Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patent portfolio managers face a number of logistical challenges in developing, analyzing and deploying their organizations' patent assets. First, they need to be able to define the scope and content of portfolios under management or review. Second, they need to be able to organize and store information about those portfolios in a way that is repeatable, durable, and accessible. Finally, they need to be able to aggregate and communicate that information to drive budgeting, reporting, and strategy development.
Features
According to recent statistics, approximately 342,441 utility patent applications were filed in 2003 in the United States, and 169,028 utility patents were granted. These totals have nearly doubled over the past decade. Nonetheless, patent prosecution costs have seemed to trend lower or remain flat in recent years, even as courts are requiring more and more from application drafters. Does this prosecution revenue squeeze portend an increased economic risk for the patent practitioner? Does this pose more trouble for patent quality in general? Is a market glut of patent attorneys creating downward pressure on patent prosecution costs and resulting patent quality? Besides refusing to enter into a pricing war that is ultimately bad for our patent system, patent attorneys may wish to consider implementing changes to the patent system that help improve patent quality by reducing the recent flood of patent attorneys and agents entering the market.
Multinational companies with distributed operations and geographic centers of specialized activities tend to transfer intangibles including intellectual property assets among their various affiliates. These transfers between entities are priced at levels that approximate fair market value and are simultaneously consistent with every company's duty to maximize shareholder value. Tax authorities have long complained that multinationals are setting international transfer prices to avoid taxes by lowering income in high tax jurisdictions and raising income in low tax jurisdictions. In theory, a multinational should not suffer prejudice in such a case (beyond the payment of appropriate penalties) because international tax treaties contemplate adjustments; the underpayment would be collected and the overpayment refunded in each respective jurisdiction. As a practical matter however, there is a real risk of double taxation since sovereign tax authorities may come to disagree on transfer pricing levels.
Section 261 of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. §261) contemplates that a patent may be assigned as opposed to licensed. But often the two cannot be so easily distinguished. In practice, the difference between a grant of rights in a patent qualifying as an assignment, an exclusive license or a nonexclusive license often turns on the patentee's granting or withholding of a single right. Yet very different consequences flow from each of those designations.
Features
Our reporter attends the Supreme Court oral argument on Arthur Andersen.
Features
Recent rulings you need to know.
National cases of interest to you and your practice.
The Supreme Court has now heard oral argument in the late Arthur Andersen's petition to review its conviction under the federal "witness tampering" statute, 18 U.S.C. ' 1512(b)(2). This case is the most recent and infamous manifestation of a decade-long debate about the statute. Now the Court has an opportunity to impose clear rules that would resolve the uncertainty about the scope and mental state required to prove "witness tampering" in federal investigations of all kinds.
Features
Recent pronouncements by both the Supreme Court and Congress have significantly expanded the reach and power of the federal money laundering statute. Although traditionally associated with drug dealing, the statute can reach and has reached any illegal activity that generates large sums of cash (eg, insider trading, fraud, embezzlement). These changes in the law afford the government greater flexibility in where it can bring money laundering cases, and make it easier for the government to obtain a conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering. Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that "[u]nless a statute of these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed."