being dubbed over or played on a soundstage; Randazza says it's just the music being played in the background at the club.

Cheng later points out that the "dancing baby on YouTube" defense might not work so well in this instance of incidental recording of Warner Bros. properties but you gotta give some credit to RK for thinking they can get away with blatant theft. At $150K per incident, they need all the luck in the world to come out on top.

Search Engine Land: Looks like Google got a break in a French lawsuit claiming the company infringes on the trademarks of at least 3 companies due to keyword search results. Barry Schwartz reports on the matter in his news item titled Google Claims Victory In French Supreme Court Keyword Trademark Case.

Today, the French Supreme Court was unequivocal in their rulings and anyone who reads them will be left in no doubt that there was no trade mark infringement in these cases. In addition, the Court went beyond the European Court of Justice by excluding any act of unfair competition or misleading advertising by Google. The Court also ruled in Google’s favour in a related fourth case brought by a French company called Gifam.

Google said they are happy with this decision because “the appeal court needs to apply today’s judgement” of what was mentioned above. But Louis Vuitton said they are happy because it “will enable the Paris Court of Appeals to rule on Google’s civil liability when using trademarks without the trademark owner’s authorization.”

France isn't the only country Google is facing legal action due to the returns of keyword searches, so this one victory is by no means reason to close the book on trademark troubles.

Reuters.com: "eBay sued for $3.8 billion in PayPal patent case" is quite the catchy opener and Jonathan Stempel's words on the topic should serve as satisfactory notice on the subject. Here are a few of them for your perusal:

According to the complaint filed Tuesday by XPRT Ventures LLC in the federal court in Delaware, eBay allegedly stole information shared in confidence by the inventors on XPRT's own patents, and incorporated it into features in its own payment systems, such as PayPal Pay Later and PayPal Buyer Credit.

XPRT said that when eBay on April 30, 2003 filed a patent application titled "Method and System to Automate Payment for a Commerce Transaction," it failed to tell the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office it knew of XPRT's own patent applications.

By filing for a similar patent, eBay "admitted the patentability of the inventors' claims," the complaint said.

The $3.8 billion dollars punishment is only the start of what XPRT hopes will come its way. "It is also seeking treble damages resulting from eBay's alleged "willful and malicious conduct," punitive damages, and other remedies." Wow. I'm at a loss for additional thoughts, but you can read Stempel's here.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Card Activation Receives Notice from Patent Office Regarding Reexamination Proceeding at The Wall Street Journal Market Watch.

Google’s ITA Acquisition Attracts Antitrust Attention

The New York Times - BITS: Brad Stone details the recent acquisition by Google of flight information provider ITA in his recent piece, the aptly-titled Regulators Prepare to Dig Into Google-ITA Deal. As with any recent acquisition by the Mountain View, California search and advertising giant, this one is attracting investigatory interest like bees to honey. Stone explains:

It’s no secret that United States antitrust enforcers are looking closely at Google’s business practices and the way it leverages its dominance in Web search into other Internet markets. Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said last week that the companies anticipated a “significant review” of the ITA purchase.

But just how significant? According to one person knowledgeable about the agencies that oversee federal antitrust law, who asked for anonymity because the review process was confidential, discussions are under way between the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department to see who will get to review the deal.  According to this person, either agency would “dig in pretty aggressively.”

Stone notes that some experts see the deal as being one that will win approval from antitrust authorities, but make the approval of the Google-ITA purchase linked to some kind of data-sharing deal with other companies in the business of flight data, such as Orbitz and Priceline.

Bloomberg Businessweek: The recent US Supreme Court ruling on Bilski might have unintended, and positive, consequences for the bio-tech industry. In her topical article, Novartis, Myriad Get Boost After Court Patent Ruling, Susan Decker reports on how a number of companies will most likely end up with strengthened arguments for their patented genetic innovations due to the court's take on business method patents. Here's the scoop:

Myriad Genetics Inc., Genomic Health Inc. and the rest of the burgeoning industry for personalized medicine stand to gain from yesterday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on patenting business methods.

The Supreme Court ruled that judges should be more flexible in determining if methods, rather than objects, are eligible for patents, citing emerging technologies such as medical testing. The justices followed through today, ordering a lower court to reconsider two cases involving Prometheus Laboratories Inc. and Classen Immunotherapies Inc., which sell tests that determine how to treat a patient.

"Abstract mental processes," which before were the bastion of high-minded thinkers and other such lofty types, might now receive the patentability that many had hoped they would under the newly-bolstered interpretation of software and business method patents. And, it could be argued, it's about time.

TechDirt.com: In an ironic turn of events, the Doggfather, aka Snoop Dizzogie Dizogg, is being sued for sampling jazz music in his rap music. In his July 8th post, Snoop Dogg Sued By Famed Jazz Artist For Sampling by Mike Masnick breaks down the situation for the constant rezeeder:

We recently talked about how up-and-coming jazz musicians were struggling because copyright law was getting in the way of their ability to build on the works of others -- as their jazz forefathers had done from the beginning of the jazz era forward.

And now it appears that some jazz greats, who relied on just the same ability to build on the works of others, are now using copyright law to try to stop other artists from building on their own works. Michael Henderson, a bandmate of Mile Davis, and an incredibly influential jazz musician is now suing Snoop Dogg for sampling.

Bummer for Snoop and the Dogg Pound crew, as every new generation of musicians builds their special blend of songs on top of tunes written by those who came before them. I don't think it's quite yet time to pour out a forty on the curb for the the death of sampling but maybe a licensing agreement might be in order.

PatLit: The ever-productive Gena Mason provides another hit for the Innovators-Network blog roll with her timely post, Patent law changes as eminent domain?, Mason writes on a new argument against some changes in patent law that is being viewed by some in the pharmaceutical business as a form of "eminent domain" seizure.

For months, arguments have raged about a controversial article published in the February 26 issue of Science magazine. In "Fixing the Legal Framework for Pharmaceutical Research" (available by subscription only), Sherry Knowles contends that recent changes to U.S. patent law have resulted in loss of revenue for brand-name pharmaceutical companies, to the advantage of generic manufacturers. Knowles suggests that this transfer of profits amounts to a "taking" of property -- a form of eminent domain -- in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A very clever attack on patent law, indeed. If Knowles' opinions are taken to heart, we could be in for a long round of lawsuits against the current patent code from some Big Pharma companies with very deep pockets, not too mention all-star legal teams.

Microsoft News Center: Here's a tasty tidbit that tastes a lot like cross-licensing goodness courtesy of the Microsoft press release crew: Microsoft Enters Into Patent Cross-Licensing Agreement With DENSO Corp. The agreement "covers intellectual property in automotive infotainment and in-dash navigation" and should bring an end to the company's troubles with its infortainment products:

“Microsoft is investing in automotive infotainment software, something you can see from products like Ford SYNC, Kia UVO and Blue&Me, and we’ve developed a compelling patent portfolio in this space,” said David Kaefer, general manager of Intellectual Property (IP) Licensing at Microsoft. “A patent license like this will allow both DENSO and Microsoft to deliver the type of cutting-edge innovations that our respective customers demand.”

DENSO is getting key access to a number of related Microsoft technologies that could lead to lucrative revenues in the future as cars become more automated and linked with on-line products and services. Be sure to visit the Microsoft News Center and read the entire piece for more on this excellent deal.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Mediation in Thomas-Rasset case fails, RIAA hit with bill by Nate Anderson at Arstechnica.com - Law & Disorder column.

PatentBaristas.com: The USPTO has published a document in reaction to the recent US Supreme Court ruling on the Bilski patent case that provides guidance to patent examiners until a formal set of rules can be incorporated into the application process. Stephen Albainy-Jenei covers the news release in his related piece entitled USPTO Sends Interim Guidance Memo To Examiners Regarding Bilski Decision. He reports:

Examiners should continue to examine patent applications for compliance with section 101 using the existing guidance concerning the machine-or-transformation test as a tool for determining whether the claimed invention is a process under section 101. If a claimed method meets the machine-or-transformation test, the method is likely patent-eligible under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is directed to an abstract idea. If a claimed method does not meet the machine-or-transformation test, the examiner should reject the claim under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is not directed to an abstract idea. If a claim is rejected under section 101 on the basis that it is drawn to an abstract idea, the applicant then has the opportunity to explain why the claimed method is not drawn to an abstract idea.

The directive also notes that the patent must "be novel, non-obvious, and fully and particularly described" along with meeting the new guidelines under the current post-Bilski interpretations. The USPTO will continue to examine the SCOTUS' Bilski ruling and modify future guidance accordingly.

Policy Innovations: From Australia comes a lengthy interview featuring the opinions of Prof. Matthew Rimmer, a Senior Lecturer at the Australian National University's College of Law, an Associate Director of the Australian Center for Intellectual Property in Agriculture, and a member of the Climate Change Institute at the ANU, on intellectual property and clean tech. From the aptly-titled Clean Tech Intellectual Property we gather some answers from Professor Rimmer:

We hear all the time that technological development is our best hope for transforming the oil economy and mitigating climate change. President Obama just did this in his Oval Office speech about the oil spill. He said that, "scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries." The problem is that "the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development."

Intellectual property issues lurk in the background of these public policy questions about energy research and development. If someone develops a fantastic new solar panel, the best choice for the environment would be to give it away as cheaply as possible so that the maximum number of people could get it. But giving a technology away undermines the incentives that private companies have to develop new technologies. If I can't profit, why would I invest in expensive research and development? Here, standard intellectual property rights are in tension with some public goods.

The discussion that follows this introductory segment of the interview roams far and wide across the subject of what exactly constitutes IP and how it plays out in policies and meetings related to the issue of climate change. Also of concern is how best to address global warming while keeping some semblance of IP enforcement for content owners without squashing the hopes of those third-world countries who need inexpensive solutions to their pollution problems. Read all of the interview for Rimmer's ideas on how he thinks a mutually-beneficial arrangement can be agreed upon by all parties.

ArsTechnica - Open Ended: Google's efforts to release the VP8 video codec into the wilds of the Internet unfettered by IP protections or related royalties seems to be gathering steam. Ryan Paul investigates the current status of the VP8 codec as implemented by ffmpeg in his topical piece, FFmpeg gets its own implementation of Google's VP8 codec. Here's more on open source video codecing as envisioned by Developers Ronald Bultje & Co.:

Building on top of FFmpeg will allow them to take advantage of a substantial body of existing code. FFmpeg already supports previous iterations of the codec, such as VP5 and VP6, which share some common characteristics with VP8. According to Bultje, some of the optimizations developed for FFmpeg's H.264 and VP5/6 code can be shared seamlessly with the new VP8 implementation. This approach will lead to a smaller footprint than if the developers were to simply graft Google's code into FFmpeg.

Bultje also believes that he and other developers can produce an FFmpeg-based VP8 decoder that will substantially outperform Google's code. In his blog entry, he points out that this wouldn't be unprecedented because FFmpeg's Theora and Vorbis decoders are widely regarded as superior to the standard reference implementation that is produced by Ogg-backer Xiph.

"It is highly likely that our native VP8 decoder will (once properly optimized) also perform better than Google's libvpx," he wrote. "The pattern here is that since each libXYZ has to reinvent its own wheel, they'll always fall short of reaching the top. FFmpeg comes closer simply because our existing wheels are like what you'd want on your next sports car."

But the developers admit that the strong similarities between Google's VP8 implementation and that of H.264, currently the reigning video codec, might lead to patent disputes in the not-so-distant future. Stay tuned for more developments as they happen...

TechDirt.com: So, you ask, how exactly did the makers of the now mostly irrelevant Encyclopaedia Britannica become the holders of a GPS-related patent? A good question and here's an answer provided by none other than Mike Masnick in his timely post, It Appears That The Encyclopaedia Britannica Entry On Shaking Down GPS Providers With A Bogus Patent Needs Updating. He writes:

Through a series of events, Britannica ended up in possession of a rather infamous patent (5,241,671), originally granted to Compton's back in 1993. That patent was initially used to claim control over... well... pretty much all multimedia, including CD-ROMs and certain aspects of computers and software. The story got so much attention that the USPTO's boss stepped up and directly ordered a re-exam of the patent. All of the claims were struck down, but Compton's (and soon Britannica who took over ownership of the patent, being an investor in Comptons) kept trying. After eight long years of fighting back and forth, the patent with narrower claims was granted, which Britannica decided covered GPS technology.

And with their GPS patent firmly in hand, EB decided to sue a number of other businesses for infringing on their IP crown jewel but, as luck would have it, the patent and related appeals have been "dumped," leaving the company to further molder as its contemplates how it went from one of the premier providers of information in the modern world to a small-print footnote.

National Journal - Tech Daily Dose: Juliana Gruenwald covers the efforts by an organization in charge of the fight against illegal online pharmacies to clamp down on their proliferation by limiting their use domain registrations. From Gruenwald's ICANN Urged To Crack Down On Registrars we gather more bits on LegitScript's John Horton's attack on fake online pharmacy domains:

Horton...called on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the Internet's domain name system, to crack down on registrars that violate their accreditation agreements with ICANN, which bars domain names from being used for illegal activities. Citing a recent report from an Internet security research company called KnujOn.com, Horton, who contributed to the report, noted that some registrars have become safe havens for rogue online pharmacies. "Without their [registrars] sponsorship of the illicit transaction structure, the problem would not exist," the report said.

ICANN has not yet responded to Horton's accusations of complicity but you can be sure they will come out with a statement clarifying their position in the fight against illegal, unsanctioned online pharmacies in the coming weeks.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Bilski Ruling: The Patent Wars Untouched by Steve Lohr at The New York Times BITS column.

The 271 Blog: Peter Zura's recent post, USPTO Close to Agreement With POPA to Overhaul Performance Review for Examiners, highlights what looks to be a successful meeting of the minds between the nation's patent office and the examiners' union. Zura reports:

USPTO management has worked with representatives of the patent examiners union (POPA) to establish a proposal to "better align the performance standards for patent examiners with the USPTO’s goals for increasing quality in patent examination and reducing the backlog of pending patent applications." If adopted, the changes would be the first major revision to the patent examiners’ performance appraisal plan (PAP) since 1986.

Perhaps this is the first in a series of positive steps on the way to reducing both patent pendency and the number of weak patents polluting the world of high technology. Zura notes that the agreement would allow examiners more leeway in using their own individual, professional discretion during the patent process while at the same time create more transparency in the measurement of patent quality. The proposal will soon come up for a vote by the members of the patent examiners union (POPA) and could be a bellwether of things to come.

Intellectual Property Watch: The maker of one of the most profitable recreational drugs on Earth is struggling to retain its market dominance in a country known for its carnal appetite. Claudia Jurberg has more details of Pfizer's battle against generic imitators in Snag In Early End To Viagra Patent In Brazil. She writes:

The date 20 June will mark the authorised end of Viagra’s patent in Brazil, following a 28 April decision of the Superior Court of Justice. Since the decision, five laboratories have requested registration for drugs that are generic versions of Viagra or similar to it, according to press reports. EMS, the largest generic pharmaceutical company in Brazil, was the first to receive it and announced it would produce Viagra generic on the first day after the end of the patent and pharmacies could sell it a week later.

The snag mentioned in the title of the piece is due to a Brazilian law stating that generics must be priced at least 30 percent less than the trademarked version of a given drug, and because Pfizer recently dropped the price of Viagra by more than half, generic drug manufacturers such as EMS might have to re-calculate their prices and profits more carefully before entering the marketplace.

bnet: Looks like Google's poised to start manufacturing content on demand if a recent patent is an indication of what lies in store for Internet searchers who find themselves coming up empty-handed. Erik Sherman's Google and Demand Media Racing to Patent Automated Content [Update] has additional information for the gentle reader:

Demand Media has made a big name for itself in cheap content by analyzing search queries and commissioning content that addresses the specific interests.

According to a story in the Financial Times, Google (GOOG) recently received a patent that would “replicate one part of what has made Demand’s approach to content so successful”.

The implications are that Google has major plans to publish its own content — and to keep others from using search analysis to create super sites that would pull eyeballs, and ad dollars, away from Google’s own Web properties. But it may have trouble if Demand Media’s own patent applications go through, which could act as barriers to Demand’s profit-maximizing methods.

Both companies are targeting the same audience and have patents granted, or under examination, that would put them at loggerheads and likely result in some kind of legal fracas or maybe even a cross-licensing agreement if everyone's feeling friendly.  And a move by Google to create content to match searches might put it under further scrutiny by the powers that be, who are already breaking out the magnifying glass and fingerprint dust as it is.

PatLit.com: The University of Oxford Press is at it again: this time it's a tome on the topic of patent misconduct. Jeremy Phillips offers a brief synopsis of the book's content in his topical review entitled First the ethics, now the misconduct ...

Just published, and the focus of this note, is Patent-Related Misconduct Issues in U.S. Litigation by Joel Davidow (a partner in IP boutique Kile Goekjian Reed and McManus of Washington, DC). The publisher's blurb claims that this is "the first book of its kind to provide a comprehensive review of misconduct claims and defenses, with reference to existing case law and litigation strategies", pointing out that it is "designed to serve as the first comprehensive review of conduct defenses and counterclaims, with a focus on existing case law and litigation strategies".

Phillips goes on to quote from the book and wonders how such a book has surfaced in the United States and not in Europe where there is surely some similar concerns about patent-related misconduct. Read his complete piece for the rest of the story via the link above.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: USPTO Seeks Change Patent Examiner Performance Standards new release at IPWatchdog.com.

Tips On Negotiating China’s Intellectual Property Laws

China Law Blog: For a short primer on how foreign businesses can better navigate intellectual property laws in the world's most populous nation, check out Top Seven Intellectual Property Mistakes By Foreign Companies Doing Business In Or With China. Here's the first of Dan's tips:

1.  Failing to use employee invention agreements.  True of China as well. These agreements essentially require new hires agree to report anything to the company that they invent that result from any work performed on behalf of the company or relate in any manner to the existing or contemplated business of the company, or result from the use of the company's time, material, employees, or facilities. They also mandate that any such inventions are assigned by the employee to the company. These agreements make sense in China as well.

Dan also recommends a number of other things a business can do to better protect valuable intellectual property assets when operating in China, so be sure to read his entire piece at the link above.

Reuters.com: The maker of a popular series of software programs aimed at helping people learn foreign languages has come to agreements with a number of individuals accused of pirating its products. Sayantani Ghosh in Bangalore has more details in UPDATE 2-Rosetta Stone settles trademark infringement cases.

 Language training software maker Rosetta Stone Inc (RST.N) said it settled trademark and copyright infringement cases with 10 individuals.

"They agreed to stop selling pirated software and we have reached civil settlements with each of them," the company's general counsel, Michael Wu, said by phone.

In a statement, Rosetta Stone claimed these individuals pirated software, including the unauthorized copying, downloading, sharing and selling of counterfeit Rosetta language learning software.

The company's stock price saw a bump up after news of its agreement with the accused. Rosetta is also considering appealing a previous ruling by a federal judge that dismissed its case against Google for selling keywords related to its software to pirates, according to the piece.

TechCrunch.com: Two tech titans are burying the hatchet after doing battle for years over disputed patented innovations and infringement thereof. Robin Wauters reports on the terms of the agreement that includes a cross-licensing arrangement among other accommodations in her topical piece entitled Motorola And RIM Make Peace, End All Outstanding Litigation Worldwide. She writes:

Motorola and RIM will “benefit from a long-term, intellectual property cross-licensing arrangement” going forward. The agreement involves all parties receiving cross-licenses of various patent rights, including patent rights relating to certain industry standards and certain technologies, such as 2G, 3G, 4G, 802.11 and wireless email.

In addition, the parties will transfer certain patents to each other.

For more information on this long-awaited detente, be sure to read all of Wauters' thoughts via the piece linked to above.

Forensic Focus: A computer forensics company has been granted a US patent for its proprietary software products used in a variety of computer-related investigations. USPTO Awards Key Patent to ADF Solutions for Digital Forensics covers the story nicely:

ADF Solutions, Inc., a provider of forensic triage tools for computers and peripherals, has announced that it has been granted a patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office pertaining to methods of searching forensic data. The patent has critical applications for forensic triage, cyber-security, cyber-intelligence, digital forensics, and e-discovery. The patent covers the company's innovative SearchPak® technology, which enables an organization to capture its digital forensic investigative strategy and share it across organizations and with other individuals while not revealing the actual content...

A good software application can be critical when security and privacy are key concerns in any on-going forensic efforts and should help ADF Solutions gain a firm foothold in the forensic triage tool market place.

Mondaq: The European Court of Justice (EJC) has made a ruling in the case of Google's adword system as it applies to patented, or otherwise protected, material. Here's the summary of the case courtesy of Susan Barty, Tom Scourfield, Susie Carr and Isabel Davies in their jointly-authored article, United Kingdom: ECJ Rules on Austrian Google AdWords Dispute:

The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") has ruled on an Austrian dispute concerning the legality of Google's AdWords system in relation to an alleged trade mark infringement. The decision follows the recent and much-publicised Google France case, in which it was found that it is possible for the display of a sponsored advertising link to mislead an 'average internet user' as to the origins of the goods/services, and therefore could constitute trade mark infringement by the advertiser.

The ECJ strictly followed the guidance that it laid down in response to the Google France case (see our recent Law-Now ) and ruled that, generally, the owner of a trade mark cannot oppose the use of a sign identical or similar to its own mark unless that use is liable to cause detriment to any of the functions of that mark. However, it is always for the national court to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not the use by a third party of a proprietor's trade mark as a keyword on Google constitutes such detriment, and as such is use that the proprietor should be entitled to prevent.

There are still some questions on Google's sale of keywords to other than the holder of the trademark or copyright on a certain term, or collection of terms, but these will be addressed by the EJC in the coming months, according to the authors.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Patent Nonsense - some problems with the current Patent Copyright and IP system at Next Big Future.

Rwanda Works Towards A Modern, National IP Policy

Intellectual Property Watch: Rwanda is updating its intellectual property regime to come more in line with modern standards. Kaitlin Mara has more details of an African nation on the move forward in her related piece, New Rwanda IP Policy Taps Information For Development. She writes:

There are several specific characteristics of Rwanda’s innovation system that needed to be addressed with the formulation of the law, says the text of the new Rwandan intellectual property policy, available here [doc]. The policy provides the rationale, objectives and context for Rwanda’s adoption of new policy for IP rights. The country also passed a new IP law. A copy of the IP law text is now available here[pdf], in Rwanda’s three major languages. [Note: a copy of the law first appeared on the Afro-IP blog, here.]

These characteristics include: few resources dedicated to innovation, a “system dominated by minor and/or incremental innovations,” small firms not always stable over the long-term needed for research and development, reliance on informal practices and government support rather than the private sector, and outside dominance of key innovation sectors.

To learn now Rwanda has addressed it's IP-related shortcoming, but sure to read the rest of Mara's piece at the link above.

PR Newswire: A group of scientist responsible for the creation of "Rynaxypyr®, an advanced insecticide that protects growers' crops from damaging pests" will be honored on June 10th at the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation's 37th Annual National Inventor of the Year Award, hosted by the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. IPO Education Foundation Honors Top Inventors of 2010 provides information on this prestigious event:

The National Inventor of the Year Award fosters the spirit of American innovation and highlights the protection offered to inventors by the patent system.  The Award is the best known honor for recent American inventors, having gone previously to those responsible for the development of the Jarvik Seven Artificial Heart, Bose speaker technology, Powercore® LED technology and other patented breakthrough inventions.  The award will be presented by David J. Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

For the 4 co-awardees, this is bound to be a highlight of their year. Congratulations to George P. Lahm, Ph.D., Thomas P. Selby, Ph.D., and Thomas M. Stevenson, Ph.D. of DuPont for their efforts to help bring more food production to over 60 countries around the world through the marvel of modern chemistry.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek.com: The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has decided against Tivo in it claims related to "a patent on what [the company] calls its 'time warp' technology that lets users record a television program and play it back at the same time." Bloomberg's Susan Decker has more:

The agency issued a final rejection June 4 of two aspects of a patent on what TiVo calls its “time warp” technology that lets users record a television program and play it back at the same time. The patent office review is a parallel proceeding to TiVo’s legal case before a U.S. appeals court.

The two patent claims are the same claims that a jury in 2006 found Englewood, Colorado-based Dish and EchoStar to have infringed. In the June 4 rejection letter, the patent office said the two elements of the patent under review were an obvious variation of earlier inventions.

Read the rest of Decker's Tivo Claims in Dish Case Rejected by Patent Office (Update1)to learn more background information about the Tivo case and how the stock market reacted to the USPTO's ruling.

HackerJournal.com: Watch a video of Google CEO Eric Schmidt as he pontificates on the subject of Intellectual Property. Knowledge is power, they say, whoever "they" are...

PA Law Blogs: Does intellectual property help businesses become and remain profitable? A good question, and one that's handily answered in Experts Say Companies with Strong Intellectual Property Strategies Raise More Capital. Here's the scoop:

According to a Business Wire report, MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Joseph Hadzima Jr. believes that the companies that win big in the future will be those that used these tough economic times to “put together intellectual property strategies that support their broader business strategies.”

A Government Accounting Office (GAO) study showed that for a small company, the cost to maintain a patent in the top 10 industrial countries was from $350,000 to $500,000. In addition to being cost-prohibitive, the process also takes a minimum of two years in the United States. That is probably one reason why patent applications have declined in the last two years, with businesses facing increasingly stringent economic decisions to make.

Now is the time to regroup and protect your company's valuable IP. Even if it pinches a bit at first, the long term prospects for an excellent ROI are stronger now than in recent history. As Nike says, "Just do it."

IPWatchdog: Google is defending itself in a lawsuit based on its collection of publicly available Wi-Fi information and Gene Quinn's topical post, Google Sued for Privacy Violation, Patent App Provides Clues, explains how IP is involved in the mysterious story of the Wi-Fi privacy invasion caper. Quinn reports:

In reviewing the ‘776 Application, it does seem to potentially provide some problems for Google.  Repeatedly throughout the application there is discussion of sniffing or scanning being performed by a client device, which seems to be a part of the overall architecture involved in the invention.  The client device receives and captures frames, with an analyzer program the captured frames can be parsed, with usable data being extracted and used.

The Google patent application also talks about storing the information collected from various client devices and using information collected over a period of time collectively, perhaps with more recent information being weighted as being more relevant.  In discussing possible relevant factors in determining the reliability of the captured information the patent application explains that a relevant factor may be whether the capture comes from “a trusted party providing the readings versus uploading them through an Open API implementation.”  Furthermore, the Abstract of the patent explains that data is “obtained by observation/analysis of packets transmitted or received by the access point.”

To find out more about the pending lawsuit against Google for violating privacy laws in the states of Oregon and Washington, be sure to read Quinn's entire post via the link up there.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Guident will boost efficiency of Patent Office data warehouse by David Hubler at Washington Technology.