Green-Arrow IP Helping Entrepreneurs Manage IP

On Thursday, US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that revealed that future iDevices may in fact sport an advanced version of their current iOS feature known as "Tap to Focus." According to the patent application, Apple could add an additional dedicated processor to their architecture supporting the newly advanced multi-point gesturing. The feature will add other new functionality such expanding a given area of a photo for added emphasis. For the camera buffs amongst us, I think this may be a very cool feature in a future iPhone model.

Guest post by Sarah Burstein, who will joining the faculty of University of Oklahoma College of Law this August.  Her research focuses on design patents, an important piece in the smartphone wars. - Jason

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2012) Download 12-1105

Panel:  Bryson (author), O’Malley (concurring in part and dissenting in part), Prost

On May 14th, the Federal Circuit issued its first opinion in the world-wide, multi-front patent war between Apple and Samsung.  In this opinion, the Federal Circuit considered the district court’s denial of Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction based on infringement of three design patents and one utility patent, affirming in part and vacating in part.  The opinion provides notable holdings in the areas of irreparable harm and nonobviousness.

In the motion, Apple argued that Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G smartphones infringed U.S. Des. Patent No. 618,677 (“the D’677 patent”) and U.S. Des. Patent No. 593,087 (“the D’087 patent”) and that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer infringed U.S. Des. Patent No. 504,889 (“the D’889 patent”).  Apple also argued that all three of the devices—along with Samsung’s Droid Charge phones—infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 (“the ’381 patent”), which claims the iPad and iPhone “bounce” feature.  The district court denied the motion based on, among other things, its findings that:  (1) Samsung had raised substantial questions regarding the validity of the D’087 and D’889 patents; and (2) although the D’677 and ’381 patents were likely valid and infringed, Apple had failed to provide sufficient evidence on the issue of irreparable harm.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to the D’677, D’087, and ’381 patents based on a lack of irreparable harm.  The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in finding no likelihood of irreparable harm with respect to the D’677 and ’381 patents.  And although the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that the D’087 was likely anticipated, it still found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the preliminary injunction “[b]ecause the irreparable harm analysis is identical for both smartphone design patents.”

On the issue of irreparable harm, the Federal Circuit rejected Apple’s argument that the district court erred in requiring Apple to demonstrate a nexus between the claimed infringement and the alleged harm.  According to the Federal Circuit:  “If the patented feature does not drive the demand for the product, sales would be lost even if the offending feature were absent from the accused product.  Thus, a likelihood of irreparable harm cannot be shown if sales would be lost regardless of the infringing conduct.”  On appeal, Apple had argued that the district court had erred in rejecting Apple’s dilution theory of irreparable harm.  The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that “[t]he district court's opinion thus makes clear that it did not categorically reject Apple's ‘design erosion’ and ‘brand dilution’ theories, but instead rejected those theories for lack of evidence.”  However, the Federal Circuit agreed with Apple that it “would have been improper” for the district court to completely reject “design dilution as a theory of irreparable harm.”  The Federal Circuit did not explain why it “would have been improper” or provide any further explanation.

The Federal Circuit did, however, vacate the denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to the D’889 patent.  The district court had found that the D’889 patent was likely obvious, using a 1994 tablet design (the “Fidler tablet”) as the primary reference.  In the design patent context, any finding of obviousness must be supported by a primary reference—i.e., there must be “something in existence” that has “basically the same” appearance as the claimed design.  If a primary reference is found, then the analysis proceeds.  But if there is no primary reference, the inquiry ends—the design cannot be obvious.  The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court, holding that the Fidler tablet was not a proper primary reference.  The Federal Circuit stated that “[a] side-by-side comparison of the two designs shows substantial differences in the overall visual appearance between the patented design and the Fidler reference,” pointing to the following illustration: 

 

Without a primary reference, the district court’s finding that Apple was unlikely to succeed on the merits could not stand.  And the district court had found that Apple had demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury with respect to the D’889 patent.  However, because the district court had not made any findings on two of the preliminary injunction factors—the balance of harms and the public interest—the Federal Circuit remanded this portion of the case for further proceedings. 

In her partial dissent, Judge O’Malley disagreed that the case should be remanded for further proceedings.  According to Judge O’Malley, the district court’s discussion of these factors with respect to the other smartphone patents supported the entry of an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1.  Judge O’Malley also expressed concern that the remand would create undue delay, stating that “courts have an obligation to grant injunctive relief to protect against theft of property—including intellectual property—where the moving party has demonstrated that all of the predicates for that relief exist.”

Comment:  The Federal Circuit’s conclusion regarding the Fidler tablet was surprising.  Only a few years ago, a leading commentator observed that “[a]s a practical matter, [the requirement that the designs have ‘basically the same’ design characteristics] means that the primary . . . reference in a §103 design case needs to illustrate perhaps 75-80% of the patented design.”  Perry J. Saidman, What Is the Point of the Point of Novelty Test for Design Patent Infringement?, 90 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 401, 419 (2008).  Using that rule of thumb—or really, any ordinary meaning of the phrase “basically the same”—the Fidler tablet would easily qualify as a primary reference.  Of course, that would not mean that the D’889 patent was obvious; indeed, there does not seem to be (at least from the public portion of the record) any persuasive evidence that an ordinary designer would have been motivated to modify the Fidler tablet in the manner shown in the D’889 patent.  But this strict reading of the “basically the same” requirement may make it more difficult to prove obviousness in future design patent cases.  And while it’s too early to declare a trend, it is worth noting that the Federal Circuit affirmed a rather strict reading of this requirement last year in Vanguard Identification Systems, Inc. v. Kappos (a case I discussed in a recent article). 

The other especially striking portion of this opinion is the Federal Circuit’s unquestioning acceptance of Apple’s “design dilution” theory of irreparable harm.  This sort of express equation of the harm caused by design patent infringement with the harm caused by trademark dilution is unprecedented in design patent case law (although not in the academic literature) and Apple’s theory deserves more attention and consideration than the Federal Circuit appears to have given it in this case.

A report posted by Wired today states that "It looks like we’ll be getting MacBook Pros with Retina displays sooner than later — or at least that’s what we’ve gleaned from a recently published Apple patent application and comments from an industry expert regarding Apple’s supply chain." Someone is mixing things up and slapping lipstick on a pig. The patent application published today is simply a continuation of a 2007 patent and doesn't lend credence to retina-display Rumors.

On May 17, 2012, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple revealing a new manufacturing process. The main focus of this particular invention concerns the creation of devices with a unitary housing without seams or gaps. In March of this year we learned of Apple's use of ultrasonic welding in context with fastening parts within devices such as the iPhone. Today we learn of ultrasonic welding being used in conjunction with metal foil so as to create seamless form factors. It's the kind of stuff that keeps Sir Ive giggling in his sleep.

On May 17, 2012, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that reveals a newly invented hybrid business card and gift card system. For any company principle or representative attending large events and tradeshows, Apple's unique hybrid calling card and promo gift card is something that could make exchanging cards with new contacts a little more inventive, if not interesting…

On May 17, 2012, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that reveals their intention of reinventing the speakerphone system for iOS devices. Although not detailed, the fact is that the new speaker positioning could provide iOS devices with general superior sound, even when docked.

At what point does an idea take enough form to be considered an invention that can be protected? First, it is completely correct to say that ideas cannot be patented. Having said that, it is equally correct to say that every invention starts with an idea. The patent laws in the United States differentiate between a mere idea and conception. When you have a conception you have an invention, and the easiest way to define the term “conception” in lay terms is as an idea plus some knowledge regarding how to bring the idea into being, whether your idea is a compound, a product, a process or unique software. No related posts. Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

May 30: Good looking upcoming seminar on Examiner Interviews being held simultaneously in DC (live), NYC, Chicago and Boston.  Cost is only $25 for Patently-O readers who use the code NLC530 and includes lunch. [LINK] Speakers are Kevin Greenleaf (Schwegman), Kurt Mueller (PTO), and Ryan Smith (Larkin Hoffman). The event is primarily sponsored by the new lawyers committee of the AIPLA.

I’m sorry that I can’t make it to Thursday’s Federal Circuit Judicial Conference at the Grand Hyatt in DC. The program looks excellent, including discussions from most of the Federal Circuit Judges, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts, Congressman Issa, David Kappos, BPAI Director Smith and many others.  Perhaps most interesting will be a set of mock-oral arguments before a set of German judges followed by a discussion of differences. Register at the conference for $425. http://pacer2.cafc.uscourts.gov/conf/

 

 

Texas based Rotatable Technologies is suing Apple for infringing on a 1999 patent that they acquired titled "Display Method for Selectively Rotating Windows on a Computer Display." The lawsuit ...

Trademark owners who attempt to file and prosecute their own trademark applications are really being pennywise and pound foolish. I appreciate the reasons for filing your own trademark applications, particularly in this economy. Many times, trademark owners are small companies in their infancy, or individuals that are trying to minimize legal fees while attempting to obtain valuable trademark protection. Nevertheless, there is significant long term damage that can be caused by filing your own trademark, or relying on a one-size-fits-all service provided by non-attorneys. Related posts:

1. The Perils of Being Your Own Trademark AttorneyTrademark owners who attempt to file and prosecute their own trademark applications are really being pennywise and pound foolish. I appreciate the reasons for filing your own trademark applications, particularly in this economy. Many times, trademark owners are small companies in their infancy, or individuals that are trying to minimize legal fees while attempting to [...]...
2. Trademark Process: Obtaining and Keeping a U.S. TrademarkWhen seeking to obtain a United States trademark there are a number of different steps to the process, and even after the trademark has issued there are several key events that must be planned for in order to continue to maintain the trademark in good standing. Before moving forward to elaborate it is vitally important to understand that once you file a trademark application it will be necessary to promptly respond to any inquiries made or issues raised by the Trademark Office, which will come from a trademark examining attorney. Likewise, to preserve the trademark in good standing there will...
3. Trademarking a Domain Name? Sure, why not?A common misconception is that a website that just advertises your goods or services can be a trademark. It can’t. The domain has to be a unique source indicator all on its own, meaning it has to tell people what your goods or services are on its own. Basically, if your domain name is just an Internet address where your customers can find you, it can’t be registered. It just tells people where to find you. It is merely incidental to your primary business purpose....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The US Patent and Trademark Office officially published a series of twenty-one newly granted patents for Apple Inc. today. The most surprising one of them all is one that snuck through the patent system until today. The newly granted patent, which has never been seen before, reveals a wireless remote control for a vehicle's steering wheel. At a time when local and federal laws are being drafted to enforce "hands free" operation of smartphones and other devices in vehicles, Apple's invention comes to the rescue to provide their customers with a sound solution. The design borrows from Apple's ...

Apple was first granted a design patent for their Upper West Side Apple Store in New York back in November 2011. Six months later and the US Patent and Trademark Office have granted Apple their second design patent for this same design. Steve Jobs has once again been posthumously credited as one of the designers. In addition to this, it should be noted that Apple has been awarded twenty-one granted patents today. Beyond the thirteen utility patents that we list covering such things as security, podcast management and the MacBook's Hard Drive, this report covers a major virtual keyboard victory for Apple which just might be one that Apple could challenge their many copycatters with.

Which brings us to the recent gem of an opinion from the Sixth Circuit. Maker’s Mark has been using red sealing wax on its bourbon bottles since the 1950’s, which it trademarked in 1985 (Reg. No. 1469925). Then, in 1997, the company making Jose Cuervo brand tequila started using red sealing wax on some of its special bottles, which were sold beginning in 2001. Needless to say, the Kentucky bourbon company took issue with the tequila company’s use of dripping red sealing wax and requested that such practice immediately stop. Cuervo said “Nope”, so in 2003, Maker’s Mark sued them. It appears that Cuervo stopped using the dripping wax seal in favor of a straight edged seal around 2006, but it countersued to cancel the mark. No related posts. Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Despite the reality that history teaches about the high-tech industry, shareholders/investors and the popular press will dive in and report what is being said by the newsmakers. Little is ever done, however, to figure out what all this actually means. Perhaps this is because the very nature of preparing a patent strategy is something that requires both understanding of the patent laws and a healthy understanding of business realities and evolving technologies, and not just business realities or technological advances in the abstract. Rather, in order to truthfully plot a course calculated to succeed company leaders need to be cognizant of the actual business realities facing the company, not the talking points of lobbyists or those who write SEC filings. Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding of the companies own research and development, as well as where the industry is heading, is crucial when attempting to create the patent strategy. Related posts:

1. Patent Strategy: Laying the Foundation for Business SuccessIt is also critical for inventors and entrepreneurs to have a strategy to succeed, which seems simple enough, but is typically anything but simple for the creative types that are so good at inventing. The goal is not to create an invention that is cool, the goal is not to get a patent, the goal is almost universally to make money. The cool invention and patent are a means to the end, not the end in and of themselves. If you approach your patent activities appropriately you can lay the foundation of a business plan, at least insofar as the...
2. What To Do If You Are Sued for Patent InfringementDespite the gathering storm, some businesses would prefer to pretend that patent infringement is not a problem for them and they won't be sued. The graph below shows that since 1980 the number of patent lawsuits filed has only gone up, with a record number (3,301) being filed in 2010. Add the frequency of the "dime a dozen" threatening letters sent by those seeking to extract licensing payments to the number of lawsuits filed and you can readily see that patent infringement litigation, and the associated threats thereof, are a growth industry. Here is what you need to know when...
3. Kodak Prepares to Sell 10% of Patent Portfolio to Stay ViableEastman Kodak Company reported that it was continuing its march forward toward becoming a profitable and sustainable digital company. A sustainable digital company? In order to achieve this goal Kodak will need to better leverage its intellectual property portfolio. How will Kodak seek to generate cash from its intellectual property portfolio? The company is shifting gears and is pursuing a plan to sell 10% of it is patent portfolio to attempt to raise cash to remain in business....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Freedom of Speech and Facebook

• Technology is forever changing, and with technological change there is also legal change. In a recent Virginia District Court case, the judge decided that liking a Facebook page is not protected speech. The judge stated that, "It is the court's conclusion that merely 'liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed in the record." I would like to think that if I like a page or a comment on Facebook or any other website with similar features that it is protected under law. Eugene Volokh of the University of California recently stated in a blog post that: A Facebook "like" is a means of conveying a message of support for the thing you're liking. That's the whole point of the "like" button; that's what people intend by clicking "like," and that's what viewers will perceive… I would treat "liking" as verbal expression — though it takes just one mouse-click, it publishes to the world text that says that you like something. But even if it's just treated as symbolic expression, it is still constitutionally protected, as cases such as Texas v. Johnson (1989) (the flag-burning case) show." [Link] Case

AOL Will "Supposedly Give Shareholders Proceeds From Patent Sale

• Last month AOL sold an estimated 800 patents to Microsoft for around $1 billion. When making the sale, AOL stated that they would give significant amount of the sales proceeds to shareholders. Subsequently, AOL shares rose 35% in April and is currently trading around $26.50 per share. AOL's CEO recently stated that AOL will give 100% of the proceeds of the sale to shareholders, with details to be released. [Link] [Link]

Chisum Patent Academy

• Earn Advanced Patent Law CLE in Spectacular Seattle This Summer: The Chisum Patent Academy is now accepting registrations for its 4th annual summer seminar in Seattle, July 30 - August 1, 2012. Their uniquely insightful, interactive seminars are limited to 10 participants. All sessions are taught by Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller. For further details on seminar coverage and registration information, see http://www.chisumpatentacademy.com or e-mail mailto:info@chisum.com

Patent Jobs:

• Faegre Baker Daniels is seeking a patent associate with 2-6 years of experience to work at their Minneapolis office. [Link]
• Luminex is searching for a patent associate with 3-6 years of experience and a graduate degree in molecular bio to work at their Austin, Texas location. [Link]
• Faegre Baker Daniels is looking for a patent litigation associate with 1-2 years of experience to work at their Indianapolis office. [Link]
• North Star IP is seeking patent associates with 3 to 4+ years of experience and a background in EE, CS, or CE to work at their Washington DC office. [Link]
• Finnegan is searching for an attorney with a background in electrical technologies and 1 to 3 years of experience in patent prosecution or litigation to work at their Reston, VA office. [Link]
• Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino is looking for a patent attorney with at least 4 years of experience and a chemical or biochemical background to work at their Cleveland office. [Link]
• Hickman Palermo Truong Becker Bingham Wong is seeking attorney with 2+ years of experience and a degree in CS, EE, CE, or physics to work at their San Jose office. [Link]
• Dickstein Shapiro is searching for 2 IP associates with 2-5 years of experience in prosecution and litigation and a degree in EE to work at their DC office. [Link]
• Tokyo Electron is looking for a patent agent/attorney with 5 years of experience and an advanced degree in EE to work at their Austin, Texas location. [Link]
• Hiscock & Barclay is seeking patent attorneys and patent agents with 3-5 years of experience to work in their upstate NY office. [Link]
• Hodgson Russ is searching for a patent attorney with at least 2 years of experience with a degree in EE to work at their Buffalo, NY office. [Link]
• Myers Wolin is looking for a partner level attorney (patent or trademark) for their Morristown, NJ office. [Link]
• Brooks Kushman is seeking a patent attorney with an EE or CS degree and 3-6 years of experience to work at their Southfield, Michigan office. [Link]
• Michaud-Kinney Group is searching for an IP attorney with a chem or bio background and at least 3 year of experience to work at their Middletown, Connecticut office. [Link]
• Sutherland is looking for an associate or patent agent with a degree in EE, CE, CS, or a related discipline to work at their Atlanta or Austin office. [Link]
• Abel IP is seeking a patent associate with 4+ years of experience in the chemical and/or ceramic materials art areas to work at their Austin, Texas office. [Link]
• Murphy, Bilak & Homiller is searching for a patent attorney or patent agent with 1-4 years of experience and a degree in EE to work at their Cary, NC office. [Link]
• Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton is looking doe a mid-level associate with a CS or EE degree to work at their Palo Alto office. [Link]
• The Ovidian Groupis is seeking Director, IP asset development, to work at their Berkeley, CA location; this person will have a JD degree and 2-5 years of patent pro experience. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

• LES 2012 Spring Meeting – "Licensing to Solve the Innovation Gap" will be held May 15-17, Boston, MA. Speakers from GE Healthcare, Harvard, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, MIT, Pfizer, Stanford and more will share their expertise on licensing to solve the innovation gap. (Patently-O readers save $100 by using promo code PO12 when registering) [Link]
• The World Research Group is holding its 4th Annual Corporate IP Counsel Forum on May 16-17 in NYC. The Corporate IP Counsel Forum will address key issues and uncover latest developments related to IP in the form of case studies and panel discussions. Some of the topics include, but are not limited to: The America Invents Act and its impact on patent litigation and prosecution, IP monetization strategies for small and mid-size companies, Patent valuation, The top 10 most influential court cases in IP this year, Patent eligibility, Invention mining, Divided infringement, Best practices for combating non-practicing entities, Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Copyright infringement. [Link]
• The Annual DRI Business Litigation and Intellectual Property Seminar will be held May 16-18, 2012, in New York City. Attendees will learn trial and appellate advocacy skills in business litigation get up-to-date on the last trends in intellectual property and business litigation, and network with in-house counsel, business and intellectual property trial lawyers and experts from across the country. Speakers include: Former ABA President, Dennis W. Archer, Dennis Archer PLLC, and David Leitch, VP and General Counsel of Ford Motor Company. [Link]
• Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP will present a free one-hour CLE webinar, "Inequitable Conduct After Therasense: Materiality and the Intent to Deceive in Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.," on May 23, 2012 at 12 noon EST. On April 9, 2012, for the first time after the Therasense decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct in Aventis, signifying that inequitable conduct based on failure to cite prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is still a viable patent infringement defense. During this webinar, Fitch Even partner Alison Aubry Richards will discuss how to defend against an inequitable conduct defense; how to maximize the chances of a successful inequitable conduct defense; and how to avoid inequitable conduct as a prosecuting attorney, before and during litigation. [Link]
• The San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association is hosting its annual seminar in Healdsburg, the center of one of California's best wine regions, from June 1-3. Speakers include Hon. Margaret A. (Peggy) Focarino, USPTO Commissioner of Patents, Hon. Robert Stoll, former USPTO Commissioner of Patents, Hon. Gerard F. Rogers, Chief Administrative Trademark Judge of the TTAB, Hon. Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge of Federal Circuit, Hon. Susan Illston, Judge of N.D.CA, Hon. Edward J. Davila, Judge of N.D.CA, as well as professors and leading practitioners. [Link]
• On May 21-22 Ronald Slusky will hold a seminar in Chicago, the seminar teaches a comprehensive approach to analyzing inventions and capturing them in a sophisticated set of patent claims. The seminar is based on Ronald's book, Invention Analysis and Claiming: Patent Lawyer's Guide. [Link]
• ACI will hold a Biosimilars conference May 22-23 in New York, NY. The conference will focus on the legal, regulatory, and commercial realities of biosimilars. [Link]
• The Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association invites you to join us for the 2012 LAIPLA Spring Seminar at the beautiful Lodge at Torrey Pines in La Jolla, California, on June 8-10, 2012. The Spring Seminar features nine hours of panel discussions and presentations on the latest developments in intellectual property law, provides excellent networking opportunities at the cocktail receptions and dinners, and allows sufficient time for relaxation and enjoyable outdoor activities, including a golf tournament at the Torrey Pines Golf Course, home of the 2008 U.S. Open. Speakers and panelists include federal judges, practitioners (including in-house attorneys), and academics. [Link]
• The C5's 11th Annual International Conference on Maximising Pharma Patent Lifecycles conference will be held June 20-21 in London. Patent lifecycle management is becoming more crucial for pharmaceutical companies with the cost of research and drugs continually rising and companies constantly trying to obtain the maximum financial benefit from existing patent terms. In addition to protecting existing IP rights and seeking methods to extend current patent lifecycles, pharmaceutical companies are faced with the challenge of inventing new drugs and diversifying portfolios to replace sales on older and generic drugs. [Link]
• The ACI 3rd annual Hatch-Waxman Boot Camp will be held June 25-26 in San Diego. Topics to be covered include: the organization, jurisdiction of the FDA and the PTO and their interplay in the patenting of drugs and biologics, how the approval process for drugs and biologics is connected to the patenting of these products, how the Hatch-Waxman Act established the paradigm for market entry of generic small molecule drugs – and how biosimilar and many others. [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

According to a recent survey sponsored by Intel on the subjects of "Mobile Etiquette" and "Digital Sharing," 9 out of 10 American adults believe that people are sharing too much information about themselves online, with nearly half of U.S. adults reporting that they feel overwhelmed by the amount of information shared. There's a lot of ground covered in this survey and some of the findings may even surprise you. If anything, the results of this survey will provide you with a unique fingerprint in time revealing the status of mobile etiquette in 2012.

By Jason Rantanen

When Congress passed the America Invents Act and President Obama signed it into law, courts were stripped of the power to declare patents either invalid or unenforceable for failure to disclose a best mode.  While it is true that amended section 112 of Title 35 still technically "requires" patent applicants to disclose a best mode if they know of one, courts will no longer enforce the requirement. For all practical purposes, the requirement that a patent applicant disclose a best mode is effectively dead.

Yet, perhaps in moving to eliminate the best mode requirement Congress acted too hastily.  In a recent online essay published by the Stanford Law Review, Lee Petherbridge and I draw attention to a benefit the best mode requirement provides (or perhaps "provided" is more accurate) that directly challenges the conventional attitude toward best mode, arguing that best mode works closely with the nonobviousness requirement to establish the level of "inventiveness" that the U.S. patent system has long considered optimal.

You can read the complete essay here: http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/in-memoriam-best-mode

 

Two patent applications that were published in January and February 2010 illustrated how a future iteration of the Magic Mouse might support a new graphics and/or painting program from Apple. Today we learn, through a document filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, that Apple might be thinking of resurrecting MacDraw.

Those with Twitter accounts who are looking for some good folks to follow look no further. Likely everyone in the industry is already familiar with folks like Professor Dennis Crouch of PatentlyO, who tweets @patentlyo, so I tried to focus (for the most part) on some lesser known tweeters. Below are some of my favorites on Twitter; people who in my humble opinion are excellent to follow. Of course, you can follow me @ipwatchdog and Renee @ipwatchdog_too. See you on Twitter! Related posts:

1. Follow Friday: IP Tweeters You Should Follow on TwitterIf you are a user of Twitter you have probably seen more than a few tweets using "#FF" followed by a number of names. #FF stands for "Follow Friday." On Fridays many Twitter users will suggest who others should follow by tweeting with the hashtag #FF. If this is gobbledygook to you where have you been? Twitter is a great way to stay up to day with news and information from the sources that you like the most. You need to get on the Twitter bandwagon and give it a try!...
2. Top 5 Twitter Myths Busted: Twitter DemystifiedOnce you understand what to tweet, how to tweet and how much to tweet, you are quickly able to make excellent connections, increase your website statistics and search engine ranking, find some of your best brand advocates, and benefit quickly and efficiently from word of mouth marketing. In fact, next to YouTube, micro-blogging on Twitter is one of the quickest ways for information about you, your brand, your business, your products and your services to go viral. Before one can feel comfortable on Twitter, they must first understand the purpose of Twitter, realize the potential of Twitter and learn how...
3. The Importance of Using Social Networking for Business; Part II – TwitterOne alternative that has taken America by storm and is widely used by politicians, most media outlets, authors and musicians alike is Twitter. And Twitter is not just for fun, but it is an important business tool as well. Twitter reports that Dell Outlet has generated more than $3 million in revenues as a result of it's Twitter posts. While you might not be as big as Dell, if you have a product you can't ignore free resources such as Twitter. Twitter allows your business to partake in real-time communication, connecting you with your followers and other potential customers "Right...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.