ACUMEN LPO

what patent holders should do to defend their patents.

2010-05-18T02:28:00.000-07:00

Validity search –

The validity search is a specific type of patent novelty search. The former is conducted to make sure that the patent was validly granted to the patent holder. This process can be extremely complicated and is not as simple as placing keywords in a patent search engine box and then getting an answer to pop out. Since it is a process, there are vital steps to consider along the way. Here are some of the steps you must look into with this patent related search that usually comes sometime after a novelty search has been performed.

First, you have to prove that your product is patentable. This is where the role of novelty search comes in. In this process, there are three prerequisites to consider. You have to prove that the product is novel or original and also that it has not been sold or published in the market for over a year. In line with this, you have to assert that your product is useful enough to carry its functions and to serve its purpose for the end users. Finally you have to show that your invention is not an obvious improvement over an existing product or invention To prove all these points, a patent novelty search will also be necessary.

A validity search should support the decision made in a novelty search. To be able to do that, this search should be conducted regardless of how certain you are with the patentability of your soon-to-be launched product or service. By doing so, you will be able to strengthen your invention at the same time get a less complicated patent application process. This will also help you get rid of possible litigation attacks and validity questions as to your product or service.

If someone else questions the validity of your patent claim, the validity search will also serve its purpose. If another party claims invalidity of the patent granted to you, they will do everything to prove that your patent is really invalid. This may then result in issues that will lead to a court trial and patent investigation needing to be performed. On your part as the patent holder, you should disprove these claims as your opponents assert their invalidity issues on your patented technology. Be ready to defend yourself by hiring assistance from IP attorneys or paralegals.

In cases when your patent is copied by another party, you may use the validity search to support your patent infringement claims. This will be crucial for you to prove that the plaintiff indeed copied your patented technology. Remember that the patent search may also be used by someone who is seeking a patent license from your existing product. This is for these future patentees to lower down the minimal royalty payments you require from them. Therefore, you have to make your necessary steps to contest these future problems.

A validity search therefore is not just done in order to support a novelty search. It can be used in a number of ways by you as patent holders. This patent-related search is crucial for you to disprove invalidity claims made by other persons who want to claim the patent license already granted to you. At some points, you may also make use of it in support for patent infringement searches. If you want to receive royalty payments due to you from those whom you are granting your patent’s license, this type of search also be of great help.
Looking for people who will help you through a novelty search and validity search? Get help from our team of experts and have all your patenting concerns addressed.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 16th, 2010 at 4:43 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Software Theft Remains Significant Issue Around the World

2010-05-18T02:22:00.000-07:00

The rate of global software piracy climbed to 43 percent in 2009. This increase was fueled in large part by expanding PC sales in fast-growing, high-piracy countries and increasing sales to consumers — two market segments that traditionally have higher incidents of software theft. In 2009, for every $100 worth of legitimate software sold, an additional $75 worth of unlicensed software made its way onto the market. There was some progress in 2009 — software rates actually dropped in almost half of the countries examined in this year’s study.

Given the global recession, the software piracy picture could have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. But progress is being outstripped by the overall increases in piracy globally — and highlights the need for governments, law enforcement and industry to work together to address this vital economic issue.

Below are key findings from this year’s study:

• Commercial value of software theft exceeds $50 billion: the commercial value of unlicensed software put into the market in 2009 totalled $51.4 billion.

• Progress on piracy held through the recession: the rate of PC software piracy dropped in nearly half (49%) of the 111 economies studied, remained the same in 34% and rose in 17%.

• Piracy continues to rise on a global basis: the worldwide piracy rate increased from 41% in 2008 to 43% in 2009; largely a result of exponential growth in the PC and software markets in higher piracy, fast growing markets such as Brazil, India and China.

http://portal.bsa.org/globalpiracy2009/index.html

The Provisional Patent Application: Myths, Realities… and new deadlines!

2010-05-18T02:15:00.000-07:00

Inventors often wonder what path they should follow when it comes to filing a patent application. Most small companies with limited cash and unproven technologies are naturally attracted by the apparent cost deferral (but not necessarily cost savings) of filing a “provisional” application, as opposed to filing for the permanent application on day one. They also like the one year period the provisional application allows them before having to file their final application while deciding whether to commercialize their invention and invest further (or preferably find others do so).

Although opinions diverge among professionals as to its pros and cons, it remains true that a provisional patent application can usually be prepared quickly and for less money. Hence, it can be most useful where the applicant is so cash strapped that it cannot afford paying for the full application immediately, or when it is on the verge of a tradeshow, a conference or meeting with potential investors (who rarely will sign a NDA), all scenarios that can trigger a “public disclosure”. Note that this is mostly relevant if the inventor intends to seek protection outside of the US (since the disclosure would negate international rights), as the US still allows for a one year grace period to file domestically after such disclosure. Finally, it may impress those same early investors who tend to look for unique and –eventually- enforceable IP as an indicator of future commercial success.

But taking this route is not risk free; the final application will be limited to the patentable subject matter disclosed initially in the provisional, no more. So features or improvements not clearly described initially will not be covered. Hence, anything done too hastily or to save some money upfront may later feel penny wise pound foolish. Also, because the patent attorney will have to get reacquainted with the case a year later, the total cost of taking a two step process is likely to be higher at the end than filing just once in the beginning.

Regardless, provisional applications have become increasingly popular in this economy. And a recent announcement by the USPTO may skew the balance even further in this direction. Indeed, a few weeks ago, the US agency published a proposal by which it would offer an additional 12 month “extension” to the current 12 month patent provisional application period. Under the current rule, the applicant must convert their provisional filing to a full utility patent within 12 months thereof in order to retain their priority filing date and avoid their application being deemed abandoned. Under the proposed rule, the one year delay would still be in force (only Congress can change it), but the USPTO would “look the other way” for an additional year before sending a notice of “missing parts”, in fact giving the applicant up to 24 months to make a final decision regarding their application.

It should be noted however that this change would not affect foreign filings, which must still be filed within 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application in accordance with the Paris Convention. This means that the new proposed rule would not at all benefit applicants who wish to secure patent protection beyond the US territory, a common strategy nowadays as a result of globalization. Also, by exploiting the delayed payment, an applicant would forego their right to opt not to have the patent application published at 18 months from the provisional patent application filing date.

Many have argued that the USPTO’s proposal is primarily self-serving in a feeble attempt to mask its terrible backlog by leaving provisional applications “off the books” for a few more months and hoping more people will abandon their application. Furthermore, by encouraging delayed filings, the cash starved agency is poised to reap more of those extra fees required for late filing. Nevertheless, this proposed change wouldn’t really impact those who don’t want to take advantage of it and it is likely to provide added flexibility to the small entities for whom buying time and deferring patent related costs by a few months are paramount to their business strategy or very survival.

http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=75d5302469ff470b1cab68545&id=a476fdd9e2

Will USPTO use Section 112 more often in rejections of software patents claims?

2010-05-14T09:29:00.000-07:00

USPTO Director David Kappos recently commented on the March 22, 2010 Federal Circuit en banc decision Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly and concluded that the written description requirement remains alive and well and is an essential “backstop” against overclaiming. In the case, the Federal Circuit held that Section 112 of the Patent Act has a written description requirement that is separate and apart from the enablement requirement.

The Ariad decision is considered important for the USPTO because written description is a critical tool for ensuring that an applicant does not claim more than he is entitled to claim. The Office recently conducted a survey of 6,865 final rejections issued over a 4.5 year period between 2005 and 2010. A written description rejection was made in about 9.7 percent of all applications during this time period. This data shows that the written description doctrine is essential to the Office’s ability to perform its basic examination function.

Now, Jim Singer concludes in his recent IP Spotlight post that this may be a signal that the USPTO intends to apply Section 112 more aggressively to software claims, since Mr Kappos explains:

[T]he written description doctrine is particularly useful in examining claims that employ functional language, or that merely set forth a desired result without any indication of what achieves that result. . . . Thus, when confronted with functional claims, as with results obtained claims, I encourage examiners to carefully consider whether such claims — amended or original — are adequately supported by the specification.

And, since it's not a secret that patent claims relating to software often use functional language, as the function of the software is typically what separates it from the prior art, Mr Kappos strongly supports the USPTO examiners using the written description requirement to prevent issuance of such vastly overbroad recitations. Unless an applicant has devised every solution to a problem, the applicant is not entitled to patent every solution.

http://www.visaepatentes.com/2010/05/uspto-director-david-kappos-recently.html

Patents and Stock Market

2010-05-14T09:27:00.000-07:00

Here is another classic example of the Intellectual Property impacting the Share prices. The recent the long-running TiVo patent litigation against DISH and sister company Echostar (SATS) alleging violation of TiVO’s DVR patents by Dish DVRs.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit has granted a request by DISH and SATS for a rehearing en banc - meaning a hearing by all the judges of the circuit, and just the smaller panel that heard the original appeal - of a previous appeals court ruling that had been highly favorable to TiVo. The court today vacated a March 4 Appeals Court ruling which had upheld a district court decision that had found SATS and DISH in contempt of court of a previous ruling that found DISH had violated TiVo’s DVR patents.

The four-page ruling by the court asks the two sides to file new briefs on four issues:

* “Following a finding of infringement by an accused device at trial, under what circumstances is it proper for a district court to determine infringement by a newly accused device through contempt proceedings rather than through new infringement proceedings? What burden of proof is required to establish that a contempt proceeding is proper?”

* “How does ‘fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct’ compare with the ‘more than colorable differences’ or ’substantial open issues of infringement’ tests in evaluating the newly accused device against the adjudged infringing device?”

* “Where a contempt proceeding is proper, (1) what burden of proof is on the patentee to show that the newly accused device infringes and (2) what weight should be given to the infringer’s efforts to design around the patent and its reasonable and good faith belief of non-infringement by the new device, for a finding of contempt?”

* “Is it proper for a district court to hold an enjoined party in contempt where there is a substantial question as to whether the injunction is ambiguous in scope?”

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/05/14/dish-spikes-tivo-sinks-court-to-hear-appeal-in-patent-case/

Land Mark case in IP(patent) infringement

2010-05-14T02:51:00.000-07:00

Imagine a world in which Microsoft wasn’t allowed to sell windows or word, no one could use a Blackberry, Intel’s chips were taken off the market and every company that wanted to deploy Linux had to pay an exorbitant fee to an obscure software vendor.

That world doesn’t, exist, of course. But each of those scenarios could have been realized if the outcome of five major patent lawsuits had been different. It easy to dismiss the recent lawsuit by Apple against HTC, the maker of Google’s Nexus One smart phone, as something that only lawyers need to care about. Indeed, most landmark patent suits are settled often at great expense without causing an upheaval in the technology industry.

Even so, patent litigation has become more than a cottage industry in Silicon valley. On the one hand, it protects intellectual property developed by independent entrepreneurs and industry giants alike. But it also wastes untold millions of dollars a year that could be better spent on innovation, says Charlene Morrow, who heads the patent litigation practice of Fenwick & West. “When startup valuations were very high, and a new company got a round of funding, you could absolutely count on a non-practicing entity to file a patent suit.

Non-Practicing entity? That’s a polite term for what others call “Patent Troll”, a company that purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent. Patent trolls typically have no actual technology or products on the market.

We are providing the most sensational patent cases ever to roil the technology industry.

1. Who invented the GUI?
Although it seems like relic of the distant past, it’s only been 30 years since Microsoft launched Windows 3.0, Its first successful operating system to sport a graphical user interface. It was a great ides, but whose ides was it anyway?

According to Apple founder Stev jobs, it wasn’t Microsoft’s; it was apple’s. or was it ? Legend has it that jobs actually got the idea when he took a tour of the famed Xerox PARC and saw an early version of a windowed operating system, recalls long-time semiconductor analyst Brook wood of insight.

Whether that’s true or not, Apple claimed that the “look and feel” of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and sued Microsoft in federal court in 1988. Not to be outdone, Xerox jumped into the fray before the original action was resolved and sued Apple for stealing its ideas.

After six years of litigation and appeals that went all the up to the United supreme Court, both suits were dismissed; Apple’s because it couldn’t prove its claim, Xerox’s because it had waited too long.

2. Is it Linux or UNIX?
In early 2003, an obscure software company called SCO, which had come into existence via a Byzantine series of mergers and technology sales, shocked Silicon Valley by announcing that part of its UNIX system code had found its way into Linux. SCO, which hadn’t invested the code, refused to identify the specific segment of the software, claiming that it was a secret which they would reveal only to the court.

A flurry of lawsuits followed, including a $1 billion action against IBM, and suits against Novell, Red Hat and Daimler Chrysler. For a while, there was a fear that third party customers who used Linux could be liable for huge damages to SCO. There were allegations that Microsoft, in a truly Machiavellian move, had funneled money to SCO to help fund a lawsuit that would damage its competitors. Ultimately, though, the cases fell apart.

3. No Crackberry for you
Hardly anyone had heard of a tiny Virginia-based company called NTP. That changed in a hurry when NTP, which held a basketful of wireless patents, brought suit against RIM, the inventor of the wildly popular Blackberry. A jury agreed that the patents were valid and RIM was hit for $53 million in damages.

Had it ended there, it would have been just another expensive lawsuit. But a judge then ruled that RIM was continuing to violate NTP patents by operating the black Berry data network. He could have issued an injunction to shut down the service. Panic ensued as everyone from Wall Street traders to senior advisers at the white house faced the loss of their favorite electronic gadget. Ultimately RIM settled for $615 million, one of the largest ever settlements in a technology patent case.
The NTP suit soarked outrage in many quarters at the perceived unfairness of the patent system. However, in a more recent patent case known as eBay vs MercExchange, the U.S Supreme Court issued a ruling making it less likely that a patent holder could win an injunction to shut down the business of a patent violator, says Michael Sacksteder, a patent attorney with Fenwick & West.

4.Chips Ahoy
Intel and a workstation maker called Integraph tangled in a complex series of patent lawsuits beginning in 1997. Integraph claimed that Intel, the worlds larger microprocessor maker, had stolen key features of its Clipper chip. One settlement, which that involved memory design, cost Intel about $3000 million. A second alleged infringement involving a microprocessor instruction set known as VLIW was settled for $225 million. Brookwood notes that the settlement was more money than anyone ever made bringing that technology to market. At $ 525 million, the integraph litigation resulted in the largest set of damages ever won against Intel.

Making matters even more complicated, computer makers, including Hewlett-Packard, become involved because they had purchased chips from Intel that included memory features claimed by Intergraph. Ultimately, those claims were settled as well.

5. A Gold Medal for the Canadians
It would be hard to find a product that has a larger user base than Microsoft Word, or an application that makes more money for its inventors. So when a tiny Canadian Company called i4i won an injunction preventing Microsoft from selling word, the world noticed.
The 30-employee company claimed that Microsoft had infringed on a patent for the use of an XML feature. Microsoft never stopped selling word, but it has removed the featured from word 2007 and the upcoming Office 2010 and paid $290 million in damages.
It’s worth nothing that i4i filed its case in the small East Texas town of Tyler, a venue considered the friendliest in the United States for claims brought by patent trolls.

One other bit of tech patent history: It appears that the term patent troll was first used by Chuck Mulloy, a veteran tech industry public relations man who has fought on both sides of the Intel-AMD chip wars. As Mulloy recounts, Intel was defending a patent case brought against it by a company called TechSearch. In an interview with reporter Dean Takahashi of the wall Street Journal, the normally affable Mulloy let his irritation show and he referred to TechSearch as a “patent extortionist.”

TechSearch’s lawyer’s quickly added a liable case to their suit. After a huddle with corporate attorneys, Mulloy retracted “patent extortionist,” and substituted the milder “patent troll.” “It’s like the troll that lives under the bridge, but doesn’t own it, and charges a toll on everyone who crosses,” he said recently.

HTC SUES APPLE FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

2010-05-14T02:27:00.000-07:00

HTC Corporation (HTC) is one of the fastest growing companies in the mobile phone industry. By putting people at the center of everything it does, HTC creates innovative smartphones that better serve the lives and needs of individuals.

HTC Corporation today took legal action against Apple Inc., filing a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) to halt the importation and sale of the iPhone, iPad and iPod in the United States.

HTC’s commitment to innovation has continued for more than a decade as it has focused on building a portfolio of the world’s most advanced smartphones that are inspired by consumers and provide them with a variety of choices in software, design, form-factor, price and wireless carrier. Today, consumers in the United States can choose between 12 HTC smartphones with the national wireless carriers. HTC has continuously strived to bring innovative smartphone choices to consumers, like the recently unveiled HTC EVO 4G with Sprint, DROID Incredible by HTC with Verizon Wireless and the HTC HD2 with T-Mobile.

http://www.htc.com/www/press.aspx?id=129616&lang=1033

Ip Management

2010-05-12T02:35:00.000-07:00

The World Intellectual Property Organization defines intellectual property as: “items of information or knowledge, which can be incorporated into tangible objects at the same time in an unlimited number of copies at different locations anywhere in the world.”

So in other words intellectual property is anything created by an individual or company, whether it is a new invention, a novel, a product or a song, all of these things fall under the intellectual property laws and regulations. Copyrights and patents also help to protect intellectual property. A copyright protects intellectual property that will be copied, like books or music and patents protect the method of creating a product, for example the integrated circuit topography of a cell phone.

An idea however is not essentially considered a form of intellectual property. The idea will only become intellectual property when some work has been applied it, like writing the idea down or designing the product. The more work you put into the idea the more of an intellectual property it will become and the more protection you will have.

Now that we know what intellectual property is, it is pretty easy to understand that any form of intellectual property will involve a significant amount of paperwork, deadlines, docketing, maintenance, communication with patent offices and other time-consuming matters. All of which often requires immediate attention followed by prompt responses. As the intellectual property portfolio grows the many responsibilities and administrative requirements can become a full time job just to manage them.

Trying to stay on top of all matters can become quite taxing for a new company or individual and can obviously detract from free time which would be more beneficially spent coming up with new ideas. This is where intellectual property management will come into play.

Intellectual property management is really all about identifying your intellectual property assets and maximizing the profits of your portfolio. Your intellectual property management policies should be consistent with your overall business strategy, while at the same time helping you to identify opportunities and manage risks to make business decisions in an organized and effective manner.
With a properly developed intellectual property management policy in place you will be able to capitalize on your portfolio including generating revenues from previously unused intellectual property assets, such as patents that you hold that are not doing anything for your company.

If you have been acquiring patents and growing your portfolio it may be time to enlist the help of a professional to manage your intellectual property for you. They will be able to help you recognize opportunities for licensing and other revenue generating ideas that you may not have be aware of at all. There are many companies that specialize in intellectual property management and can easily be found using the internet.

Before signing any contract with an intellectual property management business make sure you do your research about the company, ask them for some recommendations from their previous and current clients and make sure you take the time to call them to see how their experiences have been.

http://articleresource.org/legal/intellectual-property/what-is-intellectual-property-management-24308

First to Invent vs. First to Patent

2010-05-12T02:30:00.000-07:00

Introduction:

In this article I would like to clarify the difference between two very important Patent rules - First to Invent and First to Patent. Understanding these rules is extremely important and every novice inventor should know the difference between them.

First to Invent Rule

First to Invent Rule states that the Unites States Patent Office (USPTO) will grant patent on an invention to an inventor who first invented the product. Please notice the word 'first' - and this is crucial because the original inventor might not be the first who submitted his invention to Patent Office! First To Invent Rule, which is obeyed in Canada and United States, helps in determining who is the rightful owner of an invention and rewards an inventor with proper patent.

First to Patent Rule

First to Patent Rule, on the other hand, grants patent to people who submitted Patent paperwork first! The rule is recognized by most European countries and is not very friendly to an inventor because the first person to publish an invention might not be an original inventor! First to Patent Rule encourages people to 'borrow' ideas from others and rewards them with new and shiny patents.

What can one submit as a proof that he is the original and rightful owner of the patent? Two excellent choices are Provisional Patent Application and Inventor Journal.

Provisional Patent Application

Provisional Patent Application may be the only source of proof that you are the original inventor and entitled to reaping the benefits of the patent. It is very possible that since the time you have submitted your Provisional Patent Application, someone else filled out paperwork for regular patent. The only thing that might substantiate your claim that you are the rightful owner of the invention is your Provisional Patent Application. One note of caution - Provisional Application is good for one year only and cannot be renewed. In fact, these applications were meant to be temporary solution until the inventor submits regular Patent Application Paperwork.

Inventor Journal

Inventor Notes or Journal is another popular method of keeping records regarding the time-line of your invention. In your journal you should write down every important date related to your invention with detailed explanation of your invention. Be as detailed as possible because the Journal might be the only proof that you are the original owner of an invention. It is a good idea to date every page and include diagrams and graphs that are pertinent to your invention. Ask your friends to read your Journal (your friends may not be as technical as you are, so be patient and explain your invention to them in plain language staying away from technical jargon). Ask your friends to date and sign your Notes - again, your friends are your witnesses and Patent Office will consider them.

Summary

As one can see, United States and Canada abides the First to Invent Rule and protects original owners of invention. Inventor Journal and USPTO Disclosure Documents are two excellent methods of documenting your invention and serve as a stepping stone towards filing Patent Application.

http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/First-To-Invent-Vs--First-To-Patent/202522

Patent office rejects Roche claim on eye drug

2010-05-07T04:26:00.000-07:00

Swiss drug multinational Roche AG suffered yet another setback in its ongoing patent fights in India after the Chennai patent office rejected its claim over Valcyte (valganciclovir).

The decision, which came on April 30, marks an end to one of the toughest patent battles between Roche, Indian generic drug makers and groups of patients.

Valganciclovir is an important drug for the treatment of severe eye infection that people living with HIV (the AIDS virus) are susceptible to. It is also used in post-operative treatment for patients who have received an organ transplant.

Valcyte is priced at Rs 1,040 for each 450 mg tablet, while generic equivalents are available at a fourth of its cost. The Chennai office rejected the patent claim primarily on the grounds that valganciclovir lacked the novelty that merits protection.

Anand Grover, Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, who represented the patient groups in the litigation, welcomed the decision. “This underscores the importance of oppositions in ensuring that the Patent Office interprets the patentability criteria strictly, to prevent new forms of old drugs from being patented. This decision will have implications for patients not only in India but also in other developing countries,” he said.

Roche is entitled to now approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for a review of the patent office decision.

It had initial success with Valcyte when the Chennai office granted a patent to the medicine in 2007. Since the decision was taken without hearing a pre-grant opposition filed by some patient groups, it was challenged in the High Court there.

The court set aside the order and asked the patent office to hear the pre-grant opposition, which was rejected by the latter. The matter came before the Supreme Court that directed the patent office to club all opposition — by patient groups, post-grant opposition from generic companies — and give its verdict.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=393974

Patent Theft as a Business Strategy

2010-05-07T04:21:00.000-07:00

America's largest big tech corporations are now using a business technique called "efficient infringement," which means that they calculate the benefits of stealing someone else's patented technology against the possibility of getting caught, tried in court and being forced to pay damages and penalties. If the benefits exceed the costs, they steal.

What makes patent theft so attractive is that infringement is not a criminal act and those found guilty face no jail time. Paying up is the worst that can happen to the infringer.

The most aggressive users of this business model are fifteen of America's largest big tech corporations. patent owners have sued these fifteen corporations 740 times for infringement and have won $4 billion in damages. Not surprisingly, these big tech corporations' political goal is to change the law so patent theft is more difficult to prove, less costly when caught, and willful infringement virtually impossible to prove.

The principal victims of these big corporations' "efficient infringement" approach are independent inventors, small businesses and universities - the source of most breakthrough innovations and the creators of two-thirds of all new jobs.

This "steal-what-you-want" approach to business is spreading throughout our economy. Now, corporate behemoths in the financial services industry are using the technique and ganging up on small patent holders. Nowhere is this more evident than the case of DataTreasury Corporation, a tiny Texas company locked in battle with some of the biggest banks in the world.

As I have written before, DataTreasury's founder invented a revolutionary check-processing system in the mid-1990s and tried to market it to high-level executives at Chase Manhattan Bank (now known as JPMorgan Chase). Instead of partnering with DataTreasury, those bankers are accused of walking off with the idea and using it to start a pair of highly successful check-processing companies of their own -- companies which are now owned by the biggest banks in the nation.

According to industry sources, the banking industry is now making $2-4 billion annually because of DataTreasury's patented check-processing technology. DataTreasury has been forced to go to court to protect its property rights, and over the years has reached settlements with JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, HSBC, and scores of other large banks.

But Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and about a dozen other banks refuse to deal with the little company. Instead of paying up, those remaining banks have played dirty. In 2007, Washington lobbyists working for the banking industry had an amendment inserted into a pending patent-reform bill that would have granted legal immunity to all of DataTreasury's defendants. The amendment died on the floor of the U.S. Senate after the press exposed the story.

As you read this, DataTreasury is in the middle of a trial with Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank, the country's fifth-largest financial institution.

Last week, the federal judge overseeing the case dropped a bombshell. He ruled that DataTreasury had succeeded in arguing that U.S. Bank may have conspired with the nation's other top banks to infringe the small company's patents. That's a very serious charge. It helps open the door to more than $600 million in damages against U.S. Bank, and it raises questions about whether Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and the other banks going to trial with DataTreasury later this year, may have also taken part in the same conspiracy.

Whether U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and a dozen other banks are guilty of infringing DataTreasury's patent is a matter for a jury to decide. However, if the jury does conclude that they were part of a conspiracy to steal the little company's idea, I hope that the judge and jury will impose a judgment that is big enough to scare corporate CEOs everywhere. If money is the only penalty for infringement, then a staggeringly large award is the only way to send a message to corporate America that they should avoid any conspiracy to infringe someone's patents as though it were the Bubonic Plague.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-choate/patent-theft-as-a-busines_b_508780.html

USTR Report pointing 11 countries on its Priority Watch List

2010-05-07T03:09:00.000-07:00

The office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has sent Congress its annual report on the adequacy and effectiveness of U.S. trading partners' protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), which shows some progress but also names a number of countries where it feels IPR protection is falling short of what needs to be done.

The report places considerable emphasis on what it says are "the prominence of IPR concerns with respect to China."

USTR Ron Kirk said: "We are seriously concerned about China's implementation of 'indigenous innovation' policies that may unduly disadvantage U.S. IPR holders. Procurement preferences and other measures favoring 'indigenous innovation' could severely restrict market access for American technology and products." He added that intellectual property theft in overseas markets is an export killer for American businesses and a job killer for American workers here at home."

U.S. textile and apparel makers have long been victims of both imports and exports from China and other countries that they say violate their intellectual property rights.

After reviewing actions by 77 countries, the USTR placed 11 countries on its Priority Watch List of counties that it feels do not provide adequate levels of IPR protection. Those countries include China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand and Venezuela.

Twenty-nine countries are on a lower priority list; and the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were removed from the Priority Watch List.

Kirk said he would continue to work with the governments of the listed countries in an effort to resolve problems.

http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2010/May/Washington_Outlook_Both_Problems_And_Progress_Seen_In_Intellectual_Property_Rights_Protection.html

Patent A Strategic Weapon in Smartphone Industry

2010-05-07T03:06:00.000-07:00

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it." Those words, spoken by Apple CEO Steve Jobs in early March, are only the latest in a series of verbal and legal skirmishes that are developing in the smartphone industry. Jobs' comments, and a lawsuit filed by Apple, were directed at Taiwan-based HTC, a leading distributor of phones powered by Google's Android operating system. In a March 17 statement, HTC CEO Peter Chou said his company "disagrees with Apple's actions and will fully defend itself."

In February Motorola sued Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry, over patent infringements in wireless technology. And Finland-based Nokia , which boasts one of the broadest patent portfolios in the industry, sued Apple late last year over infringements on patents for its Global System for Mobile Communications, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System and wireless local area network standards--only to be hit in December by a countersuit over patent infringement.

The flurry of patent battles playing out in U.S. federal courts and in front of the International Trade Commission--an independent government agency that determines import damages from unfair trade practices and copyright, patent and trademark infringement--is the mark of a young industry with billions of dollars at stake. Companies like Apple are looking to solidify their positions as a front runner and are willing to use their intellectual property as a weapon in their arsenal.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/05/defending-a-patent-risks-entrepreneurs-law-taxation-wharton.html?boxes=Homepagechannels

Counterfeit goods growing problem in India: USTR

2010-05-06T02:11:00.000-07:00

Joe C Mathew / New Delhi

US watchdog lauds India’s IPR efforts, but picks holes in legal framework.

Counterfeit goods and pirated software and optical media continue to thrive in India. A report by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has named Nehru Place and Palika Bazaar in New Delhi, Richie Street and Burma Bazaar in Chennai, Manish Market, Heera Panna, Lamington Road and Fort District in Mumbai, and Chandni Chowk in Kolkata as markets that need to be watched out for this high-volume trade.

India, in fact, continues to be on the “priority watch list” of the USTR’s “Special 301” report, despite a detailed submission of the intellectual property rights (IPR) compliance measures initiated by it in 2009.

The “Special 301” report is an annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement. Priority watch list is a list of countries whose IPR compliance is not satisfactory from the US point of view.

The report alleged that manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceutical products bearing counterfeit trademarks was a growing problem in India as well as Brazil, China, Indonesia and Russia.

The report, released on April 30, termed last year’s progress made by India on IPR enforcement front as “incremental”, though it welcomed the country’s efforts to amend trademark laws to facilitate its accession to the Madrid Protocol — an international treaty on registration and recognition of trade marks. However, it expressed concerns over “India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement”.

“Piracy and counterfeiting, including counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem. Amendments are needed to bring India’s copyright law in line with international standards, including by implementing the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Additionally, a law designed to address unauthorised manufacturing and distribution of optical discs remains in a draft form and should be enacted in the near term,” the report said.

The United States continued to point fingers at India for its patent laws and said a current provision in law (probably Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act) appeared to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery.

The Section 3(d) of Indian Patent Act prevents patenting of mere incremental innovations.

The report wanted India to “improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences and to change the perception that IPR offenses were low priority crimes”.

This is the first time that USTR had given an opportunity to India to provide its views on IPR enforcement before finalising the Special 301 Report.

The Special 301 Report categorises countries under three separate heads — watchlist, priority watchlist and notorious — depending on how USTR rates the IP enforcement systems of its trading partner. India and 10 others — Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand and Venezuela — are under the priority watch list for 2010.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/counterfeit-goods-growing-problem-in-india-ustr/393555/

To stop patent fights, India gives US, UK access to database

2010-05-06T02:01:00.000-07:00

Vineeta Pandey / DNA

New Delhi: Having burnt its fingers on long and expensive litigations to prevent foreign companies from patenting neem and turmeric,the Indian government has developed a unique process to save its AYUSH (ayurveda, yoga, unani, siddha and homeopathy) knowledge.

The health ministry has formally given US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) and UK Trademark & Patent Office (UKPTO) access to its Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) to cross-check whether it already exists with India whenever any patent is filed.

This means that whenever a patent is filed in these offices, a quick look at the Indian digital library would inform patent offices whether India already possesses this knowledge or not.

Ministry officials said the TKDL Access Agreement has in-built safeguards to protect India’s interest against any possible misuse. Under the pact, the patent examiners at International Patent Offices (IPO) can utilise the TKDL for patent search and examination purposes only and cannot reveal the content to third party unless it is necessary for citation purposes.

The ministry claims that through TKDL India is now capable of protecting about two lakh medical formulations similar to those of neem and turmeric.

There were similar moves to seek patent on yoga as well. On an average, it takes five to seven years for opposing a granted patent at international level with the litigation costs coming to Rs1-3 crore. Last year a similar TKDL Access Agreement was signed with the European Patent Office, making TKDL database available to their patent examiners.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_to-stop-patent-fights-india-gives-us-uk-access-to-database_1376838

Patent filing abuse has gone completely out of control?

2010-04-14T07:40:00.000-07:00

Infosys stood by example in recession by up keeping their offer letters, now they are standing as a big example on heights of patenting or abusing patents by applying for patent on Framework for Supporting Transition of One or More Applications of an Organization which is on off shoring U.S. Jobs, in which Infosys explains 'relates generally to the field of outsourcing or off shoring of one or more applications of an organization.' Prior to this invention, Infosys says it was necessary for a vendor organization to incur hefty visa and travel costs to allow a 'significant number' of employees from its offshore location to 'visit the client's location to interact with the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)' before returning 'to the offshore location to transfer the knowledge to the offshore team.

Tech Giant Microsoft Outsources Legal Work to India Amid Budget Cuts

2010-02-23T08:32:00.000-08:00

In a surprising move, Microsoft Inc. has inked a contract with a legal outsourcing provider to outsource to India. The provider CPA Global will employ lawyers in India to get the legal work done.
News of the agreement comes on the heels of a budget cut that will reduce Microsoft’s legal budget by 15% in the next two years. This translates into a 5% decrease in headcount as well. Before the cuts, Microsoft’s legal wing functioned with an annual budget of $900 million and included more than a thousand staff and 450 attorneys.
Software giant, Microsoft has outsourced intellectual property and patent renewal work to CPA for about five years. This operation was carried out with 70 CPA staff. However, the arrangement laid out in the new deal is expected to run separately.
Anand Sharma, CFO for CPA India was quoted as saying by LegalWeek, “The arrangement principally involves legal research work with a flexible shared service team varying according to transactions handling matters for the company.” Meanwhile, Marty Shively, Microsoft’s associate general counsel and director or worldwide IP operations, was a crucial figure in putting the deal together, say reports.
CPA has also said it will unveil and outsourcing site in the U.K. in order to undertake low-level legal work. This site will complement CPA’s onshore outsourcing in U.S. Initially, the center will open with 10-20 attorneys and paralegal and then the number is expected to move up to several hundred employees. The company is considering a site north of England as the venue for its center.
Neil Mirchandani, Lovells financial services litigation associate said in a comment, Onshoring has proved popular in the US and will doubtless appeal to clients who do not want certain information leaving the jurisdiction,” legalweek.com.

List of Lpo Companies

2010-02-23T04:21:00.000-08:00


LIST OF LPO COMPANIES IN HYDERABAD

	Name of the Company	URLs

1	Acumen LPO	http://www.acumenlpo.com

2	Quislex	http://www.quislex.com

3	Hermes Networks Pvt.Ltd.	http://www.hermes.co.in

4	Variante Global	http://www.varianteglobal.com

5	SQ Global	http://www.sqglobalsolutions.com

6	Global India Law Group	http://globalindialawgroup.in

7	TIPTON	http://www.tiptonservices.com

8	Promantra Synergy Solutions Ltd.	http://www.promantra.net

9	Dolcera	http://www.dolcera.com

10	ITAG Business Solutions Ltd	http://www.itagbs.com

11	International Legal and
	Business Services Group	http://www.bizlegalservices.com

12	Artemis Legato Solutions	http://artemislegatosol.com

13	Kochhar Lexserve	http://www.klexserve.com

14	EZENLPO Services Pvt.Ltd.	http://www.ezenlpo.com

15	Centrilaw	http://www.centrilaw.com

16	Dynamic Media Solutions Limited	http://www.dmsindia.com

17	Kailash Media	http://www.kailashmedia.com

18	Legal Advantage	http://www.legaladvantage.com

19	Version Technology Solutions	http://www.vts.in

20	Lexedge	http://www.lexedge.ca


LIST OF LPO COMPANIES IN OTHER LOCATION (INDIA)

	Name of the Company	URLs

1	Pangea3	http://www.pangea3.com/

2	Integreon	http://www.integreon.com/

3	Quislex	http://quislex.com/

4	Mindcrest	http://www.mindcrest.com/

5	AtlasLegal	http://www.atlaslegal.com/

6	Lexadigm	http://lexadigm.com/

7	Legasis	http://www.legasis.in/index.asp

8	LPO India	http://www.lpoindia.com/

9	247 Analyst.com	http://www.247analyst.com/

10	Bodhi Global	http://www.bodhiglobal.com/

11	SDD Global	http://www.sddglobal.com/

12	ALMT Legal	http://www.almtlegal.com/

13	K Lexserve	http://www.klexserve.com/

14	Le’Matrix	http://www.lematrixindia.com/

15	Intellextra	http://www.intellextra.co.in

16	LawKPO	http://www.lawkpo.com/

17	Legal Professionals-India	http://www.legalprofessionals-india.com/

18	Naavi	http://www.naavi.net/

19	ITAG	http://www.itagbs.com/index.html

20	Perry4Law	http://perry4law.com/index1.htm

21	Kpomaestro	http://www.kpomaestro.com/index.htm

22	Fox Mandal Information Technologies	http://www.fmit.co.in/

23	Brain League	http://www.brainleague.com/

24	RVS Global	http://www.rvsglobal.com

25	Clairvolex	http://www.clairvolex.com/

26	E ValueServe	http://www.evalueserve.com/

27	Legal2Legal	http://www.legal2legal.com/

28	Gausa	http://www.gausaindia.com/

29	Inrea	http://www.inrea.co.in/index.html

30	InnovarIP Consulting Group	http://www.innovarip.com/index.html

31	Information & Analytics	http://www.infolitics.com/

32	Infocache Corporation	http://www.infocachecorp.com/index.htm

33	iDiligence	http://www.idiligence.net/index.php

34	EconomicalServices	http://www.economicalservices.com

35	Cobra Legal Solutions LLC	http://www.cobralegalsolutions.com/

36	Aptara Corpn.	http://www.aptaracorp.com/index.htm

37	Cenza	http://www.cenzatech.com/

38	Adroit Legal services	http://www.adroitlegal.com

39	eCase Solutions, Inc.	http://www.ecaseinc.com

40	White Forest	http://whiteforest.org/aboutus.htm#

41	Philips & Co.	http://www.philipsandco.com/home.html

42	Globait Interaction Softech	http://www.gisbis.com/legal.htm

43	India Juris	http://www.indiajuris.com/

44	Madaan & Co	http://www.madaan.com/

45	Lereo	http://www.lereo.com/index2.php

46	Southsoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd	http://www.southsoftindia.com/Default.aspx

47	Breakthrough Technologies Pvt Ltd	http://www.breakthroughtec.com/index.asp

48	Tan Prints (India) Pvt. Ltd	http://www.tanprints.com/index.html

49	IPR Consultant	http://www.iprconsultant.com/index.html

50	Lawvie Legal Services Pvt. Ltd.	http://lawvie.com/

51	Evergreen Valley Law Group	http://www.evlg.com/

52	Artemis Legato Solutions	http://artemislegatosol.com/

53	Prodigy Infotech Chennai Pvt. Ltd.	http://www.prodigyites.com/

54	Valgen BP	http://www.valgenbp.com/

55	AllZone Management Solutions	http://www.allzonems.com/

56	Mindsprings Solutions	http://www.mindsprings.net/

57	ProDigii Ecall Pvt. Ltd	http://www.prodigii.com/

58	Planman Technologies	http://www.planmantechnologies.com/index.html

59	Proleptic Datacentric Pvt. Ltd.	http://www.prolepticdatacentric.com/

60	Optimal	http://www.otpl.com.au/index.html

61	World Outsourcing Resource Center	http://worc.in

62	Motif, Inc.	http://www.motifinc.com/

63	Amity Legal Alliance	http://amitylegal.com/

64	Fortiora	http://www.fortiora.com/

65	Promantra Synergy Solutions Ltd.	http://www.promantra.net/default.htm

66	Quatrro Legal Solutions	http://quatrrolegal.com/index.html

67	Barrasso Consulting	http://barrassoconsulting.com

68	Legal World Wide Services	http://www.legalwws.com/

69	Global Resource & Support Center (GRSC)	http://www.grscinfotech.com/

70	Fealty Legal Services Pvt. Ltd.	http://www.fealtylegal.com/

71	Law Quantum	http://www.lawquantum.com/

72	IPoutsource.net	http://www.ipoutsource.net/

73	Beryl Lexsol	http://www.berylexsol.com

74	Patent KPO Solutions	http://www.patentkpo.com

75	Sai Outsourcing Company	http://www.saibposervices.com/

76	Yantram BPO Services Pvt. Ltd.	http://www.legal-process.outsourcing-services-india.com

Rio Tinto legal chief quits for a new role at CPA Global”,

2010-02-19T08:06:00.000-08:00

Rio Tinto legal chief quits for a new role at CPA Global”, read today’s headline. This does come as a surprise but surely great news for CPA Global and the LPO industry.

Leah Cooper is the managing attorney at the mining giant Rio Tinto. She is responsible for the overall management of Rio Tinto’s multinational legal department (comprised of over 100 lawyers). Leah was the driving force behind the Rio Tinto-CPA Global deal. In May 2009, Rio Tinto awarded a contract to CPA Global. Rio Tinto offshored contract review and drafting, legal research and document review to CPA Global. When I spoke to Leah two weeks back, she sounded quite upbeat about the LPO industry. Talking about the outsourceability of the services, Leah said “Initially, the work undertaken by CPA Global included contract review and drafting, legal research, and document review. However, the scope of work is expected to expand to cover other routine legal services work.”

Cost control has become a pertinent issue across businesses. Corporate counsels have been worried about managing their external counsels and are building cost effective systems to handle their ad-hoc legal needs. Corporations are increasingly exploring alternatives such as contract attorneys and offshore service providers (LPOs), especially for certain services that require junior associates. Said Leah, “Cost was an issue but not the only issue to consider offshoring. We contracted CPA in May 2009. Since then, we have saved US$13.9 million. However, the main reason to offshore was the increasing work load. There was a point when the in-house lawyers were inundated with work and we thought that contracting an offshore service provider will help them reduce their workload.”

Corporations have more pressure to deliver quality at lesser prices leading to an increase in the amount of offshoring seen in this segment. Corporate counsels have been quite vocal about the high (and often inflated) hourly rates of law firms even for routine document review work. They have been telling their law firms to reduce their rates and in some cases suggesting the use of offshore service providers to keep the costs down. Despite this, some law firms are still hesitant about offshoring because they view it as a drastic change in their way of working.

There is no doubt that lawyers joining LPOs from international law firms and corporates offer the LPO a number of benefits – the most notable of which are domain knowledge, on-the-ground experience and a well-built network. At CPA, Leah will join the company’s legal outsourcing board and her role will primarily focus on strategy and development. Mindcrest, Pangea3, and SDD Global Solutions are some other LPOs that have hired senior US and UK lawyers. It is interesting to note that while LPOs might not be a favorite choice amongst the law graduates, LPOs are attracting lawyers from international law firms and corporations. The question however is – what does it take for a lawyer to don the manager’s hat? There is a shift in the way lawyers are thinking, planning and re-shaping their career. Amidst changing relationship between corporations and law firms, law as a profession is also re-shaping and lawyers are adapting to new (and challenging) roles.

SEO Process in Outsourcing

2010-02-16T05:19:00.000-08:00

The work of SEO Services Outsourcing has increased in the present scenario and it has come a long way. In the past more people and companies were into IT Outsourcing but with passage of time more companies become involved in SEO works due to the high success rates and decreased costs and increase in efficiency of work. What consists of SEO process in outsourcing? It is a combination of many activities.
SEO process is carried on certain phases as a part of internet marketing game plan for outsourcing operations. It consists of keyword analysis, competitive research and website analysis. Based on the competitive and keyword analysis, keyword recommendation lists are created that include the monthly search estimates. The next part is to define SEO Strategy.
The work of SEO strategy development comprises the documentation of final traffic building strategy. Based upon given analysis this strategy is made and that illustrates the modifications to be done to the website, keywords to be targeted, quality and type of contents to be used. The task of optimization and implementation of strategy comprises optimized meta tagging, optimizing title, anchor tags etc and key phrase distribution according to theme. This represents the completely optimized website that will be loaded after completion of optimization stage ready to perform in search engines.
The process of web submission tasks in outsourcing includes the blog submission, directory submission, search engine submissions, article submissions, press release, classified ads and banner ads. The price of submissions varies in different countries and also depends on the infrastructure of companies. Apart from it includes the tasks of email Marketing in the form of sending multiple emails to the client and creating, drafting and optimizing the newsletter content.
The SEO Activities are then concluded with sending the perspective reports to the clients and taking their respective feedbacks. Thus all the outsourcing SEO projects requirements and services are designed to allow customization and independent execution. This flexibility allows the companies to meet the unique needs and provide the SEO results to the clients within the given budget.

LPO Conference in UK

2010-02-10T03:18:00.000-08:00

Fronterion Managing Principal Michael Bell has been invited to participate on a panel for an upcoming legal outsourcing conference in the UK this March.

The panel will also include Mark Lewis (Partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner) and Mark Ford (Director of the Clifford Chance Knowledge Centre). Both are also recognized thought-leaders in the legal outsourcing community.

Topics to be addressed in the panel discussion:
• How to communicate with clients (of the law firm) about outsourcing initiatives.
• What are the insurance exposure issues that must be addressed?
• Specific points to review during the vendor selection process.
• Building in cultural nuances of the onshore client when offshoring.
• Different types of engagement structures when working with outside vendors.
• Core vs non core outsource/captive/offshore?
• Lessons learnt to date: People/Process/Technology/Knowledge Transfer issues

The UK, which has seen a number of significant announcements regarding legal outsourcing initiatives recently, is a geography of growing interest for alternative delivery of legal services.

More details about the upcoming conference are available through EMRG .

The Top 10 Trends for Legal Outsourcing in 2010

2010-02-09T08:32:00.000-08:00

1) A dynamic legal landscape. Economic pressures and the changing regulatory environment will continue to put pressure on organisations to turn to outside vendors.

2) Alternative legal delivery. Traditional delivery of legal services are unbundled allowing firms to offer clients new, streamlined services and create greater efficiencies.

3) Shift in focus. Legal organisations will take a more strategic approach to their outsourcing arrangements as opposed to an ad hoc, cost-focused approach.

4) Expanded work flow. Projected increases in litigation and rising economic activity will prompt organisations to source more work to LPO vendors.

5) A proving opportunity. In 2009, legal outsourcing caught the media limelight. 2010 will be the acid test for the legal outsourcing industry, when it must prove its value to new consumers.

6) Engagement structures. For 2010, the primary avenue for law firms and corporate legal teams to participate in outsourcing arrangements will be through third-party vendors and virtual captives.

7) Emerging sourcing destinations. The leading LPO location India, will face competition from emerging nations like South Africa and the Philippines.

8) Dynamic vendor landscape. Increased competition as traditional business process outsourcing (BPO) providers ramp up their LPO capacity. Mid-size LPO providers face a choice between consolidation and specialisation.

9) Talent Development and Migration. As legal outsourcing vendors gain prominence in 2010, they will have much greater access to talent as more lawyers consider outsourcing as a genuine career path.

10) Industry Transparency. 2010 will mark an increased focus on transparency that will result in more efficient markets and heightened credibility of legal outsourcing initiatives for both buyers and vendors.