Archive for the ‘Intellectual Property’ Category
Gerry Elman and Josh Waterston to present cybersecurity seminar at Delaware County Bar Association on Feb. 24, 2016
We are proud to announce that Elman Technology Law attorneys Gerry Elman and Joshua Waterston will be presenting the legal seminar “Cybersecurity Ethical and Legal Challenges: How to Protect your Clients and Your Firm” at the Delaware County Bar Association on Feb. 24 from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. (2 CLE credits: 1 substantive + 1 ethics). Come be informed and entertained by our knowledgeable and interesting panelists.
To register, click here for the DCBA registration page.
DELAWARE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION CLE SEMINAR
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016
“CYBERSECURITY ETHICAL AND LEGAL CHALLENGES: HOW TO PROTECT YOUR CLIENTS AND YOUR FIRM”
Bring your own brown bag lunch and beverage
Presenters: Gerry J. Elman, Esquire and Joshua D. Waterston, Esquire of Elman Technology Law. Joshua Marpet of Guarded Risk. Robert Wilner of Prevalent.
Law firms are treasure troves of sensitive information about their clients and themselves. This seminar will enable you to confront today’s increased cybersecurity threats, comply with heightened legal and ethical requirements, and keep your clients’ information and your law firm’s information confidential and secure. Topics will include: 1) compliance with PA’s requirement to understand the benefits and risks of technology you use; 2) tips to identify and secure sensitive information about your clients and your law firm itself; 3) compliance with data breach notification laws and updated HIPAA requirements; and 4) how to minimize your financial and legal risk from a data breach or data loss.
REGISTRATION: 11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.; SEMINAR TIME: 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.; COST: $75.00 for DCBA Members; $95.00 for Non-Members of the DCBA;
WORTH: 2.0 CLE Credit Hours (1.0 Substantive Law and 1.0 Ethics CLE Credit Hours)
It’s Christmas Eve: Internet systems at patent offices in U.S.A. and Australia have crashed. Just coincidence?
Christmas Eve 2015: Why are the Internet services at the government patent offices in both the United States and Australia shut down right now?
Did you heed last month’s book release by Ted Koppel: “Lights Out
A Cyberattack, A Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath”
Remember my talk in July 2011: “Are you legally prepared for the coming cyberwar?”
Do the dots connect?
–Gerry J. Elman
Here’s the official announcement of the disaster at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as posted December 24, 2015 on home page of www.uspto.gov
And here is what “IP Australia,” the government patent office Down Under, is telling the public:
eServices and Business to business (B2B) will be unavailable until Monday 4 January 2016.
This outage is due to a system issue.
We will enable the Alternate Lodgement Service (ALS) for eServices during this outage. The ALS is a simplified version of eServices that allows electronic submissions during outages and downtime. You will be automatically redirected to the ALS if you attempt to access eServices during the outage period. You will need to agree to new terms and conditions to use the ALS and you will not be required to sign in.
We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience. If you require further information please email email@example.com.
Invest the time and money in crafting a complete provisional patent application. It will be the foundation for a strong and enforceable patent. Avoid the pitfall of filing a “quick and dirty” provisional. Whatever you imagine you’ll save upfront will be wasted in the long run when the patent turns out to be worthless.
Unfortunately, some companies and inventors have been taken in by the dangerous myth that a provisional U.S. patent application is but a first draft – that you can “just write something quickly and get it on file.” But in fact, a provisional application must describe the invention as completely as a non-provisional application. A “quick and dirty” description is likely to omit something essential. Instead of laying a foundation for a valid patent, the inventor could wind up with nothing.
Congress created the provisional application in 1995, to give American inventors a simplified initial patent filing. A supposed benefit was that provisional applications needn’t include formal patent claims, presumably lowering the cost of preparing this preliminary application. Nevertheless, a provisional application is defective unless its written description adequately supports the claims of the non-provisional application that will issue as a patent.
New Railhead Manufacturing learned this the hard way. In 1996, their engineeringteam invented an improved bit to drill horizontally through solid rock. Before then, when a utility wanted to lay cables and pipes under a street, the entire street would be ripped open. With this tool, you could efficiently drill under the street without tearing up the pavement. In mid-1996, New Railhead began selling the new drill. Hoping to protect their revolutionary technology, the company filed a provisional patent application in February 1997, and then filed a non-provisional application in November 1997 with description and drawings that were more complete. The Patent Office examined the application and agreed the invention was patentable. The patent issued in May 1999.
New Railhead’s success quickly attracted copycats. Other companies, including Earth Tool Company, began to sell their own version of this drill. New Railhead wasted no time defending their turf: the day after the patent issued, they sued Earth Tool for infringement. But sadly for New Railhead, Earth Tool persuaded the judge that the patent was invalid.
Earth Tool’s lawyers had detected a defect in the patent applications. The claims that issued from the non-provisional application stated that the drill bit attached to its housing at an angle. Unfortunately, that aspect was missing from the provisional application. After placing the drill on sale in mid-1996, New Railhead needed to file a complete patent application within 12 months, or be barred from ever getting a patent. The provisional patent application was filed on time but, unfortunately, wasn’t complete. The non-provisional application was complete, but it was filed too late. The appellate court in Washington, D.C. agreed with the district judge that the incomplete provisional was too weak to serve as a foundation for the claims of the later-filed non-provisional application. So the copycats could continue copying with impunity.
Inventors need fully-descriptive patent applications to protect their precious inventions, but few inventors can see their inventions with a stranger’s eye. The patent attorney’s independent perspective complements the inventor’s vision, and together they produce a more complete description of the inventive concept and its various ramifications. Don’t go it alone: you and your patent attorney are more valuable together than apart. Partner up from the outset, to ensure that your provisional application provides a rock-solid foundation to support the patent you are hoping for.
Join us Monday, October 20, 2014, for a presentation at noon by European Patent Attorney Steve Zeman, of the Grünecker firm in Munich.
We look forward to learning from Steve’s extensive experience with the European Patent Office in seeking to overcome “new matter” objections and other particular difficulties.
Though educated primarily in the United States, Steve is licensed as a German and European Patent Attorney and as a European Trademark Attorney. He holds degrees in chemistry and biochemistry from the University of California at San Diego and from Yale (Ph.D. 1999).
This meeting is co-sponsored by Elman Technology Law and Bob Yarbrough’s Delaware County Pennsylvania Intellectual Property Forum. Pennsylvania CLE credit will be available for existing and new members of the Forum. Participation is free of charge, but preregistration is required. Call 610-892-9942 for further information or to register .
Venue: the Delaware County Bar Association headquarters, 335 W. Front Street, Media, PA 19063, basement conference room. You’re welcome to bring a “brown bag” lunch.
Supreme Court, snowed by ACLU smear campaign, resurrects archaic requirement of “invention” as a test of patent eligibility.
In their decision June 13, 2013, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the Supreme Court seems to have been snowed by an anti-patent publicity campaign engineered by a brilliant but diabolical law professor and gullible lawyers at the venerable ACLU.
The opinion of the Court resurrects an archaic requirement of “invention” that was disavowed by Congress in 1952. The late Judge Giles S. Rich, father of the patent statute revision enacted at that time, may no longer rest in peace. See his article: Laying the Ghost of the “Invention” Requirement, 1 AIPLA Q.J. 26-45 (1972), recently reprinted in 41 AIPLA Q.J. 1-28 (2013) with a foreword by Judge Paul R. Michel. The reprinted article is available online (AIPLA member login required).
And yet, the Court’s Myriad Genetics opinion written by Mr. Justice Thomas states:
The [patentable] Chakrabarty bacterium was new “with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature,” … due to the additional plasmids and resultant “capacity for degrading oil.” …. In this case, by contrast, Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention [emphasis added]. Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry [as to subject matter patent-eligibility].
In Biotechnology Law Report, we’ve chronicled the efforts of anti-intellectual-property activists such as Prof. Ravicher and Jeremy Rifkin to dismantle the U.S. patent system. See the article on Getting Beyond the ACLU and Public Patent Foundation’s Anti-Gene-Patent Grandstanding that I coauthored with Scott Rylan Powell in February 2010.
By hoodwinking the Supreme Court to focus on the “information content” rather than the chemical structure of the polynucleotide described in pertinent patent claims, the ACLU attorneys representing the putative plaintiffs in this case have, unwittingly or hypocritically, endorsed a philosophical worldview of “intelligent design.” Ironically, the ACLU had successfully challenged that unscientific perspective in Dover, Pennsylvania, just a 7 1/2 years ago. See my previous musings on this point.
See also Chris Holman’s Editorial in Biotechnology Law Report
For further explanation and cogent comment, see the Editorial by Prof. Chris Holman posted online at the website of Biotechnology Law Report June 26, 2013.