By Bernie Cahiles-Magkilat
Applications for intellectual property rights protection have increased by 14 percent in the first quarter this year versus the same last year, according to the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL).
IPOPHL Director General Josephine R. Santiago said the rise in IP application reflects the increase in demand for protection of new technology and inventions, as well as increased protection of trademarks in business.
Applications for patents (covering inventions, utility models, and industrial designs) and trademarks received by the IPOPHL reached 10,024 in the first quarter of the year or 14 percent higher than the 8,761 IP applications in the same period in 2017.
Trademarks took up bulk of the IP applications in the period, numbering to 8,400 applications and having a share of 84 percent of the total.
Trademarks serve as “source-identifiers,” meant to distinguish one business’ goods or services from that of another, and can be a significant marketing tool for enterprises to establish brand recognition.
This was followed by patent-inventions with 986 or 38 percent up from 717 last year.
Patents for utility model followed with 331 or 59 percent higher than 208 in first quarter followed by industrial design with 307 from 373 last year.
Known in jurisprudence as a “silent salesman,” a trademark helps create goodwill among the consuming public, evoking a guaranty of quality associated with the product.
“The rise of intellectual property applications reflects the spreading awareness among the public of the importance of trademarks, due to our key partnerships with media, the Department of Trade and Industry, and other strategic partners. Apart from this collaboration, IPOPHL’s strategic presence has steadily been gaining traction on our social media platforms,” said Santiago.
“Of course, these efforts are underpinned by the growing understanding, appreciation, and relevance of trademarks among micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), ultimately driving the increased demand for protection,” she added.
IPOPHL has 12 satellite offices, housed in DTI offices in select cities: Cebu, Davao, Baguio, Pampanga, Legazpi, General Santos, Iloilo, Cagayan de Oro, Tuguegarao, Tacloban, and Dumaguete. The head office is within the IPOPHL office in the National Capital Region.
A patent is a bundle of exclusive rights granted for an invention which consists of product, a process or improvement of either that meets the requirements of industrial applicability, inventiveness, and novelty. As a bundle of exclusive rights, a patent allows the inventor to allow or prohibit others from making, using, selling, or importing the product of his invention during the life of the patent.
Utility models, on the other hand, are designed to protect innovations that need not meet the inventive threshold required for a standard patent application. It must, however, still have practical utility, industrial applicability, and novelty. The utility model grants similar exclusive rights as with patents, but have fundamental differences in terms of length of examination, cost, and scope of protection. A utility model, having less requirements to meet, takes a shorter period for examination. It also is a cheaper alternative to patents, because the latter needs the maintenance of annual fees. The term of protection of a patent is for 20 years, a longer period of protection than that of a utility model, which is protected for 7 years.
An industrial design protects the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article, and is also a right that gives the owner the exclusive right against unauthorized copying or imitation of the design. The term of protection of an industrial design is 5 years, renewable twice more for the same period of time.
Source >> https://business.mb.com.ph/2018/07/07/intellectual-property-protection-applications-up-by-14-in-first-quarter/
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Monday, July 23, 2018
The AIA And Its Impact On The Independent Inventor
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
The AIA And Its Impact On The Independent Inventor
By Michael Foycik ©2011
Used with permission.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, AIA for short, proposes sweeping changes to the U.S. Patent legal system and to the U.S. Patent Office itself. The “first to file” provision is of the greatest importance to independent inventors. Most of the other changes are, more or less, administrative in nature, and will be covered in future articles. This article takes a brief look at the issues affecting the independent inventor, and especially the “first to file“ provision of the AIA.
Simply put, the “first to file” law would mean whoever is first to file a patent application will be deemed the true inventor. Sounds simple, but the law also provides for a possible “derivation proceeding” which would have a very limited scope.
What does this mean for the independent inventor? For one thing, it means even the best confidentiality agreements and NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) will have questionable value. It will be difficult, and very costly, to contest inventorship under the AIA. How costly? It depends, but even now the costs of contesting inventorship may be out of reach of most independent inventors; under the AIA, far greater hurdles will exist, and the cost will be higher.
Under the AIA, independent inventors would be well advised to first file a patent application (provisional or utility, either will suffice) before showing the invention to anyone.
This is already my recommendation to inventors: file a patent application first! Do this before you show it. Do not trust in agreements or contracts to protect your rights. Too costly, you say? Not true! A provisional patent application is very cost effective, gives substantial rights, and the government filing fee is relatively low. And, if you can’t afford the government filing fee, there are even some work-around solutions for that, which I may write about in a future article.
Under the current law, any two conflicting patent applications can, in theory, be placed into an “interference proceeding” to determine which inventor should have the rights of both conflicting applications. Those proceedings are expensive, and fairly rare. Even so, the existence of such interference proceedings has one beneficial effect: it discourages “ripping off” (e.g., misappropriation) of inventions. Such “interference” proceedings will be a thing of the past under the AIA.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/The-Aia-And-Its-Impact-On-The-Independent-Inventor.html
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
The AIA And Its Impact On The Independent Inventor
By Michael Foycik ©2011
Used with permission.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, AIA for short, proposes sweeping changes to the U.S. Patent legal system and to the U.S. Patent Office itself. The “first to file” provision is of the greatest importance to independent inventors. Most of the other changes are, more or less, administrative in nature, and will be covered in future articles. This article takes a brief look at the issues affecting the independent inventor, and especially the “first to file“ provision of the AIA.
Simply put, the “first to file” law would mean whoever is first to file a patent application will be deemed the true inventor. Sounds simple, but the law also provides for a possible “derivation proceeding” which would have a very limited scope.
What does this mean for the independent inventor? For one thing, it means even the best confidentiality agreements and NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) will have questionable value. It will be difficult, and very costly, to contest inventorship under the AIA. How costly? It depends, but even now the costs of contesting inventorship may be out of reach of most independent inventors; under the AIA, far greater hurdles will exist, and the cost will be higher.
Under the AIA, independent inventors would be well advised to first file a patent application (provisional or utility, either will suffice) before showing the invention to anyone.
This is already my recommendation to inventors: file a patent application first! Do this before you show it. Do not trust in agreements or contracts to protect your rights. Too costly, you say? Not true! A provisional patent application is very cost effective, gives substantial rights, and the government filing fee is relatively low. And, if you can’t afford the government filing fee, there are even some work-around solutions for that, which I may write about in a future article.
Under the current law, any two conflicting patent applications can, in theory, be placed into an “interference proceeding” to determine which inventor should have the rights of both conflicting applications. Those proceedings are expensive, and fairly rare. Even so, the existence of such interference proceedings has one beneficial effect: it discourages “ripping off” (e.g., misappropriation) of inventions. Such “interference” proceedings will be a thing of the past under the AIA.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/The-Aia-And-Its-Impact-On-The-Independent-Inventor.html
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Software Startups: This Is How You Craft A Patent Strategy
By: Stephen Key
Obtaining patent protection for software is notoriously challenging. Software may have a very short shelf life. It’s difficult to describe precisely. There are issued patents that are written too broadly. In a 3-part series published in 2012, Eric Goldman goes in deep on how software innovations pose unique challenges to patent systems and what might be done about it. (For an alternative diagnosis, read retired software engineer Martin Goetz’ rebuttal.)
Perhaps it is no surprise that confusion reigns over what is eligible for patent protection today. Andrei Iancu, the new director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, has spoken frequently and forcefully about this issue in recent months.
“In some areas of technology, it is unclear what is patentable and what is not, and that can depress innovation in those particular areas. Our plan at the PTO is to work within Supreme Court jurisprudence to try and provide better guidelines,” he said during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in late May.
Nonetheless, it is still possible to obtain patent protection for software. So, how do you get started? I’ve never brought a software related innovation to market, so I asked John Ferrell, my longtime Silicon Valley patent attorney, if I could pick his brain.
His firm Carr & Ferrell has represented many hundreds of software startups over the years. For much of the 1990s, it represented Apple Computer, along with their subsidiary software company at the time. Other notable software clients of his have included Adobe, Autodesk, Intuit, Oracle and Sega. He was Facebook's first intellectual property attorney. Sony Computer Entertainment (including PlayStation games) has been his client for nearly two decades. He is also an active technology investor. Read the second half of our interview here.
Ferrell told me he loves patents, because his passion is architecting monopolies — and patents are often the cornerstones of strong monopolies.
How important is intellectual property when launching a new innovation in the software space? (Attracting investors and potential partners, dealing with infringement, etc.)
It really depends on the innovation and the product. Some products in the software space are fleeting novelty items with a very short shelf life. Inventions specific only to that product may not be worth protecting. For example, a mobile game that relates to a movie character may be super-hot for a few months, but then can be expected to quickly fade. An invention related to the movement or actions of a specific character, although possible to patent, may not be worth the trouble of patenting.
Even if the patent application is accelerated and issues very quickly, it may not merit the effort if the product will likely fade before the year or so it takes to get the patent issued. (And there are often better ways to protect these kinds of software products, such as brand licensing of the movie character and copyright protection.)
For other products, however, patents can be critically important. Before software became patent eligible, there was an extremely competitive period beginning in the late 1980s when Microsoft put literally hundreds of significant software companies out of business within a few years.
One such company that comes to mind was a fairly large outfit called Software Publishing Corporation (SPC). SPC had the leading presentation software at the time, which was a program called Harvard Graphics. For most business people, Harvard Graphics was the standard for conference and conference room presentations. It sold for about a hundred dollars on floppy disks. There were many other presentation software programs at the time, but Harvard Graphics was the leader.
Read More >> https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenkey/2018/06/27/software-startups-this-is-how-you-craft-a-patent-strategy/#60b5770b1fee
Obtaining patent protection for software is notoriously challenging. Software may have a very short shelf life. It’s difficult to describe precisely. There are issued patents that are written too broadly. In a 3-part series published in 2012, Eric Goldman goes in deep on how software innovations pose unique challenges to patent systems and what might be done about it. (For an alternative diagnosis, read retired software engineer Martin Goetz’ rebuttal.)
Perhaps it is no surprise that confusion reigns over what is eligible for patent protection today. Andrei Iancu, the new director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, has spoken frequently and forcefully about this issue in recent months.
“In some areas of technology, it is unclear what is patentable and what is not, and that can depress innovation in those particular areas. Our plan at the PTO is to work within Supreme Court jurisprudence to try and provide better guidelines,” he said during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in late May.
Nonetheless, it is still possible to obtain patent protection for software. So, how do you get started? I’ve never brought a software related innovation to market, so I asked John Ferrell, my longtime Silicon Valley patent attorney, if I could pick his brain.
His firm Carr & Ferrell has represented many hundreds of software startups over the years. For much of the 1990s, it represented Apple Computer, along with their subsidiary software company at the time. Other notable software clients of his have included Adobe, Autodesk, Intuit, Oracle and Sega. He was Facebook's first intellectual property attorney. Sony Computer Entertainment (including PlayStation games) has been his client for nearly two decades. He is also an active technology investor. Read the second half of our interview here.
Ferrell told me he loves patents, because his passion is architecting monopolies — and patents are often the cornerstones of strong monopolies.
How important is intellectual property when launching a new innovation in the software space? (Attracting investors and potential partners, dealing with infringement, etc.)
It really depends on the innovation and the product. Some products in the software space are fleeting novelty items with a very short shelf life. Inventions specific only to that product may not be worth protecting. For example, a mobile game that relates to a movie character may be super-hot for a few months, but then can be expected to quickly fade. An invention related to the movement or actions of a specific character, although possible to patent, may not be worth the trouble of patenting.
Even if the patent application is accelerated and issues very quickly, it may not merit the effort if the product will likely fade before the year or so it takes to get the patent issued. (And there are often better ways to protect these kinds of software products, such as brand licensing of the movie character and copyright protection.)
For other products, however, patents can be critically important. Before software became patent eligible, there was an extremely competitive period beginning in the late 1980s when Microsoft put literally hundreds of significant software companies out of business within a few years.
One such company that comes to mind was a fairly large outfit called Software Publishing Corporation (SPC). SPC had the leading presentation software at the time, which was a program called Harvard Graphics. For most business people, Harvard Graphics was the standard for conference and conference room presentations. It sold for about a hundred dollars on floppy disks. There were many other presentation software programs at the time, but Harvard Graphics was the leader.
Read More >> https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenkey/2018/06/27/software-startups-this-is-how-you-craft-a-patent-strategy/#60b5770b1fee
Saturday, July 21, 2018
US & USPTO Trademark – GENERAL INFORMATION
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
US & USPTO TRADEMARK GENERAL INFORMATION
Preparing a US Trademark Application
To start, the trademark owner will have chosen a word, phrase, or design as their trademark. The trademark is what is applied to the goods or services, and is NOT usually the company’s name. For example, a company named XYZ which sells garments will attach a label to those garments with a trademark such as the fashion designer’s name, and NOT with the name of their company. To claim trademark rights, the symbol “TM” can be used, preferably as a superscript after the trademark. Alternatively it can be written in parentheses after the trademark. Example: If the trademark is “Wise“, it can be written as Wise™.
A US Trademark Lawyer, also called a US Trademark Attorney, can prepare a US Trademark Application for filing with the USPTO. The US Trademark Lawyer will draft a trademark application using a description of the goods/services together with a drawing showing the trademark, where the “drawing“ is often just the typed word in capital letters. That format encompasses all variations of that mark, within the laws pertaining to how marks are used. For example, the typed drawing in all capital letters will encompass an infringing use of the mark in script letters, or as part of a larger drawing.
The draft application is sent to the owner of the trademark, and changes can be made if necessary. We do not add any additional charge for making changes to the application at this stage. When the draft is finalized, the owner signs a form claiming ownership of the trademark application. Once it is filed, it receives a Serial Number and an Official Filing Receipt, and thus becomes an official US Trademark Application.
At some point in this process, it is advisable but not necessary to perform a US trademark search. The US trademark search can find prior art trademarks that show the extent of the closest prior marks and whether the mark has been registered at an earlier time. If an expired trademark is discovered which is very close to the application, then that expired trademark might or might not mean the mark is available to other applicants. If a pending US Trademark Registration covers the mark and is in the same or similar field of goods as the applicant’s mark, then it is possible that infringement could occur. It is important to know if a product or service might infringe an existing unexpired US Trademark Registration. If no USPTO registration exists which covers the trademar, then it is possible that the trademark can be registered. As noted above, it is not necessary to conduct a trademark search prior to filing a new trademark application.
The Role of the US Trademark Office in Examining the Trademark Application
The US Trademark Application is examined in due course by a trademark examining attorney. The US trademark examining attorney will usually be an expert in the particular class of goods or services in which the trademark resides. The US trademark examining attorney will conduct a US Trademark search of the prior trademark literature, and will make a search report and send it to the applicant along with a first Office Action on the merits.
If an application is finally rejected, that rejection can be appealed. In that case, it is taken up for review by a board of appellate examiners. Each appellate examiner is likely to be a USPTO Trademark Attorney or USPTO Trademark Lawyer. If the appeal is refused, it can be taken further to a US District Court, in which case the USPTO is represented by the Solicitor’s Office. In that case, the Solicitor in Court will be a USPTO Trademark Lawyer or USPTO Trademark Attorney. Such higher appeals are not frequent, but are more likely to occur when the trademark is particularly valuable.
The Role of the US Trademark Attorney in the Examination Process
The US Trademark Attorney or US Trademark Lawyer considers the Office Actions received from the USPTO, and transmits the Office Action to the applicant along with any advice or comments on how to respond. The US Trademark Attorney or US Trademark Lawyer then responds to the Office Action, usually by providing legal arguments in support of registrability.
If the Office Action is a Notice of Allowance, then the response by the US Trademark Attorney or US Trademark Lawyer may be to file any required forms and/or transmit any fees due (often no fee is required), along with a transmittal form required by the USPTO. When no response is required, then the US Trademark Attorney or US Trademark Lawyer so informs the applicant, and a Certificate of Registration will be received in due course from the USPTO via the US Trademark Office.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/US-USPTO-Trademark.html
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
US & USPTO TRADEMARK GENERAL INFORMATION
Preparing a US Trademark Application
To start, the trademark owner will have chosen a word, phrase, or design as their trademark. The trademark is what is applied to the goods or services, and is NOT usually the company’s name. For example, a company named XYZ which sells garments will attach a label to those garments with a trademark such as the fashion designer’s name, and NOT with the name of their company. To claim trademark rights, the symbol “TM” can be used, preferably as a superscript after the trademark. Alternatively it can be written in parentheses after the trademark. Example: If the trademark is “Wise“, it can be written as Wise™.
A US Trademark Lawyer, also called a US Trademark Attorney, can prepare a US Trademark Application for filing with the USPTO. The US Trademark Lawyer will draft a trademark application using a description of the goods/services together with a drawing showing the trademark, where the “drawing“ is often just the typed word in capital letters. That format encompasses all variations of that mark, within the laws pertaining to how marks are used. For example, the typed drawing in all capital letters will encompass an infringing use of the mark in script letters, or as part of a larger drawing.
The draft application is sent to the owner of the trademark, and changes can be made if necessary. We do not add any additional charge for making changes to the application at this stage. When the draft is finalized, the owner signs a form claiming ownership of the trademark application. Once it is filed, it receives a Serial Number and an Official Filing Receipt, and thus becomes an official US Trademark Application.
At some point in this process, it is advisable but not necessary to perform a US trademark search. The US trademark search can find prior art trademarks that show the extent of the closest prior marks and whether the mark has been registered at an earlier time. If an expired trademark is discovered which is very close to the application, then that expired trademark might or might not mean the mark is available to other applicants. If a pending US Trademark Registration covers the mark and is in the same or similar field of goods as the applicant’s mark, then it is possible that infringement could occur. It is important to know if a product or service might infringe an existing unexpired US Trademark Registration. If no USPTO registration exists which covers the trademar, then it is possible that the trademark can be registered. As noted above, it is not necessary to conduct a trademark search prior to filing a new trademark application.
The Role of the US Trademark Office in Examining the Trademark Application
The US Trademark Application is examined in due course by a trademark examining attorney. The US trademark examining attorney will usually be an expert in the particular class of goods or services in which the trademark resides. The US trademark examining attorney will conduct a US Trademark search of the prior trademark literature, and will make a search report and send it to the applicant along with a first Office Action on the merits.
If an application is finally rejected, that rejection can be appealed. In that case, it is taken up for review by a board of appellate examiners. Each appellate examiner is likely to be a USPTO Trademark Attorney or USPTO Trademark Lawyer. If the appeal is refused, it can be taken further to a US District Court, in which case the USPTO is represented by the Solicitor’s Office. In that case, the Solicitor in Court will be a USPTO Trademark Lawyer or USPTO Trademark Attorney. Such higher appeals are not frequent, but are more likely to occur when the trademark is particularly valuable.
The Role of the US Trademark Attorney in the Examination Process
The US Trademark Attorney or US Trademark Lawyer considers the Office Actions received from the USPTO, and transmits the Office Action to the applicant along with any advice or comments on how to respond. The US Trademark Attorney or US Trademark Lawyer then responds to the Office Action, usually by providing legal arguments in support of registrability.
If the Office Action is a Notice of Allowance, then the response by the US Trademark Attorney or US Trademark Lawyer may be to file any required forms and/or transmit any fees due (often no fee is required), along with a transmittal form required by the USPTO. When no response is required, then the US Trademark Attorney or US Trademark Lawyer so informs the applicant, and a Certificate of Registration will be received in due course from the USPTO via the US Trademark Office.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/US-USPTO-Trademark.html
Thursday, July 19, 2018
What is Intellectual Property and Why Does it Matter to You?
By: Shireen Smith
Every business will have intellectual property to protect, although the actions to take will be very different depending on the business and the intellectual property involved.
Say you’ve invented some innovative way to solve a problem that no one else has managed to solve. In the case of Anywayup cup it was a baby cup with an innovative lid that didn’t spill. For C-Pen it was a pen that scans the text of a document directly to your computer. A patent is available in both these situations to protect your investment. Arguably, for product-based inventions a patent is essential because it gives you a legal monopoly in the invention. The patent, if well drafted, makes it difficult for others to copy your invention. Without patent protection well-resourced manufacturers could enter the same market once they realise you are onto something, and use their greater financial muscle to produce and publicise a similar offering.
Then suppose you have selected the perfect name for your invention and had a logo developed for it with an attractive design. How would you feel if you were to find out after spending time and resources promoting the name, that it couldn’t be exclusive to you because the name is incapable of functioning as a trademark? This is what happened to Tesco’s Clubcard. The name it chose for its loyalty program has proved impossible to protect. If this was you, wouldn’t you prefer to know about it in advance, so you could make a better choice? Or, say you find that the name is not legally available and you then lose everything overnight when a trade mark owner is able to put a stop to your continued use of your name? This is what happened to Scrabulous whose business on Facebook went up in a puff of smoke. And did you know that if you don’t take the right actions in relation to your logo, you could find yourself on the wrong end of a dispute as happened to Innocent who at one point lost the right to use their iconic logo. Would you have the resources to appeal such a decision as they did? These are just some examples of what can happen when you don’t get timely IP advice.
Every business has IP issues to consider because every business has a name, a logo, a website, a database of contacts and more. These are all intangible assets which are important to the success of a business.
What is IP?
IP is the collective name for the rights that protect creativity, imagination and ideas. It’s very wide ranging and the rules are often complex.
Trademarks identify your products or services, secure exclusive rights over the name of your business and contain the value of your brand. With the right name you can stop competitors stealing business away from you. Copyright is another essential intellectual property right. Every business uses copyright works because every business is likely to have a logo, website, brochures, photographs, packaging, software etc. Design protection is another type of IP right which is often overlooked. However, it is a powerful tool for protecting your market share and preventing competitors from copying your ideas.
The Benefits of Protecting Your Intellectual Property
Strategic decisions about IP should be made early in the business so as to make good choices of IP, and determine how best to protect yourself with your available resources.
IP presents both risks and opportunities. Used wisely, IP advice and protection
> increases the value of your business,
> helps grow your profit margins,
> creates income streams,
> attracts finance,
> protects your market share,
> prevents competitors from copying your ideas,
> reduces future risks and liability (including personal liability of directors),
>protects the effort you put into your business, and
> gives you a legal monopoly.
Read More >> http://www.azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/intellectual-property/2016/12/what-is-intellectual-property-and-why-does-it-matter-to-you/
Every business will have intellectual property to protect, although the actions to take will be very different depending on the business and the intellectual property involved.
Say you’ve invented some innovative way to solve a problem that no one else has managed to solve. In the case of Anywayup cup it was a baby cup with an innovative lid that didn’t spill. For C-Pen it was a pen that scans the text of a document directly to your computer. A patent is available in both these situations to protect your investment. Arguably, for product-based inventions a patent is essential because it gives you a legal monopoly in the invention. The patent, if well drafted, makes it difficult for others to copy your invention. Without patent protection well-resourced manufacturers could enter the same market once they realise you are onto something, and use their greater financial muscle to produce and publicise a similar offering.
Then suppose you have selected the perfect name for your invention and had a logo developed for it with an attractive design. How would you feel if you were to find out after spending time and resources promoting the name, that it couldn’t be exclusive to you because the name is incapable of functioning as a trademark? This is what happened to Tesco’s Clubcard. The name it chose for its loyalty program has proved impossible to protect. If this was you, wouldn’t you prefer to know about it in advance, so you could make a better choice? Or, say you find that the name is not legally available and you then lose everything overnight when a trade mark owner is able to put a stop to your continued use of your name? This is what happened to Scrabulous whose business on Facebook went up in a puff of smoke. And did you know that if you don’t take the right actions in relation to your logo, you could find yourself on the wrong end of a dispute as happened to Innocent who at one point lost the right to use their iconic logo. Would you have the resources to appeal such a decision as they did? These are just some examples of what can happen when you don’t get timely IP advice.
Every business has IP issues to consider because every business has a name, a logo, a website, a database of contacts and more. These are all intangible assets which are important to the success of a business.
What is IP?
IP is the collective name for the rights that protect creativity, imagination and ideas. It’s very wide ranging and the rules are often complex.
Trademarks identify your products or services, secure exclusive rights over the name of your business and contain the value of your brand. With the right name you can stop competitors stealing business away from you. Copyright is another essential intellectual property right. Every business uses copyright works because every business is likely to have a logo, website, brochures, photographs, packaging, software etc. Design protection is another type of IP right which is often overlooked. However, it is a powerful tool for protecting your market share and preventing competitors from copying your ideas.
The Benefits of Protecting Your Intellectual Property
Strategic decisions about IP should be made early in the business so as to make good choices of IP, and determine how best to protect yourself with your available resources.
IP presents both risks and opportunities. Used wisely, IP advice and protection
> increases the value of your business,
> helps grow your profit margins,
> creates income streams,
> attracts finance,
> protects your market share,
> prevents competitors from copying your ideas,
> reduces future risks and liability (including personal liability of directors),
>protects the effort you put into your business, and
> gives you a legal monopoly.
Read More >> http://www.azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/intellectual-property/2016/12/what-is-intellectual-property-and-why-does-it-matter-to-you/
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Do I Need A Patent?
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
When – and why - do you need a patent?
You need a patent:
>> If you wish to stop others from copying your invention.
>> If you wish to protect yourself from competitors who may copy your invention and then try to patent it themselves.
>> If your product is in stores and you are challenged by a competitor who claims they have patent rights of their own.
>> If having a unique new product would allow you to set a much higher selling price.
>> If it is important to impress potential investors, customers or retailers.
>> if you want to stop illegal copies of your products from entering the U.S.
>> If you hope to sell your business for a profit. Patent rights are often the most important asset of a successful business.
>> If you hope to license your patented product to others.
And, there may be other reasons, in particular cases, for having a patent.
And, there's more! A patent is based on a patent application. Even before a patent application issues as a patent, the pending patent application can also give important benefits. These are as follows.
You need a pending patent application:
>> If you wish to discourage competitors from copying your invention. Those competitors may not wish to invest in manufacturing and marketing a competing product, because your pending patent application could issue at any moment as a granted patent. That uncertainty itself thus helps to protect the invention.
>> If you wish to protect yourself from competitors who may copy your invention and then try to patent it themselves. Even if the patent application never issues as a patent, it is a permanent record of your prior inventorship. The published patent application, even if it never issues as a patent, might be used as prior art against later applicants.
>> If having a unique new product would allow you to set a much higher selling price. Customers and retailers know that “patent pending” means something, and it suggests that your product or service is new and unique. It can be a good selling point in some cases.
>> If investors, customers or retailers would be impressed by the invention.
>> If you hope to sell your business for a profit. A pending patent application is often the most important asset of a successful business.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/do-i-need-a-patent.html
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
When – and why - do you need a patent?
You need a patent:
>> If you wish to stop others from copying your invention.
>> If you wish to protect yourself from competitors who may copy your invention and then try to patent it themselves.
>> If your product is in stores and you are challenged by a competitor who claims they have patent rights of their own.
>> If having a unique new product would allow you to set a much higher selling price.
>> If it is important to impress potential investors, customers or retailers.
>> if you want to stop illegal copies of your products from entering the U.S.
>> If you hope to sell your business for a profit. Patent rights are often the most important asset of a successful business.
>> If you hope to license your patented product to others.
And, there may be other reasons, in particular cases, for having a patent.
And, there's more! A patent is based on a patent application. Even before a patent application issues as a patent, the pending patent application can also give important benefits. These are as follows.
You need a pending patent application:
>> If you wish to discourage competitors from copying your invention. Those competitors may not wish to invest in manufacturing and marketing a competing product, because your pending patent application could issue at any moment as a granted patent. That uncertainty itself thus helps to protect the invention.
>> If you wish to protect yourself from competitors who may copy your invention and then try to patent it themselves. Even if the patent application never issues as a patent, it is a permanent record of your prior inventorship. The published patent application, even if it never issues as a patent, might be used as prior art against later applicants.
>> If having a unique new product would allow you to set a much higher selling price. Customers and retailers know that “patent pending” means something, and it suggests that your product or service is new and unique. It can be a good selling point in some cases.
>> If investors, customers or retailers would be impressed by the invention.
>> If you hope to sell your business for a profit. A pending patent application is often the most important asset of a successful business.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/do-i-need-a-patent.html
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Cloud IP Litigation: Evolving Patent Defensive Counter Measures
By : Richard Kemp and Nooreen Ajmal
European Union, United Kingdom, USA
The migration to the cloud and transformation to digital now so visibly under way are moving intellectual property (IP) centre stage as all businesses become software companies.
In past blogs, we looked at the rising tide of software patent claims brought by NPEs (Non-Practising Entities, typically businesses that buy patents to monetise by litigation not operations) and the risks they pose to Cloud service availability.[1] That tide is now ebbing: according to NPE deterrence entity Unified Patents’ first quarterly report for 2018, NPE patent lawsuits are decreasing and fell below non-NPE lawsuits for the first time for many years.[2] This trend was recently confirmed by Unified Patents in its second 2018 report for the first half of the year.[3]
The ebbing tide of NPE claims is attributable to recent policy changes affecting US patent litigation and derives in the main from three decisions of the US Supreme Court. First, in its June 2014 Alice judgment,[4] the Court raised the bar on patent eligibility for computer-related inventions, effectively making it easier to revoke software patents already granted, many of which have been acquired by NPEs as they geared up their portfolios for action; second, the May 2017 Heartland case[5] has made it more difficult for NPEs to sue in the traditionally plaintiff-friendly District Court of the Eastern District of Texas; and third, the April 2018 decision in Oil States[6] kept open the route to revocation at modest cost by upholding the jurisdiction of the US PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reassess and revoke mistakenly granted patents through inter partes review.
However, reflecting growing competitive tensions in the industry sectors most affected by the cloud and digital transformation, commentators are reporting an increase in cloud patent and IP litigation between competitors at all levels – leaders, mid-tier and new entrants. For example, security leader Symantec settled a claim against it by Finjan for an initial payment of $65m and is suing Zscaler; virtualisation developer Citrix is suing Avi Networks; and digital transformation specialist BMC Software is suing Chertwell Software.[7] Companies are starting to think differently about their IP, looking for ways to secure their next wave of innovations, which are likely to be digital in many industries.
IP is also moving centre stage in the startup world as startups increasingly look to IP to secure their future and as some CSPs start to compete with them after partnering. Harking back to 2009 when Amazon launched its AmazonBasics to compete with its private label e-commerce customers, AWS has started to compete with startups who host their software on AWS or provide services and tools to AWS users. Examples include Amazon QuickSight/Tableau (data visualisation), Amazon X-Ray/New Relic (monitoring), Amazon Chime/WebEx (conferencing) and AWS CodeStar/Heroku (software development and deployment).[8]
The combination of US patent litigation policy changes and growing competition in the cloud are making patent countermeasures providers re-think their approach to patent defence mechanisms and focus more on operating companies. In May 2018, LOT Networks (the ‘LOT’ stands for ‘license on transfer’) introduced a new Patent Program aimed at operating companies and augmenting LOT’s existing program by raising the free membership tier from S5m to $25m revenues and offering three free patents. This suggests that LOT thinks startups value owning a few patents more than LOT’s protection against NPE claims. Microsoft’s Azure IP Advantage program (a combination of unlimited indemnity, patent pick and springing licence)[9] has been available to Azure customers since launch in February 2017.
The LOT Networks Patent Program also raises some interesting legal considerations. First, how strong are the free patents on offer? Press reports have suggested that LOT enterprise members have transferred patents they didn’t need to save costs.[10] Second, how will startups use the patents? Waiving LOT membership fees suggests expectations are defensive rather offensive. In this use case, access to a large defensive portfolio like Microsoft’s Azure IP Advantage should also be considered. Third, it’s foreseeable that some startups will become insolvent and in this situation a buyer of the insolvent company’s assets may (outside the USA) try to persuade the startup’s liquidator to disclaim the licence as onerous property as a condition of buying the patent (for example in the UK, under section 178 Insolvency Act 1986).[11]
As a new tide starts to flow in cloud patent litigation between competitors just as the old NPE tide ebbs, a host of new strategic, tactical and legal questions evolves.
Source >> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=66bb81ce-76e1-4c02-87da-0cfac18f2512
European Union, United Kingdom, USA
The migration to the cloud and transformation to digital now so visibly under way are moving intellectual property (IP) centre stage as all businesses become software companies.
In past blogs, we looked at the rising tide of software patent claims brought by NPEs (Non-Practising Entities, typically businesses that buy patents to monetise by litigation not operations) and the risks they pose to Cloud service availability.[1] That tide is now ebbing: according to NPE deterrence entity Unified Patents’ first quarterly report for 2018, NPE patent lawsuits are decreasing and fell below non-NPE lawsuits for the first time for many years.[2] This trend was recently confirmed by Unified Patents in its second 2018 report for the first half of the year.[3]
The ebbing tide of NPE claims is attributable to recent policy changes affecting US patent litigation and derives in the main from three decisions of the US Supreme Court. First, in its June 2014 Alice judgment,[4] the Court raised the bar on patent eligibility for computer-related inventions, effectively making it easier to revoke software patents already granted, many of which have been acquired by NPEs as they geared up their portfolios for action; second, the May 2017 Heartland case[5] has made it more difficult for NPEs to sue in the traditionally plaintiff-friendly District Court of the Eastern District of Texas; and third, the April 2018 decision in Oil States[6] kept open the route to revocation at modest cost by upholding the jurisdiction of the US PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reassess and revoke mistakenly granted patents through inter partes review.
However, reflecting growing competitive tensions in the industry sectors most affected by the cloud and digital transformation, commentators are reporting an increase in cloud patent and IP litigation between competitors at all levels – leaders, mid-tier and new entrants. For example, security leader Symantec settled a claim against it by Finjan for an initial payment of $65m and is suing Zscaler; virtualisation developer Citrix is suing Avi Networks; and digital transformation specialist BMC Software is suing Chertwell Software.[7] Companies are starting to think differently about their IP, looking for ways to secure their next wave of innovations, which are likely to be digital in many industries.
IP is also moving centre stage in the startup world as startups increasingly look to IP to secure their future and as some CSPs start to compete with them after partnering. Harking back to 2009 when Amazon launched its AmazonBasics to compete with its private label e-commerce customers, AWS has started to compete with startups who host their software on AWS or provide services and tools to AWS users. Examples include Amazon QuickSight/Tableau (data visualisation), Amazon X-Ray/New Relic (monitoring), Amazon Chime/WebEx (conferencing) and AWS CodeStar/Heroku (software development and deployment).[8]
The combination of US patent litigation policy changes and growing competition in the cloud are making patent countermeasures providers re-think their approach to patent defence mechanisms and focus more on operating companies. In May 2018, LOT Networks (the ‘LOT’ stands for ‘license on transfer’) introduced a new Patent Program aimed at operating companies and augmenting LOT’s existing program by raising the free membership tier from S5m to $25m revenues and offering three free patents. This suggests that LOT thinks startups value owning a few patents more than LOT’s protection against NPE claims. Microsoft’s Azure IP Advantage program (a combination of unlimited indemnity, patent pick and springing licence)[9] has been available to Azure customers since launch in February 2017.
The LOT Networks Patent Program also raises some interesting legal considerations. First, how strong are the free patents on offer? Press reports have suggested that LOT enterprise members have transferred patents they didn’t need to save costs.[10] Second, how will startups use the patents? Waiving LOT membership fees suggests expectations are defensive rather offensive. In this use case, access to a large defensive portfolio like Microsoft’s Azure IP Advantage should also be considered. Third, it’s foreseeable that some startups will become insolvent and in this situation a buyer of the insolvent company’s assets may (outside the USA) try to persuade the startup’s liquidator to disclaim the licence as onerous property as a condition of buying the patent (for example in the UK, under section 178 Insolvency Act 1986).[11]
As a new tide starts to flow in cloud patent litigation between competitors just as the old NPE tide ebbs, a host of new strategic, tactical and legal questions evolves.
Source >> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=66bb81ce-76e1-4c02-87da-0cfac18f2512
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
