IP Docketing Software Can Be Exciting, Really!
What could be duller than a law firm's docketing system, especially one for an intellectual property (IP) firm that has to keep track of deadlines and facts for hundreds of thousands of patent and trademark filings in hundreds of countries? While docketing ' the recording of critical information and events surrounding intellectual property ' is an essential part of any IP practice, most firms think it does not have to be fancy, just reliable. At Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, we thought the same, until we realized that by upgrading to a state-of-the-art system, we could deliver a better, more technologically-savvy and efficient product that was more in line with the way we deliver all of our other services. We chose to be one of the first firms to utilize new software that allows access up to 100 concurrent users at once, and allows clients access to their data from the Web as well. While upgrading the IP software for one of the largest IP law firms in the U.S. was certainly not an easy task, it has brought tremendous benefits not only to our lawyers and staff, but to our clients as well.
<B><I>Practice Tip</B></I>Maximizing AutoText
AutoText is a very powerful feature in Word. AutoText entries are used to store frequently used text, graphics, graphic letterheads, tables and other items that you want to quickly and easily insert into a document. It also ensures that frequently repeated text is keyed correctly. Word's Auto-Complete feature allows you to insert AutoText entries by typing only the first few characters of the AutoText entry name. When Auto- Complete recognizes an Auto- Text entry, you automatically see the full text of the entry displayed on your screen. To accept the entry, all you need to do is press the Tab or Enter key.
Demonstrative Evidence and Courtroom Technology: 'How Technical Should I Get, And When?'
Readers of this publication know that technological advances continue to revolutionize the practice of law and, in particular, the presentation of cases at trial. Not a day goes by without another article, essay, CLE seminar, jury poll, or billboard extolling the benefits of using technology to develop effective demonstrative evidence, and help present your case at trial. But for the lawyer facing a looming trial date, there is a threshold question that the pundits often overlook: 'How technical should I get, and when?'
IP NEWS
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Fraud in Procurement of Registration Concerning Use of Mark Taints Entire Trademark Application for Stents
In <i>Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc.</i> (Cancellation No. 92040535), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) agreed to enter summary judgment in favor of Medinol canceling Neuro Vasx's trademark registration for NEUROVASX based on fraud on the PTO. In August 2000, Neuro Vasx, was granted a registration for the mark NEUROVASX for 'medical devices, namely neurological stents and catheters.' As a result of this registration, Medinol's application for registration of the mark NIROVASCULAR for 'medical devices, namely stents' was refused.
The Paxil Case: Composition of Matter Claims, Polymorphs and 'Follow-on' Patents
The growth of the pharmaceutical industry over the past 20 years has been driven by the R&D investment in discovering new compounds, which can be protected by composition of matter patent claims. There are notable exceptions to this rule, <i>eg,</i> an unexpected and lucrative use for an old compound, like topically-applied minoxidil for hair growth (Rogaine'). But composition of matter patent protection on the active product itself is always a primary plank in protecting a drug franchise, and increases the value of the technology significantly.
Contributory Copyright Infringement and Peer-to-Peer Networks
The second labor of Hercules was to kill the monstrous nine-headed Hydra. When Hercules struck off one of the Hydra's heads, two new ones grew forth in its place. The entertainment industry's fight against its modern menace, peer-to-peer file sharing networks, presents no lesser task. The record companies successfully shut down Napster (<i>see A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i>, 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000), <i>aff'd in part, rev'd in part</i>, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)) and Aimster (<i>see In re Aimster Copyright Litig.,</i> 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17054 (N.D. Ill. 2002)) only to witness the instant emergence of Gnutella, Grokster, Kazaa, Morpheus, and similar services (as well as the re-emergence of Aimster, now known as Madster). We know, of course, that Hercules completed his second labor after figuring out that he could prevent growth of the new heads by burning the wound. However, unlike the Hydra, peer-to-peer file sharing technologies evolve quickly and swiftly adapt to changed circumstances. Thus, Hollywood's plaintiffs are likened more to Sisyphus (who was condemned to an eternity of pushing the rock up the mountain only to have it fall down again) than to Hercules. The most recent example is the decision in <i>Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</i>, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6994 (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2003).
Application of the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents to Amgen v. Hoechst Marion, Inc.
In the previous issue, we discussed the principle of the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents and provided several illustrations of cases that have addressed the same. In this issue, we apply the principle to the <i>Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion, Inc.</i> case, wherein the defendants Hoecht Marion and Transkarayotic Therapies (collectively 'TKT') were found liable for infringing several of Amgen's patents. <i>Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion, Inc.</i>, 126 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2001). Although the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents defense was not raised, this article discusses how this doctrine might have relieved TKT of liability.
Net News
Recent developments in Internet law and in the Internet industry.
