Love Affair with the Fax Machine is Cultural

Bloglet- Japanese Love affair with the Fax Machine is Cultural

On this Valentine's Day, we reflect on the long standing attraction of tech-savvy Japan for the 200 dpi, monochromatic transmission of paper documents.  In the Washington Post article, "In Japan, Fax Machines remain important because of language and culture", reasons for the lasting affection include the Japanese language with kanji characters that were not easily handled by computers of the day, i.e. the 1970's and 80's when the facsimile technology was created.  As a result, Japanese businesses, government and around 50% of the households adopted the fax machine rather than computers/email for electronic transmission of documents.  The New York Times' article, "In the High-Tech Japan, the Fax Machine Roll On", provides additional insights into the abiding embrace of the facsimile including tried and true, reliable business practices in which paper faxes are integral to their success, as well as the joy and pleasure of receiving handwritten faxed notes and greetings.  In the U.S. where many public elementary schools are considering dropping cursive handwriting, the art of penning a handwritten greeting may soon be a thing of the past along with the fax machine.  However, for now, in Japan, the love affair with the fax machine endures!

© Stephen J. Weyer, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 2013

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com

The Big Bang Theory of Economic Development

The Big Bang Theory of Economic Development

   Move over Keynesian and classic supply-side theories of economics.   Here comes revenge of the nerds and the geek squad.  A recent Brookings Institution Report finds that patents are very relevant to an area's economic health and growth.  Patents, the product of scientists and engineers (sometimes affectionately referred to as geeks), protect inventions.  However, patents, alone, do not provide a guarantee that patents generated in a specific area will actually lead to wealth in that area.  What is needed is an environment or ecosystem which includes patents as part of a system for economic growth.

Yet there is no guarantee that patents generated in a specific location will generate wealth in that same location—a set of conditions (the presence of a skilled and diverse labor force, an “ecosystem” of businesses providing complementary goods and services, financing and marketing capabilities among them) have to be met for invention to be commercialized. Research has established that patents are correlated with economic growth across and within the same country over time.  Brookings Institution Report 

    The Report confirms what many commentators have opined as well as the thesis of one of my prior articles, "Biotechnology fuels drive for economic development," Medical News, May 2011 pages 12-13.  Several factors are necessary for realizing economic development including strong educational institutions, government investment (local, state and national); and trained professional such as intellectual property attorneys, marketer and venture capitalists.  Patent attorneys, scientists and enginers, who are also lawyers, are an invaluable resource that work with inventors (researchers, scientists, engineers), companies and investors.  These attorneys take inventors' work from the lab to the Patent Office.

In conclusion, a healthy growing economy relies on scientists and engineers supported by strong universities and government invectives and corporate investment to create an entrepreneurial ecosystem that functions as an engine of economic growth.Th

© Stephen J. Weyer, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 2013

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com

Posting your child’s finger painting artwork on your refrigerator could be copyright infringement

Bloglet-

Posting your child’s finger painting artwork on your refrigerator soon could be copyright infringement in a Maryland county.  As reported in the Washington Post article, "Prince George's considers copyright policy that takes owership of students' work," a proposal by Prince George's county public school's Board of Education would give schools copyright ownership in works created by students and teachers in the district. 

The proposal is just that, a proposal, and the Washington Post article includes quotes from the Board which may misstate aspects of copyright law in the U.S.  However, the article does open up a dialogy to dig deeper into copyright laws and may in the end foster a better understanding and respect for ones creative works. 

© Stephen J. Weyer, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 2013

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com

So God made a Farmer....Indiana planter allegedly runs afoul with Monsanto's patents

So God made a Farmer...Indiana planter allegedly runs afoul with Monsanto's patents    

Hugh Bowman is accused of infringing Monsanto's Roundup® (active ingredient, pesticide/weed killer-glyphosate) resistant soybean plants patents.  The facts of the story are complex to say the least.  The root of the dispute is anything but garden variety patent infringement.  The alleged infringement stems from Bowman's unique method of cultivating pesticide-resistant soybean plants, a method which Monsanto is attempting to nip in the bud.  But is Bowman's planting technique pure genius or patent infringement?

Digging deeper into the dispute, the germane facts are as follows.  Monsanto holds patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,352,605 and RE 39,247, relating to pesticide (Roundup®/glyphosate) resistant soybean plants, seeds and methods for growing glyphosate resistant soybean plants.  These plants/patents are valuable since they allow one to apply pesticides, such as weed killers to the plants, which in turn, kill the weeds but not the pesticide-resistant plants.

Bowman purchased "commodity seeds" which included the seeds of both the progeny of Monsanto's patented plants (i.e. glyphosate resistant plant seeds) as well as non-patented, not resistant seeds.  These seeds were sold with the "intention" that they not be planted but used for other purposes including as feed stock.  However, the seeds were not sold with any contractual obligations limiting the use of the sold commodity seeds.  Bowman planted the commodity seeds and then applied glyphosate as a weed killer/pesticide.  The applied glyphosate killed the non-glyphosate resistant plants, leaving the glyphosate resistant ones.  The result was that all remaining plants were glyphosate resistant.  Bowman then collected seeds from the remaining plants and used the collected seeds in subsequent planting by mixed them with new commodity seeds.  As in the prior planting, he applied glyphosate.  He repeated this practice for years.

Monsanto alleges that Bowman's planting the commodity seeds (a mixture of glyphosate resistant plant seeds and non-pesticide resistant plant seeds) followed by application of glyphosate infringes Monsanto's patents.  Monsanto and its advocates assert that if Bowman's practice is not considered patent infringement, and is allowed to continue, this will undermine (biotechnology patent) life as we know it and thwart any incentive for biotechnology companies to invest in novel genetically engineered plant species.  Bowman's supporters say, "hogwash"; they argue that Monsanto and other biotechnology companies can use contracts and licenses to ensure their patented inventions are adequately protected and the companies compensated for their research and development in bring innovations to the public.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments later this month.  Unfortunate for Bowman, Monsanto's patents include claims to genetically modified, glyphosate resistant soybean plants as well methods for growing the glyphosate resistant plants and applying glyphosate.  Further, Monsanto won at the district court level and the Federal Court of Appeals level.  However, anything can happen when the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on a patent dispute and cultivates its interpretation of U.S. patent law.

© Stephen J. Weyer, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 2013

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com

Meet us at BIO in Chicago (April 22-24)

Meet us at INTA in Dallas

 

Apple Obtains U.S. Trademark Registration for Layout and Design of Retail Stores

Last week the United States Patent & Trademark Office issued a registration to Apple, Inc. for the design and layout of the Apple retail stores. The registration issued as U.S. Registration No. 4,277,914, and protects the totality of the features of the retail store, including but not limited to the clear glass storefront, paneled facade, rectangular recessed lighting units, cantilevered shelves. The Trademark Office determined that this combination of elements had acquired distinctiveness, and that consumers recognize these elements as an identifying symbol of Apple.

U.S. Registration No. 4,277,914

 

The look of Apple's retail stores is protectable as trade dress. In its 1992 Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that trade dress that is inherently distinctive is protectable under Lanham Act § 43(a) without a showing that the trade dress has acquired secondary meaning.  However, the Trademark Office found that the design of the Apple store was not inherently distinctive.  When a mark is refused registration on the basis that it lacks distinctiveness, the applicant must submit evidence to the Trademark Office showing that the public associates the mark as the source of the goods or services promoted under that mark.  This is precisely what Apple did. Apple strenghtened its claim of acquired distinctiveness by claiming that the trade dress had been in use in commerce for more than 5 years.

The issuance of this registration is just one step forward in Apple's fight against copy cat retail stores, which have been popping up around the world at a surprisingly high rate. Apple's U.S. trademark Registration in its retail store design provides prima facia evidence of Apple's rights in the look and feel of the popular retail stores.

© Mari-Elise Taube, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 2013

Send email feedback- mtaube@stites.com

The Kit Kat shape is protectable? Give me a break.

Love the Kit Kat?  Who doesn't, really?  Part of what I love most is that you can break apart each of the "four fingers" while eating it.  This "four finger" design is a trademark of Nestle and the Board of Appeal at the Community Trade Mark Office recently acknowledged Nestle's rights in this design.

Nestle obtained a Community Trade Mark registration of the unique four-finger Kit Kat in 2006, but Nestle's rival Cadbury (now owned by Mondelēz International, a recent split from Kraft Foods) won an appeal which invalidated that registration.  Nestle fought back, and the Board of Appeal at the Community Trade Mark Office reinstated the trademark on the four-finger chocolate bar shape.  This registration prevents other confectionars from selling chocolate bars with a similar four-bar structure anywhere in the EU.

Here in the U.S., the shape and design of a product is referred to as its "trade dress", and if trade dress satisfies the federal standards of trademark protection as identifying and distinguishing a product, it is registerable. To be registerable as a trademark, the elements of the trade dress must be capable of definition such that the public will know the exact parameters of what is being claimed as trade dress. One example of this is the Hershey Bar. Last summer, the United States Patent & Trademark Office granted Hershey's a registration for its signature candy bar shape.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that product design trade dress can never be classified as "inherently distinctive."  Those claiming rights in product design trade dress, such as the Kit Kat shape or the Hershey shape, must always prove that the design has acquired secondary meaning in the market.  The USPTO found that Hershey’s had presented evidence to show that the design of the Hershey bar had acquired distinctiveness and was therefore registerable.

However, those who can't prove secondary meaning in their product design shouldn't fret.  Design patent and copyright protection are usually available as alternatives to obtain protection for a design that is source identifying but has not yet obtained secondary meaning.

Next time you "have a break", grab a Kit Kat and check out this protected four-finger design.

© Mari-Elise Taube, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 2013

Send email feedback- mtaube@stites.com

"Beware the Ides of March" or "Much ado about nothing!"

"Beware the Ides of March" or "Much Ado About Nothing!"

Come March 16, 2013, the U.S. Patent Office adopts a "first ['inventor'] to file" system from its present, "first to invent" system.  Certainly, the rules will “change” after March 15, 2013 but the effect may be minimal.  In order to see how, one needs to understand the current "first to invent" rule, how it has worked over the decades, and compare it to how the new "first to file" rule will function.

Under the current "first to invent" rule, the first person(s) to create a new invention and subsequently file a patent application, is entitled to consideration for a patent.  Although an applicant is initially granted an "effective" date of invention as the date a patent application is filed, under the "first to invent" rule, an applicant can submit evidence of an earlier date of invention.  The earlier date is beneficial if the applicant needs to prove he or she invented the invention before another as well as for eliminating references from being cited against a patent application when the Patent Office is accessing a patent application for novelty and non-obviousness (e.g. requirements for patentability).

The soon to be enacted "first to file" system will eliminate an applicant from establishing an earlier date of invention.  But, will this rule change have any real impact on most patent applications?  In other words, should applicants "Beware the Ides of March" or is this "Much ado about nothing"?

Professor Dennis D. Crouch (University of Missouri School of Law and creator and author of the blog, Patently-o) in his 2010 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2010 law review article, Is Novelty Obsolete? Chronicling the Irrelevance of the Invention Date in U.S. Patent Law suggests that a first to file system will have minimal effect on patent applicants.  Based on his analysis of 21,000 patent applications, very few applicants availed themselves of or were successful in establishing an earlier filing date.  For example, only 0.1 % successfully relied (exclusively) on establishing an earlier date of invention, to overcome an Examiner's rejection.

Other provisions to take effect on March 16, 2013 may also have limited impact on most U.S. inventors.  For example, starting March 16, the applicant's invention in public use or on-sale anywhere in the world will be considered prior art against a patent application, thereby possibly limiting patentability. Under current law, the public use and on-sale are limited to the U.S.  Since most U.S. inventors would have U.S. public use and/or on-sale inventions in the U.S. first (if at all), rather than somewhere else in the world, it appears on first blush that this change in the law will also have little impact on most U.S. inventors.

One provision which may have more impact on a U.S. inventor is that starting March 16, 2013, an applicant is given a limited* one year grace period to file a U.S. patent application after his or her own public disclosure* (which may include use or on-sale activities).  After the grace period expires, an applicant will be barred from filing a patent application.

Under the current law, the one year grace period for filing a patent application after a public disclosure, use or on-sale activities is not limited to only those of the inventor.  Consequently, under the existing law, an inventor could file a patent application up to one year after any public disclosure (i.e. the inventor's or a third party's).  Non-disclosure agreements and secrecy are two ways for limiting potential pitfalls from third parties' unauthorized public disclosure, which may bar patentability under the new law. 

© Stephen J. Weyer, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 2013

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com

Meet us at BIO in Chicago (April 22-24)

Meet us at INTA in Dallas