That site traffic included visitors from the following federal agencies that I found to be notable:

• U.S. Senate Sergeant At Arms
• USDA Office of Operations
• US Department of Justice (multiple visits from different IP addresses)
• Hunton & Williams (multiple visits from different IP addresses)
• US Patent and Trademark Office
• Headquarters USA AISC (Army)
• Army Information Systems Command - Pentagon
• Fannie Mae
• US Sentencing Commission

Tags: Department of Justice, Fannie Mae, Hunton & Williams, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Pentagon, USA AISC, USDA, USPTO, US Senate Sergeant at Arms, U.S. Sentencing Commission

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Navigation Path

Stumble it!

Pre-KSR, one might have argued that there is no motivation to combine such references.  Post-KSR, one can still make that argument.  MPEP 2143.01(V) expressly states that a proposed modification of a prior art invention cannot render that invention "unsatisfactory for its intended purpose."  If it does, "there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification."  MPEP 2143.01(V) gives the example of a gasoline filtration device with an inlet and outlet at the top of the device and a stopcock at the bottom of the device for draining collected dirt and water.   The BPAI found claims to a blood filter obvious over that gasoline filter, on the grounds that it would be obvious to turn the gasoline filter upside down.  However, the Federal Circuit found that turning the gasoline filtration device upside down would render it unsuitable for its intended purpose, because the water and dirt would flow out of the outlet rather than becoming trapped, and that gasoline would rise to the stopcock and become trapped.

When confronted with a pick-and-choose obviousness rejection, this provision of the MPEP can be very useful.  When an Examiner writes a rejection that simply picks element A from one reference, element B from another, element C from a third and element D from a fourth, he or she typically is just looking for parts for cobble together, and rarely considers how they would function as a whole.  If any of elements B, C or D render the invention of the first reference unsuitable for its intended function, then each such element cannot be combined with the invention of the first reference.  As the number of references and their unrelatedness increases, the greater the chances that the addition of at least one of those references renders the base, prior art invention unsuitable for its intended purpose.

The summary and any objects listed in a reference patent or published patent application can be very useful here.  For example, if an object of the invention of a first reference is, for example, to provide a volume in which a workpiece object is kept dry, and element B from a second reference is identified as analogous to that space but requires that the space be at least partially filled with fluid at all times, then the second reference cannot be combined with the first under MPEP 2143.01(V).  Filling that space in the first reference would run contrary to the object of the invention, thereby rendering that prior art invention unsuitable for its intended purpose.

Next up: MPEP 2143.01(VI).

One popular theory on why the US has held such a firm and longstanding policy against the use and research of medical marijuana is that medical marijuana is not patentable nor profitable (so why would the US government or Big Pharma support its use). The article debunks this theory, arguing that pharmaceutical companies are actively patenting medical marijuana, which evidences that they are waiting patiently to jump on the opportunity to profit from legalization of its use as a treatment for a variety of diseases. The article cites US Patent 6,630,507 as an example of a patent for "medical marijuana."

This controversy is swamped with legal nuances that are thick and, for many, terribly boring to navigate. The author might have overlooked some salient factors that may have changed the slant of the story.

A more likely explanation for Big Pharma's patent filing spree - pharmaceutical companies want intellectual property rights (IPR) to cannabis based medicines to soften the financial blow to pharmaceuticals that treat the same diseases. Pharmaceutical companies cannot have exclusive rights for marijuana medicine (good bye market share). Plus, if they can't control medical use of pot that can be grown by anyone, why would anyone buy synthetic versions of marijuana or even formulations from marijuana plants that are modified for easier injection?

A few important aspects to understand the situation:

First, the distinction should be made between medical marijuana and cannabis based medicines. Cannabis based medicines in some forms are patentable subject matter. The USPTO permits inventors that "invent or discover and asexually reproduce any distinct and new variety of plant" to obtain a patent. What that means is that cannibus based medicine in some forms, such as marijuana synthetic pot derivatives (e.g., THC pill Marinol, etc.), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors) (e.g., HU-210, etc) cannabis antagonists (e.g., Rimonabant, etc), and pharmaceutical formulations of non-synthetic cannibus based medical marijuana, such as Sativex, can be patented (assuming they are novel and non-obvious, blah blah blah). But you can't patent medical marijuana.

Second, US Patent 6,630,507 is not a patent covering medical marijuana, per se. The claims are method claims, which exclude others from distributing some forms of marijuana to patients to treat diseases. What this means is that doctors (or drug dealers or self-medicators or whatever) are excluded from distributing marijuana to patients without the OK of the patent owner, therefore it follows that the patent owner is the only person that can purchase the marijuana for distribution. The essence of what the author is saying is still pretty relevant - this looks a lot like a way of reverse patenting something that shouldn't be patented.

Big Pharma can't do anything about this unless medical marijuana is legalized and their product is approved. It's a matter of business to determine if that's a more profitable situation than where they stand now, but I doubt they advocate legalization of marijuana. Big Pharma will speak up if medical marijuana becomes legalized.

Now let's take a look at who owns US Patent 6,630,507 - the United States government represented by the Department of Human Health and Human Services. (Weird, I thought those guys told us that marijuana offers no medical benefits?)

The fact that the US government owns this patent has a couple of implications:

First, if the medical use of marijuana is made legal in the US, the scientists at the American Medical Association were wrong when they proclaimed that pot has no medical value or the government was fibbing.

Second, the US government will have control over the distribution of medical marijuana if it decides to allow use.

This is similar to what Canada does through its medical marijuana program - Health Canada grants access to marijuana for medical use to those who are suffering from grave and debilitating illnesses. Health Canada obtains dried marihuana and seeds for medical use from Prairie Plant Systems, a company specializing in the growing, harvesting and processing of plants for pharmaceutical products and research, that holds a patent for scheduled production and equipment that can be used for cultivation of marijuana. I couldn't find a patent owned by the Canadian government covering the distribution of medical marijuana, but that doesn't necessarilly mean it doesn't exist, and the existence of the US patent probably doesn't mean that the use of medical marijuana is around the corner (the patent issued in 2003, after all).

The extent to which the US patent alarms you boils down to how you feel about the US government having control over who supplies the marijuana - a seed of thought that could lead to drug war and other political theories, depending on how cynical you are. The significance of whether or not privately owned treatment is approved as well could be large. Without approval of patented cannabis based medicines, the government has full control over regulation. This stuff is admittedly way out of my scope of understanding of the world.

What's evident any way you look at all this is that there are blatant inconsistencies relating to medical marijuana use. The US isn't the only country that deserves reprimand. Philippe Lucas, director of the Vancouver Island Compassion Society and head of the medical marijuana defense group, Canadians for Safe Access, says it best:

The government's approval also serves to illustrate the hypocrisy of our drug laws. You can have a plant-based medicine available through prescription, but medical marijuana is available only through an onerous bureaucracy and not to very many people. It's like having Vitamin C on the shelf, but outlawing oranges.

The legalization of medical marijuana isn't something that affects me personally, and while I do care about patients rights to chose their medication of choice, it's not something I've thought about until today. Big Pharma's role in the patent system isn't one that keeps me up at night, so if that is the case for anyone reading this, and I'm mistaken, please chime in and have me stand corrected. This is just me calling a spade a spade.

As far as this relates to the patent system, if the medical marijuana controversy has more to do with the financial pinch of Big Pharma from not being able to patent medical marijuana, that's clearly not a good reason for patients to suffer. I doubt it would even hurt pharmaceutical companies that bad. Perhaps this means that patents having only methods of use for subject matter that is itself statutorily unpatentable should not be allowed? (This, of course, barring the fact that such patent reform would have to be approved by the beneficiary of the patent at stake - the government.) Maybe this way patented products, such as synthetic cannibus based medicine, should succeed in the market because they have marketed a brand that is higher quality than anything else anyone can make and/or that is significantly more convenient to purchase. After all, most consumers chose to buy echinacea rather than grow it themselves.

Just an afterthought at this point - more on this later.

Stumble it!

I've got some catch-up to do, but I've got a question that I'd like to pose to the anti-patent corporations out there:

Why focus on diminishing intellectual property rights instead of pooling efforts towards improving the quality of patents at the patent office?

Here's where I can see where you might be coming from, giving you the benefit of the doubt:

You're up in arms about the state of the US patent system because you're innovating and bringing products to market, but you're under constant ambush by patent holding companies. These companies are benefiting from the issuance of specious and broad patents and use strong intellectual property rights to provoke frivolous law suits.

OK. Fine.

Let's assume the USPTO is issuing low-quality patents that make law suits an easy way for patent-holders to get a buck.

Why not focus on fixing the issues at the patent office rather than diminishing intellectual property rights that have historically served to reward innovation and provide enough protection to give incentive to smaller entities to invent?

Let's even assume that all of these patent-holding companies are non-practicing entities that "hoard patents" just to pepper you with infringement allegations.

Why aren't you filing patents on inventions that you see as valuable in a timely fashion?

You have the manpower, you have the funds, and your lawyers are probably the best at what they do. Moreover, the US is indeed a first to invent country - if you invented it first, you should win. I understand that sometimes it costs less to settle rather than go through costly litigation;

but don't you have strategic advisers that project long-term advantages from weeding out these so-called patent trolls if you are indeed the first inventors?

These are the walls that I run into when I try to formulate a just reason why the CFP would stand so staunchly behind patent reform. By all means, knock them down.

Stumble it!

Inventions and creativity seem elusive to many people. But they don't have to be like that. Most human inventions are not anywhere near the realm of geeky lab coat-wearing scientists or engineering physicists. Ideas that lead to invention come in various shades and forms, most of which are no space-rocket science. Nevertheless, what come to most people mind when they hear the word “invention” are great geniuses like Al Einstein, Con Edison, and Henry Ford; whereas an unlikely or ordinary person may have inventor-abilities if given necessarily tools and motivation.

Many non-living things we see around us were created as a result of average people’s concept – i.e. common Joes and Janes. You might be one of those people who knock themselves on the head for not acting when they had that eureka!! after you see the same thought-of concept implemented by a go-getter. Then all you can say is: “I should have [could have, would have] done that.” Yes, we have such regret sometimes because we never follow our gut feelings, or we simply let some non-thinking loser(s) discourage us that it is not possible.

Contrary to popular beliefs, you don’t actually have to produce any product to make money out of your creativity. According to Harvey Reese, the author of the book “How To License Your Million Dollar Idea,” there are ways in which one could execute ideas without putting his or her hard-earned money into them. Reese indicates: let the deep pocket manufacturers spent their money to make your licensed idea into fruition. In other words, you make a percentage on each of your idea-product sold. And he warns to stay away from the so-called “invention companies.”

Personally, I can relate to invention companies scam. How I wish I had his book before forking about $1000 to a company called InventHelp on W 34^th St, NYC. This company never live to his name-slogan. The only thing I got for my buck is a glossy hard-cover invention presentation, which is now gathering dust on my book shelf.

So if you have cool ideas you want to turn into inventions. You might want to do some research at the following links:

• How to Know if Your Idea Qualifies for a Patent

• United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO.com)

• Read the aforementioned book by Harvey Reese and check his website at Money4Ideas.com

These could save you money instead of rushing to a patent lawyer. In the meantime, you can also save money by filing for a "provisional" [temporary] patent while you research the viability of your idea. Provisional patent can be filed with the Patent Office. Browsing these links would be a good starting point for would-be inventors. The site provide important information and hints on inventions. It is always imperative peruse independent sources, less you fall victim of unscrupulous invention companies which advertise in the media.

The images below are inventions of individuals who are proactive enough to take their concepts to the next level.

-----------------

“Ideas are everywhere. It’s execution of good ideas – not the ideas themselves – that makes for successful businesses.” ------ Kelly Spors

Invention Facts and Myths - Read more>>>

Mr. Gizmo

Will They Buy It

60 Seconds with Tony Robbins

The growing animosity between the patent attorneys and agents and the USPTO is, however, largely unknown to the general public. From the patent practitioner perspective, the quality of examination by the USPTO can be ludicrous. Some Examiners completely ignore rejections traversed in the previous Office Action or seem to miss the point of the invention entirely, and references cited in Office Actions are often entirely irrelevant. It's not that the Examiners are unintelligent people (although this is a popular opinion vocalized amongst patent practitioners during moments of high stress).

In fact, many Examiners themselves would probably (off the record) admit to low-quality examination!

Why?

The USPTO rewards Examiners not on merit but on a system of counts. Thanks to Just a Patent Examiner, the blog of an anonymous Examiner in-training, the count system is partially unveiled:

Examiners are graded on the number of applications they process. Each time an application is taken up for examination, they get credit for that, called a 'count'. When that application reaches some final resolution, either through abandonment, allowance, or appeal, the examiner gets a second count. (For anything that happens between those two events, the examiner gets no count.)

First Actions on the merits (FOAMs) are the most difficult as they require a prior art search and reading the specification of the application. However, you get an easy count for:

• FOAMs of applications that have requested continued examination (RCEs)
• FOAMs of continuations of the original application
• abandoned applications
• allowed appliacations
• appealed applications

In plain English, promotion and salary increases are allocated to Examiners that perform quick and subsequently low-quality examination.

What's worse is hearing stories like this:

A patent attorney friend of mine, a fellow who used to be a former examiner at the Patent Office, recently told me an almost unbelievable tale about just how dysfunctional the USPTO has become. He said he recently called an old colleague of his, an SPE at the Patent Office in an unidentified technology area and asked what was going on because he has started to see some crazy rejections and also has been having difficulty getting anything allowable. The SPE indicated that it was the policy in his Art Group not to issue any patents any more for any reason. In fact, some examiners in this unidentified Art Group have not issued a single patent in over 2 years! It seems that PTO Quality Review is shutting down the US Patent Office.

A website has been launched specifically to address issues with particular Examiners. USPTO Examiners is a forum for practitioners to anonymously submit information regarding particular Examiners. The hope is that practitioners advise one another on the strategies to best deal with each Examiner. Supervisory patent examiners (SPEs) should check into the website to identify Examiners that are preventing effective prosecution of applications. So when we read about Barack Obama referring to the patent office as outdated...

As I mentioned during the speech, there may be programs that no longer work. There's certainly all kinds of previsions [sic] in our tax code that are antiquated and are not spurring economic growth. We've got offices like the patent office that are outdated to take advantage of new discoveries here in the United States. We need to retool our government so that it works with a 21st century economy and in some ways our campaign has shown what happens when you retool political campaigns to a new requirement. I think we need to do the same thing with government as well.

...don't jump to the conclusions that the solution is patent reform. (Check out Peter Zura's 271 Patent blog for more.) Patent reform is not the answer - it will not change the logistic issues present at the USPTO, namely a reward system that positively reinforces poor prosecution and a work environment that causes high turnover rates. (Not only is it a thankless job subject to constant criticism, but the pay isn't great, and the work is incredibly stressful.)

So don't hate your Examiner.

The morale of the story: Support administrative reform at the PTO, not patent reform.
Stumble it!

Patents
Number of triadic patent families per million inhabitants, 2005

This indicator varies greatly among OECD countries. The USA have the most triadic patent families in absolute values (16368 in 2005, over 30% of the world's total) but, per inhabitant, have less than Japan or Switzerland. Other countries consistently above the OECD value are Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Korea or Finland. On the other hand, 7 OECD countries have less than 10 triadic patent families per million inhabitants.

China, with 433 triadic patent families in 2005 (somewhere between Australia and Sweden in absolute values) has about 0.3 triadic patent families per million inhabitants.

The complete dataset can be found here. See also the work of OECD on patents.

So bin ich ganz schön von der Übersichtlichkeit von DPINFO verwöhnt. Dort gibt man das gefragte Aktenzeichen ein und bekommt eine vollständige Auflistung aller relevanten Daten – inklusive aller angezeigten Inhaberwechsel.

Beim USPTO habe ich dagegen ewig in Public PAIR gesucht, um dann herauszufinden, dass der aktuellen Besitzer mit einer neuen Maske gesucht werden muss. Nebenstehend ein Hinweis, wie man aus Public PAIR zur "public assignment search" gelangt.

Oni rentontos tion oni havas, se oni registras, ke tio ne estas komprendebla.

Mi estas dorlota je la supervideco de DPINFO. Ĉi tie oni entrovas demanantan Aktosignon kaj oni recivas tutan liston de aktuala dateno – inklusive tuta avitantaj tenantŝanĝoj.

Ĉe la USPTO mi serĉis tre longe en Public PAIR por detrovi, ke la aktuala tenanto devas esti serĉante per alia serĉmasko. Apudstaranta bildo montras, ke vi venos el Public PAIR de "public assignment search".

If this is a new "innovation," I can't imagine that the Examiners or the union are very happy about it, and I can't say I would blame them.  I'll ask when I get there, and report back.

As the web continues to evolve, new Idea 2.0 structures are invented and people become more accustomed to publicly recording their innovations in real-time, it’s clear that a new patent system will have to emerge to accommodate the more accurate simulation of human innovation. Even though the U.S. Patent Office itself is going digital, supported by patent powerhouses like IBM, I think it’s most likely the solution will come from the ranks of idea-related start-ups that understand how to best integrate social networks with new semantic and AI technologies rather than any top-down extension of the existing system. When this new system is invented (or finally becomes efficient enough) most of us will agree that it is more fair and that it decreases the occurrence of Innovation Attribution Errors and high-cost New Idea Redundancy.

Of course, it’s also possible that a variety of different idea systems will arise and that different nations, generations and/or demographics will adopt the ones that benefit them most. Such a future could see countries like the U.S. or a United Europe resisting until the latest possible moment.

Smart inventors and companies are starting to integrate highly effective measures to document ideas to accurately coordinate any invention with the inventor that conceived the invention first. Reasons this is great news:

1. It keeps the burden off the already backlogged USPTO.

2. The first-to-invent system, which is currently adopted by the US alone (and is one of the pillars of the USPTO that demonstrates the innovative spirit of the United States) isn't jeopardized.

The company has already been issued this similarly broad patent in Taiwan. The patent covers three main ways of associating the nanoparticles with filter media: (1) having pellets of nanoparticles located adjacent to the filter media, (2) coating the filter media with a powder of nanoparticles, and (3) impregnating the nanoparticles into the filter media.

In addition, ANI has received formal communication that the issuance of this same patent is imminent in Russia along with written confirmation that the granting of a patent based upon a divisional application is expected soon in India.

The company has received very positive notification relating to the patent application on their proprietary nanoparticle formulation from the USPTO.

Applied Nanoscience Inc. is a marketer and developer of innovative, high-performance filtration systems and technologies to customers worldwide in a focused effort to provide a safer tomorrow.

Eso es piratería, con luz y taquígrafos y casi sin riesgos.

Larry Proctor, presidente de la compañía de semillas Pod-Ners con sede en Colorado, EE.UU. es propietario de la parente US#5894079 concedida por la Oficina de Marcas y Patentes y de los Estados Unidos (USPTO).

Mr. Proctor admite abiertamente que su fréjol patentado fue obtenido de una bolsa de fréjoles que compró en Sonora, México, en 1994. Sin embargo, presentó el 30 de noviembre del 2001 una demanda legal contra 16 empresas de semillas y agricultores de Colorado, reclamando la violación de la patente porque estabán cultivando y vendiendo su fréjol amarillo, de su propiedad, de manera ilegal.

La autoridad, en vez de poner en duda propiedad de Larry Proctor, puso en duda la libertad del comercio e industria de varios agricultores y pequeñas empresas.

Mr. Proctor, además de ser dueño de la patente en Estados Unidos, también cuenta con un Certificado de Obtentor sobre el frijol que llamó !Enola!, que es la forma mas común de demostrar la propiedad de una especie vegetal.

Ni que decir tiene, que destrozó el mercado del fréjol amarillo, arruinó agricultores méxicanos y algunos estadounidenses y acaparó el mercado creando un monopolio sobre dicho fréjol, con la inestimable colaboración de las autoridades.

La patente fue cuestionada legalmente por el Centro Internacional para la Agricultura Tropical, CIAT, un instituto internacional de investigación y mejoramiento vegetal en Cali, Colombia . La apelación está apoyada por la FAO.

El CIAT y la FAO son responsables de un fideicomiso público de semillas de varios cultivos para uso de la comunidad mundial de agricultores e investigadores. El banco genético del CIAT cuenta con más de 27, 000 muestras de semillas de Phaseolus (fréjoles), de las cuales, 260 son muestras de fréjoles amarillos. Aunque Proctor no obtuvo la semilla de fréjol de este banco de genes en Colombia. La apelación legal del CIAT enfatiza que seis especies de frijol encontradas en su banco genético son 'sustancialmente idénticas' a los que Proctor reclama como suyos en su patente. Funcionarios del CIAT y la FAO están muy preocupados de que la patente del Enola pudiera obstruir la misión del CIAT de distribuir libremente frijoles amarillos y mantener esas semillas en el dominio público.

El crimen real es que, a pesar de la apelación legal, el sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos permitió al dueño de la patente beneficiarse de los retrasos burocráticos y dilación injustificada para extender legalmente su monopolio exclusivo sobre una variedad de frejol de origen mexicano durante más de seis años (y potencialmente más) -que es casi una tercera parte del término de 20 años que tiene esa patente.

En esencia, el sistema permite que los dueños de patentes injustas monopolicen los mercados y destruyan la competencia -ni los agricultores ni las empresas pueden sobrevivir esperando el resultado de una apelación tan prolongada contra una patente.

La patente, actualmente está rechazada, pero eso, no soluciona los daños ocasionados, que nunca serán resarcidos, y muy probablemente, de lugar a otra reclamación de Mr. Proctor contra la USPTO.

Por lo tanto, la batalla legal, puede ser ganada, pero la real ha dejado un daño que nunca será reparado, salvo tal vez, los daños sufridos por Mr. Proctor y la compañía de semillas Pod-Ners. Las declaraciones de Mr Hope Shand del Grupo ETC

La fuente de la información, y la alegación son de:

El Grupo Erosion Tecnology & Concentration mas conocido como Grupo ETC o ETCGroup, es consejero de:

• el Consejo Económico y Social de Naciones Unidas (ECOSOC),
• la Organización para la Agriculltura y la Alimentación (FAO),
• la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre Comercio y Desarrollo (UNCTAD) y
• el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica (CDB);

y también tiene una larga historia con el Grupo Consultior de Investigación Agrícola Internacional, (CGIAR).

El Grupo ETC es una organización social y civil en Canadá y en Holanda. Friends of ETC Group es una organización privada sin fines de lucro registrada bajo la sección 501 (c)3 en Estados Unidos.

Desde aquí, mi agradecimiento a ECTGroup, por su labor en el caso y su dedicación a la lucha contra la Tecnología Erosiva y su Concentración.

Mas sobre piratería marina: ver http://www.icc-ccs.org/extra/display.php?yr=2008

Que les États-Unis et le Japon soient si dépassés dans la course aux publications scientifiques, alors que c'est de connaissance populaire que ces deux pays sont des leaders dans la recherche et le développement me laisse perplexe. Il doit y avoir une explication.

Cette explication elle vient en partie du nombre de brevets déposés aux USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) par les résidents de chaque pays relevé par l'Institut de la Statistique du Québec. Tous les pays (et la province de Québec) sont loin derrière les États-Unis et le Japon dans le classement par pays du nombre de brevets déposés par habitant.

Les entreprises privées ne sont pas intéressées à publier leur recherche. C'est compréhensible, si elle font du R&D, c'est pour se donner un avantage concurrentiel. Les brevets donnent un avantage concurrentiel, les publications scientifiques diffusent le savoir!

Patent #: US7331921
Title: Implantable heart assist system and method of applying same
Abstract: An extracardiac pumping for supplementing the circulation of blood, including the cardiac output, in a patient without any component thereof being connected to the patient's heart, and methods of using same. One embodiment of the intravascular extracardiac system comprises a pump with inflow and outflow conduits that are sized and configured to be implantable intravascularly through a non-primary vessel, whereby it may positioned where desired within the patient's vasculature. The system comprises a subcardiac pump that may be driven directly or electromagnetically from within or without the patient. The pump is configured to be operated continuously or in a pulsatile fashion, synchronous with the patient's heart, thereby potentially reducing the afterload of the heart. In another embodiment, the system is positioned extracorporeally, with the inflow conduit and outflow conduit applied percutaneously to a non-primary vessel for circulating blood to and from the non-primary vessel or between the non-primary vessel and another blood vessel within the patient's vasculature.
Assignee: Orqis Medical Corporation
Filed: June 28, 2004
Issued: February 19, 2008

They should really Email me.   I am a supporter.

Apparently, there is no problem with Lakewood based Attorney Brown using his family name, but UPS has sued him for infringing various “Brown” trademarks, filing a complaint filed March 19 in New York federal court.

The 101-year-old UPS has used brown as a signifier since 1916, according to court papers. Apparently One of the parcel service's founders, chose the color brown for company uniforms and delivery vehicles because the color “reflected class, elegance and professionalism,” the company said in its pleadings.

No doubt one of Mr. Brown's ancestors selected the unusually distinct name for similar purposes.

UPS objects to Attorney Brown's Web site, www.sambrownlaw.com - clearly a gross misinterpretation of his services. Slightly more likely to succeed - but I would not put money on it - are his uses of the phrase “See What Brown Can Do for You,” and his “Brown Engine” that performs a “See What Brown Can Find for You” search function.

In 2002 UPS began using the slogan “What Can Brown Do For You?” and spent $45 million in this campaign, which included commercials that were nominated for Academy Awards. The company received a U.S. trademark registration for the slogan in November 2002, and the application is alive, according to the record on the database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Attorney Brown applied for trademark registration for “See What Brown Can Do For You” in June 2006. From the database, it apears that this registration is also alive. However, according to Bloomberg News, UPS opposed the registration, and the lawyer withdrew his application.

UPS has now asked the court to find that lawyer Brown infringed its trademarks, and to order him to quit using “See What Brown Can Do For You” and other phrases or words that are “confusingly similar to any Brown marks in advertising or as part of his corporate or trade name, domain names, Web sites or otherwise in connection with defendants services.”

The behavior of UPS reminds of an ancient English Schoolboy lawyer joke: "What is the difference between a US law firm and a parcel delivery service? What you don't know? well I shan't send you to post a letter then."

Since Nissan couldn't stop a Mr. Nissan advertising car services on his website Nissan.com, One hopes that Adv. Brown is competent enough to win this case.

Personal Interest - I have used UPS' parcel delivery service in the past.

• A patent is nothing but the right to exclude others
  • Which is to say, the right to sue
• Patents revolve around "quid pro quo" (this for that) in terms of "monopoly for disclosure"
• There are eight ways to extend patent life in the life sciences:
  • Composition, Indication, Synthesis, Formulation, Dosing, Prodrugs, Polymorphs, and Pharmacogenomics
• The Hatch-Waxman Act can give you years on top of your patent, based on the following formula:
  • 0.5*(Date of NDA - Date of IND - Days of NonDiligence) + (Date of Patent Approval - Date of NDA - Days of NonDiligence
  • These are measured in days, and cannot exceed an extension of more than 5 years, or 14 years over the date of Patent Approval.
• For small-mols (think CDER), the FDA has the Orange Book that lists all drug exclusivities (including orphan drug status) in one place.
• Rarely does the USPTO get small-mol applications reviewed in the given 30 months (usually approx. 3 years+)
  • Persistence (read: being incredibly annoying) is a tried and true technique for making approvals go faster.
• The US is the only country that bases patents on first to invent, not first to file.  So keep your lab notebooks.
• A great, cheap way to timestamp your "invention in progress" is to send it to yourself in a well-sealed envelope by your local USPS.  Then tuck it away somewhere safe.

 "Representatives from the International Chamber of Commerce's (ICC) Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP) initiative gathered with government officials in New York yesterday to discuss strategies for ending the international trade in fake goods.

The meeting was attended by CEO's of companies such as Microsoft, General Electric and Pfizer, as well as the executive director of INTA, Alan Drewsen, the deputy secretary-general of WIPO, Michael Keplinger, and the secretary-general of the World Customs Organization (WCO), Michael Danet. US Trade Representative Susan Schwab also took part"

Nothing very surprising here, but I see two points worth noting. First, the roster of BASCAP's Global Leadership Group includes a number other heavy hitters that have traditionally supported rigid IP regulations such as Sony and EMI. Second, I wonder what the presence of WIPO deputy secretary-general Keplinger at this meeting means?

One thing is for sure, Keplinger's participation in the ACTA meeting should not be construed to imply a broader mandate from WIPO or its membership. Back in April, 2006, IP Watch reported that Keplinger's nomination for his current position came from the US Commerce Department. The story details that Keplinger had previously worked in the office of foreign relations at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO is one of the most active proponents of patent harmonization in the world. Is Keplinger just continuing his old line of work? According to this blog post by Jamie Love, Keplinger sounds like a holdout from the days when the US and corporate lobbyists dictated the terms of trade policy to the world. Those days are over.

Additional substantive benefits received through federal registration include:

1. The incontestable status that a mark can achieve after five years of registration, which serves to eliminate most arguments that the registrant does not have the exclusive right to utilize the mark;
2. The right to use the ® symbol in connection with the mark, which may deter potential infringers;
3. Increased ease of discovery by those doing trademark searches, which helps to prevent the adoption of confusingly similar marks by third parties;
4. The right to sue for infringement in federal courts;
5. The ability to recover profits, damages and costs for infringement, including the possibility of receiving treble damages in certain circumstances;
6. The ability to recover attorney fees in infringement actions; and
7. The ability to have the customs service block the importation of goods bearing an infringing mark.

Federal registration also makes it easier to prove an allegation of trademark infringement by providing prima facie evidence of trademark ownership and use. The registration can also be used as evidence that the mark does indeed function as a mark and is not confusingly similar to other registered marks.

In terms of the process:

About four months after filing, an examining attorney at the USPTO reviews the application and determines whether the mark may be registered. If the examining attorney determines that the mark cannot be registered, the examining attorney will issue a letter listing any grounds for refusal and any corrections required in the application. The examining attorney may also contact the applicant by telephone if only minor corrections are required. The applicant must respond to any objections within six months of the mailing date of the letter, or the application will be abandoned. If the applicant's response does not overcome all objections, the examining attorney will issue a final refusal. The applicant may then appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, an administrative tribunal within the USPTO.

A common ground for refusal is likelihood of confusion between the applicant's mark and a registered mark. Marks which are merely descriptive in relation to the applicant's goods or services, or a feature of the goods or services, may also be refused. Marks consisting of geographic terms or surnames may also be refused. Marks may be refused for other reasons as well.

If there are no objections, or if the applicant overcomes all objections, the examining attorney will approve the mark for publication in the Official Gazette, a weekly publication of the USPTO. The USPTO will send a NOTICE OF PUBLICATION to the applicant indicating the date of publication. In the case of two or more applications for similar marks, the USPTO will publish the application with the earliest effective filing date first. Any party who believes it may be damaged by the registration of the mark has 30 days from the date of publication to file an opposition to registration. An opposition is similar to a formal proceeding in the federal courts, but is held before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. If no opposition is filed, the application enters the next stage of the registration process.

If the application was based upon the actual use of the mark in commerce prior to approval for publication, the USPTO will register the mark and issue a registration certificate about 12 weeks after the date the mark was published, if no opposition was filed.

If, instead, the mark was published based upon the applicant's statement of having a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, the USPTO will issue a NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE about 12 weeks after the date the mark was published, again provided no opposition was filed. The applicant then has six months from the date of the NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE to either (1) use the mark in commerce and submit a STATEMENT OF USE, or (2) request a six-month EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A STATEMENT OF USE. The applicant may request additional extensions of time only as noted in the instructions on the back of the extension form. If the STATEMENT OF USE is filed and approved, the USPTO will then issue the registration certificate.

Register your Trademark today! You'll be glad you did! How Can MyCorporation.com Help You? MyCorporation.com offers a full line of document filing services in any state:

• Form a NEW Corporation
• Form a NEW LLC
• Comprehensive Trademark Search

Despite the appeal of international harmonization, America's unique patent system - and its singular ability to harness and protect the country's small inventors - has played a fundamental role in helping it achieve its status as the global leader in technological innovation.

The first-to-invent patent system has been a major mechanism for the
dynamism of small business innovation. It guarantees that carefully and well-developed inventions are patented and at much less expense to the patentee than in first-to-file countries.

While the National Academy of Sciences report recommends reducing
international inconsistencies in patent law, it also recognizes that,
"Continuing high rates of innovation suggest that the patent system is
working well and does not require fundamental change."

The scope for patent reform in the US is immense. No doubt most reforms will exasperate problems rather than solve them, as the real issues seem to be organizational rather than legal, but I can't see any validity in the small business approach. First to file works well everywhere else. Why not in the US?

First to file does at least removes uncertainties from the system since filing is something that s easily dated, and with electronic filing on its way in, should remove most disputes on who came first.

Are there other drugs you have patented that were known substances when you patented them?

-------------
FROM: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/article.cfm?id=2484 (accessed 1/30/08)

January 29, 2008

Patent revoked on Tenofovir

US patent office’s move to revoke patents on key HIV/AIDS drug could mean increased access in developing world

In a move that could have major implications on access to a cornerstone HIV/AIDS medicine across the developing world, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on January 23, 2008 revoked four key patents held by the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences on the drug tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF).

The public interest group Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), which challenged the patents in the US, submitted evidence that TDF was already a known substance at the time of Gile