By Lawrence Higgins
Upcoming Events:
- The Churchill Club will hold their Great Debate on the topic, “Is Software Patentable? Should it be?” on February 16 in California. [Link]
- The Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal is hosting its annual Intellectual Property Symposium entitled “Creating a Landscape of Innovation” on February 18. [Link]
- Law Seminars International is holding its annual Conference entitled “Best Practices in Patent Monetization” February 21-22 in San Francisco. [Link]
- The Missouri Law Review is hosting a Symposium on February 25th in Columbia Missouri about the patent jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We’ll have a number of great speakers, including USPTO Director David Kappos. [Link] (Free event, but registration required).
- Judge Timothy Dyk will give a lecture on the commercial impact of complexity and confusion in patent law at the Lewis and Clark law school on March 1. [Link]
- Berkeley Center for Law and Technology is hosting an event entitled “Beyond Piracy in the New China” on March 10. [Link]
- The University of Kansas School of Law is hosting the 2011 Patent Conference (aka “Pat Con”) on April 8. The idea behind the conference is that “patent scholars in law, economics, management science, and other disciplines can share their research.” If you would like to present, please submit an abstract to KU Professor Andrew Torrance (torrance@ku.edu) by February 15th, 2011. [Link]
Palin trademark application refused
- Sarah and Bristol Palin attempted to register trademarks on their names for “motivational speaking services.” The applications have been initially rejected on a technicality. Since the marks are the names of living individuals, those individuals (the Palins) must file a written consent for the name to be registered as a trademark. [Link]
Was Reexamination the Answer in Tokai v. Easton?
- Would the outcome of the CAFC’s 2-1 panel obviousness decision been different if the obviousness issue had been determined in reexamination rather in the courts? Scott Daniels argues that a reexamination request would have accomplished the same result at a much lower price. [Link]
Senate Committee approves patent reform
- The US Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Patent Reform Act of 2011. [Link] Before doing so, however, the bill was amended to remove language making it more difficult to prove willful infringement. The bill will now move to the Senate floor to be voted on. This is the 3rd time since 2008 that that patent reform legislation has gone to the Senate floor. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
- Fenwick & West is looking for an experienced patent attorney to work for its Silicon Valley office. [Link]
- AT&T is seeking a patent attorney with 3-5 years experience to work in their Atlanta location. [Link]
- Luce Forward is seeking an attorney with a minimum 7 years of experience in patent/trademark litigation or prosecution. [Link]
- Stanford Law School is searching for a Director of its soon-to-be-launched IP and Innovation Clinic. [Link]
The one amendment to Leahy’s proposed patent reform legislation that we really need is the one that Congress likes the least: an amendment ending fee diversion. The Coburn amendment (or a similar provision) is essential to revival of the patent office. There is no way that the USPTO can get itself on firm footing any time very soon, unless the legislature stops raiding its revenue. All other patent reform issues pale in comparison.
Indeed – it also looks like the application notes a first use in commerce date of “at least as early as 1/1/1996” – which, unless the internets mislead me, is the year that she first ran for mayor…
for a minute I thought that the name “Palin” would be mentioned without an accompanying slew of vitriol.
You mean, you thought the name “Sarah Palin” would not have motivated people to speak? That would bode ill for her trademark application, now wouldn’t it?
Anyway, it’s probably only a coincidence that the name “Sarah Palin” brings more jokes to mind than the name “Michael Palin”. Everybody knows that grizzlies beat pythons.
On another front, it’s nice to finally see some jobs opening up, even if they are all partner level positions.
phew, there for a minute I thought that the name “Palin” would be mentioned without an accompanying slew of vitriol.
Glad to know the world isn’t going crazy after all.
The drafter made it to his sons hockey game?
You’d think you would watch your Ps & Qs and raise your game.
The story begins with an agent who was perfectly competent as far as Sarah Palin could tell.
This is a woman, lest we forget, who wasn’t even aware of the only responsibility of a job she was applying for, a responsibility that’s written in the Constitution in relatively plain language.
RE: Palin trademark application refused
So, you’re a trademark attorney and somehow get to represent one of the most high profile people. You’d think you would watch your Ps & Qs and raise your game. So how does your trademark application get rejected on a technicality? Did the trademark filer intentionally not file a written consent for the name to be registered as a trademark or unintentionally not file a written consent for the name to be registered as a trademark? What advantage could there be to being initially unsuccessful in representing a high profile client?
Watching her argue that she’s been using her name “in commerce” is going to be entertaining.
Regarding the Palins’ trademark applications, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the marks were rejected on a “technicality.” Although the missing consent is easily corrected, the marks were also rejected because the specimens did not show actual use of the marks in commerce. That may, in fact, be a real problem and not just a technicality.
Sunshine has good point – discussion boards simply won’t resolve the issue.
Sorta like windmill chasin on blog comment sections.
That’s SARAH PALIN(tm) to you.
A new source of revenue for the trademark lawyers who otherwise represent the NFL for two weeks each year.
The Palins appear to be following the example of Glenn Beck, who has filed trademark applications on his name for a bewildering array of goods and services, including things such as “piggy banks” (for storing those Goldline coins, no doubt), and “Christmas tree ornaments”. Interestingly enough, no other TV talking heads appear to have thought of that.
Here is a similar story
The briefing in Microsoft v. i4i (Supreme Court 2011), has begun. As discussed at length previously, Microsoft has sought Supreme Court review of the following issue:
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Microsoft’s invalidity defense (which rested on prior art never considered by the USPTO) must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Now THIS is a nice, professional, comment structure and layout that makes sense.
With no more “AOL-like” icons to boot.
All’s right once again at PatentlyO.
Thanks Dennis.
The University of Kansas School of Law is hosting the 2011 Patent Conference (aka “Pat Con”) on April 8. The idea behind the conference is that “patent scholars in law, economics, management science, and other disciplines can share their research.”
Watch for a bunch of provisional applications to be filed in the first week of April!
The Churchill Club will hold their Great Debate on the topic, “Is Software Patentable? Should it be?” on February 16 in California.
…thereby resolving this issue once and for all!!!
Sarah and Bristol Palin attempted to register trademarks on their names for “motivational speaking services.”
They’re smart cookies, those Palins. I’ve always said so.
Did they really expect that, absent such registrations, anybody else would use their names to promote motivational speaking services they weren’t involved in? And that such use would somehow not be actionable? Finally, they’ll get that injunction against the Berkeley High-Energy Physics Department Sarah Palin Commemorative Lecture Series (guest speakers do not include Sarah Palin).
I guess they could argue that Bristol isn’t really a name, but they’d have a hard time doing that for Sarah.
“Stanford Law School is searching for a Director of its soon-to-be-launched IP and Innovation Clinic”
Must be able to say “No”, “No”, “No”, and creatively demean property rights in all of its forms.
I cannot ascertain if Jon Dudas is a leading candidate.
Comments are closed.