Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In previous articles we have imagined a dialogue between Treasury and IP professionals. The IP professionals have done most of the talking so far; from their point of view, this conversational flow makes perfect sense. The world of patents and trademarks is exotic, specialized and counterintuitive, having undergone substantial change in governing law and predominant management technique since 1990. In contrast, one would expect the management of mere cash flows to be a mature discipline. What can Treasury tell us about how to manage IP? "Buy-low and sell high"?
A picture is worth a thousand words — or perhaps more — when the concept being described is complicated, abstract or unfamiliar. By its very nature, the technology associated with a patent demands the use of visual and other aids in order to be understandable by a juror, judge, or other trier of fact. Not surprisingly then, demonstratives are essential tools in patent litigation to illustrate or contradict fact and expert witness testimony, as teaching aids in <i>Markman</i> hearings, and in opening and closing arguments. A number of legal and practical considerations should be kept in mind when preparing and using demonstrative aids.
Features
Researchers and technology managers may not deal with IP every day like IP professionals do, but they are still exposed to all sorts of patent strategy tools, especially when they are attempting to develop a patent strategy for a business. The advertisements for these tools typically imply that life would be so much simpler if only they used the vendor's latest and greatest tool. Many of these tools are very useful; however, most tools also have limitations. Having a framework from which to evaluate these tools is therefore helpful to researchers and managers.
Over the last 15 years, there has been a shift toward more creativity in the monetization of intellectual property. Companies are no longer simply utilizing patents as defensive weapons in actions against aggressors in patent assertions and follow-on infringement actions. Strategic licensing securitizations and collateralizations have provided new and thoughtful approaches to effectively leverage the technology asset value inherent in patents and other IP.
Features
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
This past October, Rep. Howard Berman (D. Calif.) introduced the Patent Quality Assistance Act of 2004 (H.R. 5299, the "PQA Act"). The PQA Act seeks to implement many of the recommendations of the much-publicized FTC (October 2003) and National Research Council (April 2004) reports. The bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, which is not expected to act on it before the end of the 108th Congress. Rep. Berman introduced the bill at the end of this Congress, however, "with the intent of framing the debate going into the 109th Congress." 150 Cong. Rec. 1935.
Features
By now, patent attorneys who do a fair amount of patent application drafting and patent prosecution should be well versed in the fairly recent PTO rule changes dealing with various aspects of patent prosecution. Rather than discuss those rule changes, this article discusses 10 tips for better patent application drafting and patent prosecution. The first two tips deal with patent application drafting, the next four tips deal with prosecution of a patent application, the next three tips deal with things to do after receiving a notice of allowance, and the last tip deals with all stages of patent prosecution.
Features
While a company's brands are among its most critical and valuable business assets, too little attention is usually devoted to identifying, developing, protecting and exploiting those assets. Gaps in trademark asset protection are often not discovered until a company seeks to enforce or is forced to defend its brands and encounters obstacles that could have been avoided.
Features
On Oct. 4, 2004, the Federal Circuit rendered its opinion in <i>Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc.</i> ("<i>Insituform IV</i>"), 385 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This opinion is the first post-<i>Festo</i> Federal Circuit opinion that finds a successful rebuttal of the <i>Festo</i> presumption (<i>eg</i>, the presumption of the surrender of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel) based on the "tangential relationship" prong of <i>Festo</i>. This case seems to set a fairly low bar for the rebuttal of the presumption. This is a significant development given the Federal Circuit's apparent desire to restrict the doctrine of equivalents (as reflected in its initial <i>Festo</i> ruling that was reversed by the Supreme Court, as well as by the tenor of the post-reversal <i>Festo</i> opinion).
This month, <i>LJN's Franchising Business & Law Alert</i> departs from its normal format to present an issue of interest to franchisors and franchisees alike, and their counsel: a special report that presents in depth a review of the comments received by the FTC on the proposed changes to its Franchise Rule.
