Promote the Progress

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 02:48 PM | Permalink

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Politically speaking, Ohio is in shambles right now. We're traditionally quite red, but have suddenly become fairly purple, thanks to several black marks arising out of the northwest part of the state (which I call home). Despite all the controversy, we do have some good news to report. The Buckeyes have a solid lock on number 1 and their fearless leader Troy Smith appears to have at least his first name engraved on the Heisman Trophy right now.

But wait...there's more. We also recently became the center of the IP blogosphere. That's right....little old Ohio is officially the center of the IP blogosphere. How can that be, you ask? Well, Jake Ward (Anticipate This!) recently announced that he is moving to my former firm, which is also based here in OH. Add in Promote the Progress, the Patent Baristas (Cincinnati), and Doug Miller's blog (now in the same firm as Jake), and I think we can legitimately stake a claim on being the IP capitol of the blogosphere.

I'm debating sending a note to our new Governor, proposing a change in the tourism slogan. 

Nipper is scrambling to determine if his beloved Idaho can compete with the Buckeye state.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 08:36 AM | Permalink

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 08:43 AM | Permalink

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 06:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 02:03 PM | Permalink

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:05 AM | Permalink

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 03:04 PM | Permalink

I am very pleased to announce that my professional practice will be associated with the law firm of Dunlap, Codding & Rogers, P.C. (DCR) as of December 1st.

 

As most readers of Promote the Progress can guess, my relationship with DCR stems from my collaboration with Doug Sorocco, the driving force behind PHOSITA, DCR's award-winning intellectual property blog.  Doug and I have worked together, along with Steve Nipper of Dykas, Shaver and Nipper, on the Rethink(IP) blog and other projects over the last year or so.

 

Our collaboration has produced a strong friendship based on several discoveries that came to us over that time frame.  We share several core beliefs and philosophies about the practice of law and have recently recognized that we share a vision for the futures of our respective practices.

 

Doug saw the vision first, and began introducing me to everyone at the firm.  I was pleased, but not surprised, to learn that everyone at DCR shares that same vision.  The firm has a very strong past rooted in the beliefs and philosophies that I strive to implement in my practice every day.

 

Everyone at DCR views a strong conviction to these beliefs and philosophies as the key to the firm's incredibly bright future, and I agree completely.  I'm proud to be a part of the firm's future and look forward to doing my part in building it.

 

This change will not affect the substance of Promote the Progress.  The blog will continue its focus on worldwide intellectual property law and policy.  I am, however, taking the opportunity to update the design and organization of the site to make the content more accessible and useful.  The redesigned site will have a clean interface and will allow easy navigation by country, industry, and issue.  The redesign of the main page reflects many of these changes and is nearly complete (if you're reading this announcement via e-mail or RSS, I encourage you to visit the main site to see the new interface).  Archive pages will be updated soon, and a slew of new features are on the way.

 

I hope that you continue to read Promote the Progress and that the changes make the site even more useful.  If at any time you have any suggestions for improvement, please let me know via e-mail.  I also welcome any and all comments and questions about my transition to DCR.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:54 PM | Permalink

My good friends at LexThink, Matt Homann and Dennis Kennedy, are at it again.  They’re applying their LexThink model of the re-imagined conference* to legal blogging.

The result — BlawgThink! 2005.

Have a legal blog and want to learn more about blogging and the blogosphere?  Want to learn how to do more with your legal blog?  Just have a general interest in legal blogs and want to learn more about them?

If you’ve answered yes to any of these questions, mark BlawgThink on your calendar for November 11 and 12, 2005.

Matt and Dennis have assembled a great list of leading legal bloggers that will speak on a variety of topics ranging from the basics to advanced material.

There will be plenty of real world applications too…the Rethink(IP) team will speak on collaboration and group blogging.

You can contact Matt and Dennis here to request an invite.  Also, as speakers, Steve, Doug and I have a number of invites to give out….we’d love to have some of our readers in attendance.  You can contact me by e-mail here.

* If you’re wondering about the “re-imagined conference” and what it means or what it’s good for, read the LexThink description here and then read my recent Law Practice Today article on improving customer service by professional service providers…this article is a direct result of the creative thinking that occurred at the inaugural LexThink last year, which focused on improving professional practices.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:22 AM | Permalink

Over the last several weeks, several law students have been regularly visiting Promote the Progress as part of their course curriculum.  I’d like to extend a personal welcome to the students – I hope you find the blawg useful in your studies.

I also want to welcome the law schools…It’s great to see that some law schools and professors are using blawgs in their course materials.  I take it as a clear sign that some law schools are “going 2.0,” as some tech junkies would say.

I’d appreciate hearing from any law students and/or professors regarding their use of Promote the Progress.  In particular, I’d love to hear about how you’re using the site, whether it’s helpful, what you like and don’t like, and, of course, any suggestions for improvement.

You can contact me by e-mail at:  jmbesq @ gmail.com.

Welcome and Enjoy!

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 12:11 PM | Permalink

I’m back.  It’s off topic for Promote the Progress, but I managed to work the reason for my brief absence into this post on the Rethink(ip) blog.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 09:33 AM | Permalink

I’ll be back to a regular schedule near the end of this week.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:27 AM | Permalink

On Thursday (June 9), I’ll be attending the Conference on Patent Reform co-sponsored by the National Academies’ Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, AIPLA, and the Federal Trade Commission.  A .pdf of the draft agenda for the conference is available here.

Let me know if you will be attending the conference so that I can be sure to introduce myself.

On Friday, I’ll be at the Patent Office and, time permitting, trying to do a little sight-seeing.

[Copyright 2005 J. Matthew Buchanan. Originally published on Promote the Progress.]

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:06 AM | Permalink

On June 14 and 15, the USPTO will  conduct a seminar in the Detroit area on intellectual property issues relating to China.

The program includes an overview of Chinese intellectual property laws, including trademark, patent, copyright, trade secret, and unfair competition laws, and an overview of the appropriate government agencies.

Sessions on counterfeiting and infringement are also planned.  Breakout sessions to focus the issues on specific industries will be held on the second day.

John Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, will deliver the keynote address during lunch on the second day.

You can view/download a .pdf of the brochure for the seminar here.

There is NO CHARGE to attend the seminar, but seating is limited.  You must register by June 7, 2005 by using the form in the brochure.

Receptions will be hosted by Butzel Long at the end of each day.

I’ll be attending both sessions.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:40 AM | Permalink

At 104, C. Yardley Chittick is apparently the nation’s oldest patent attorney.

I relayed this story to our senior partner, Don Fraser, who, like his father before him, has practiced patent law for roughly 50 years.  He sees 104 as a reasonable retirement age.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:09 AM | Permalink

Last year’s Blawger Bowl was a tremendous success…and I’m betting that nearly everyone involved will sign up to do it again.  Maybe we can even convince some sucke….I mean, newbies, to join the effort.

The off-season is killing me, as it does every year.  Arena football just doesn’t cut it.

But today I had a great find that got me thinking football.  My wife is really excited about that!

I came across this article written by none other than everyone’s favorite Harvard-law-grad-anonymous-blogger-turned-author (and the great hope of the blogosphere for making some dough off of the whole blogging thing) Jeremy Blachman.  The title says it all:

How to win at fantasy football when you have no idea what you’re doing.

It should help at least a few of us Blawger Bowlers, including me.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:58 AM | Permalink

I recently had an opportunity to give a presentation to the Idaho State Bar Intellectual Property Law Section on the topic of patent reform.  The audience, which Bob Shaver told me included nearly every patent attorney in the State of Idaho, was quite interested in the topic and we concluded with a lively question and answer period (which included several “let me see what I can find…” answers).

If you’d like a .pdf of the handouts from the presentation, send me an e-mail.  Steve, the brave soul, liked the talk so much he recorded it as an .mp3 – we may podcast this in the future so stay tuned.

This was my first trip to Boise.  Needless to say, I admitted to Steve that he has been right all along….it truly is a beautiful city.  I’m already looking for opportunities to return.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:27 AM | Permalink

Yesterday, USA Today ran an article on the patent reform movement and the recent congressional hearings on the subject.  Press coverage at this level is always nice, but I tend to read these articles very slowly and with squinted eyes…hanging on every word and half-expecting to see a mischaracterization that could alter public perception.

After reading this article, though, I opened both eyes widely and actually sighed relief.  Overall, its an accurate reflection of the current situation and, I think, provides a nice introduction for people not familiar with the issue.

I’m not sure if its intentional or not, but the PTO funding level issue is spotlighted between the lines.  The article never explicitly states that increased funding is necessary for reform, but the mention of fee-diversion practices (which, by the way, is arguably misleading) and the description of the Patent Office as “long-underfunded” leave the reader with the impression that more money is needed.

Good.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:47 AM | Permalink

Last week, Cnet ran an article on the congressional hearings associated with the ongoing patent reform movement.  The article closed with this statement:  “Other legislative possibilities include lengthening the duration of a patent, currently 20 years.”

As I said earlier, this is an unfair depiction of the reform efforts based on a single, isolated remark made by Senator Feinstein during the Senate hearing.

Here’s an excerpt of a transcript of the hearing, showing the Senator’s remark in its entirety:

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA):  Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

 

         And I'd like to echo those words.  Patent and copyright protection is a very big deal to California, and that's really why I'm here.

 

         And it's interesting to hearken back on an early patent.  And that was a patent which was issued to Levi Strauss for jeans in 1873. I believe at that time it was 17-year patent.

 

        It's now a twenty year patent from date of application or seventeen years.  And, so there are a lot of questions about these patents. 

  

         Is seventeen years fair?  Should it have been longer?  I mean, when Levi Strauss came forward in those early Gold Rush days, it was a very big deal to come up with a fabric, like jean fabric, because the pants of the miners were wearing out too fast.  And yet, as soon as that patent expires, you see Levi-type jeans everywhere.  And, in this day of high costs, high labor costs, high every kind of costs, I've begun to wonder whether the time for the patent is really an adequate time.

 

         So, I look forward very much to hearing your comments, Mr. Dudas, on that subject.  And may I put my full remarks in the record, please?

That’s the entirety of the patent term extension reform proposal.

This issue I feel it important to dispel the notion that patent term extension is part of this reform movement because that issue would, appropriately, generate significant concern in the eye of the public.  Many people would strongly oppose such a change to our patent system and, I bet, would broadly oppose any reform efforts that include such a change.  That’s why I feel its important to clarify the muddy waters created by the Cnet article, again:

Lengthening the duration of the patent term has never been a component of the current reform efforts and will not be a component of any bill introduced as part of the efforts.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:41 PM | Permalink

Cnet ran an article earlier this week about the recent congressional activity surrounding the patent reform effort.  The article includes a very misleading statement about the reform effort.  It closes with:

Other legislative possibilities include lengthening the duration of a patent, currently 20 years.

While I suppose it is a legislative possibility (isn’t everything?), lengthening the duration of the patent term is not a serious component of the current reform effort, nor is it likely to become one.

Senator Feinstein made the above comment during the opening statements of the Senate hearing held earlier this week.  With a sense of state pride, she relayed a story about Levi Strauss, the inventor of blue jeans, and the patent he obtained on his invention.  Then, suddenly, she stated:

"I've begun to wonder whether the time for the patent is an adequate time…."

This comment is the sole basis for the Cnet statement.  One Senator’s off-hand remark.  She was thinking out loud, really.  No questions asked of witnesses; no responsive comments were made by other members of the Subcommittee.  Nothing.

Indeed, Senator Feinstein’s comment is the first and only time, to my knowledge, that extension of the patent term has been mentioned in the context of patent reform.  It is not a component of any reform proposal at this time and is not likely to be incorporated into any bill that is introduced.

Had Cnet researched the matter more extensively, I’m sure they would have chosen not to lead people to believe that patent term extension is seriously under consideration.  Maybe they only listened to the beginning of the hearing (Feinstein made the comments in the opening remarks) and left with the impression that term extensions was important?

Kim Weatherall, of Weatherall’s Law, has a wonderfully sarcastic take on the Cnet article.  Think patents in the context of California, copyright, and Sonny Bono.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:00 AM | Permalink

On May 5, I’m giving a presentation to the Idaho State Bar Intellectual Property Section.  The topic?  Patent reform, of course! [.pdf brochure]

Steve Nipper invited me to give the talk several months ago.  We chose patent reform as a topic but worried that it might not be timely since we had no idea when the issue was going to take off (all of this occurred before the Committee Print and before even the first hearing announcement).

We gambled somewhat, and won.  The timing couldn’t be better.  We’re in the midst of congressional hearings and awaiting introduction of legislation.  I’ll probably have to update my materials just before the talk…

So if you’re interested in the reform issue and you’ll be in the Boise area on May 5th, we’d love to see you.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:12 PM | Permalink

IBM jumped into the patent reform debate last week when Jim Stallings, VP of Intellectual Property and Standards, criticized the current examination system.  Stallings’ comments are generating some buzz despite the lack of a detailed reform plan (contrast to Microsoft’s foray into the issue).  Perhaps it has something to do with IBM being the biggest player in the US patent system.  Remember, Big Blue was granted more than 3000 US patents last year, more than any other organization. Not to mention the fabled $1B plus in licensing revenue. When Big Blue speaks on patent matters, people tend to listen.

This isn’t all that interesting to me, other than this little tidbit from Mr. Stallings:

"If you are a company and invent patents you should state your intent to use them and there should be a period of time in which you have to use them," he said. "There are companies that are in the business [of] simply collecting and want to sleep on it."

Mr. Stallings might benefit from the Sorocco school of IP-speak (listen to Sorocco’s rant on IP-speak in the first rethink(ip) aloud podcast, available here).

First of all, companies don't invent anything. People do. Second, no one invents patents.  People invent inventions. Patents protect inventions. Companies own patents (and inventions).

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 10:08 AM | Permalink

One of the most interesting and delightful people I met at LexThink is Jeremy Blachman, the 3L Harvard Law student behind Jeremy’s Weblog and Anonymous Lawyer (if you’re a lawyer who reads blogs and you’re not reading that one, start.  Now.).  Jeremy’s an interesting guy, and stands to be the first legal blogger to monetize his blogging experience (the whole book deal thing).

Yesterday, I read Ernie’s post about Jeremy, nodding my head in agreement through the entire thing.

Then I read the post Jeremy made this morning about the Attorney-Client relationship and my jaw dropped.  He’s not a patent guy, but his post shows amazing insight on the need for the Embedded Patent Attorney.  He hits it head on…one of the major problems in legal services today is that lawyers are not interested in the long term relationship.  He discusses a comment from another LexThink attendee about lawyers:

[they] don't want to learn about the business, don't want to really work with the client and develop a relationship as an advisor, and don't really want to act as a team

Nope.  Most lawyers don’t.  They want to get in, bill the daylights out of a matter, and get out.  Punch the ticket and jump on the next train.

But that’s where the Embedded Patent Attorney comes in.  That concept is focused squarely on learning the client’s business and forming a long-term relationship.

Jeremy takes it a step further…suggesting that firms need some sort of Customer Relationship Management.  I don’t think he’s talking about golf at the country club with $700 partners once a year.  I think he’s really suggesting someone who learns everything there is to know about a client’s business and acting as a triage for their matters (maybe with a golf outing thrown in here and again).

Jeremy has never practiced a day of law in his life.  He probably never will.  Yet he gets it.  Amazing.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 12:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Last weekend I was able to attend LexThink, the conference “about nothing” (which turned out to be about everything) organized by Matt Homann, Dennis Kennedy and Sherry Fowler.  As I headed out of Chicago after five days on the road (Techshow immediately preceded LexThink), I should have been drained and exhausted.  But, as I hinted earlier, my head was racing with thoughts and ideas that (mostly) related to improving professional practices.

My thoughts kept returning to customer service and what we, as consumers, consider acceptable these days.

Somewhere in northern Indiana (I drove home to Toledo), I was struck with an image from Back to the Future, the 80’s flick starring Michael J. Fox.  Remember the scene set in the 50’s story line in which a car pulls into a Texaco station and several uniformed attendants rush to the car and begin servicing it?  There’s no dialogue between the attendants, and the action really happens in the background, all in an attempt to set the scene in 50’s America.  I specifically remember my mom and dad laughing at that scene together.  It accomplished its goal so effectively that I’m betting everyone who reads this post will remember it vividly.

The joke of course lies in the contrast made in the film between the ‘50’s and modern America (the 80’s in the film).  Customer service in this country had changed so radically between the 50’s and the 80’s that director Robert Zemeckis only needed to show a brief scene that invoked fond memories of an earlier time to make a point…and get a laugh.  My mom and dad, along with every other baby boomer in the country, were remembering “the day” and contrasting it to the grimey self-serve pumps available at modern gas stations.

At the time of the movie, my sisters and I didn’t quite get it.  We sort of used it as a way to laugh at my mom and dad, not the movie (‘there they go being old again…’).  We had only ever known grime and self-serve.  Full service was something you paid extra for, which no one in our circles ever did.

But now I get it.  And I don’t think its that funny.  In fact, I think its more sad than funny.  The decline has continued, placing us at a point today that lies below the level of the 80’s.  A real concern for me is that poor customer service practices today aren’t just limited to gas stations and fast food joints (later in my trip home from Chicago, I was reminded of the Texaco scene when the crew member at McDonald's gave me my change in a wad — literally a wad —  of bills; didn’t they used to count the bills out as they handed them to me?).  Crummy service is everywhere…including professional practices.  How many times have you left a message with a lawyer that goes unreturned?

Where do we go from here?  What about the future?  Will this behavior, over time, become acceptable in the practice of law (or any other profession)?  Has this already happened?

I certainly hope not, and I’m betting that fellow LexThink attendees are of similar persuasion.  I’m going to hold onto the Texaco scene as a model (remind me to call my mother later…).  Figuratively speaking, when a client pulls into the drive, I’m going to keep jumping out of my chair to see what they need. 

Maybe I can convince my fellow rethink(ip)’ers [Nipper][Sorocco] to buy Texaco shirts from a retro shop…

UPDATE:  I continued my thinking on the Texaco model over at the rethink(ip) blog.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 05:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

I almost forgot:

Ideas.  Lots and lots of ideas.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 09:14 PM | Permalink

I’ll post soon about the goings-on at the ABA Techshow and LexThink.  For now, this stream-of-consciousness post will have to do:

Wow.  Amazing.  People who “get it.”  Revolution(?).  Fun.  Mark calendar every year.  Tips.  Contacts.  3:00 AM.  Energized.  Proud.  Friends.  Like-minded people.  What took me so long to find this group (billable hours?).  Change.  Change.  Change.  Better.  Client.  Focus.  Improvement.  Competitive advantage.  Rethink(ip).  Connect.  Blog.  Blawg.  Evangelism.  Pope.  I’m not crazy.  Future.  Network.  Help.  Practice-changing.  Support.  Life-changing.  Tired.  Interesting.  What’s next?  Define it.  It.  Thought leader.  Goals.  Inspiring.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 05:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

I’d appreciate hearing from an Indian patent attorney (located in India).  I need some assistance with the recent Indian patent law amendment.

Contact me by e-mail at the address listed in the Contact Me tab.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 09:09 AM | Permalink

The American Bar Association’s Techshow takes place later this week.  I’ll be in attendance.  If you’re going, please make sure to introduce yourself.  If you’re not planning on attending, hurry-up and get registered.  At least mark this time on your calendar for next year.

The schedule is jam-packed with techno-oriented seminars.  I’ll have my trusty TabletPC and plan to blog during the show, at least a little bit.

I’ll give a full rundown awfter the show to help people decide whether they should attend next year’s show (hint:  you should).

And plenty of other bloggers are going too.  Its a great opportunity to meet your favorite legal bloggers and ask the questions you’ve always been afraid to leave in the comments.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 08:50 AM | Permalink

I see Nipper is jumping on board too.  And he paid appropriate homage to the del.icio.us-IP grand master, Sorocco.  Excellent.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 08:37 AM | Permalink

There has been great discussion of late on the concept of the Embedded Patent Attorney (here, here, here, and here).  The EPA is a concept I’ve kept in my mind for years (I actually think the concept and the name itself was relayed to me by a client), but have never actually defined it.  I tried to write a one-sentence definition and failed.  I did, however, create the following lists of what an EPA is, and what an EPA isn’t:

An embedded patent attorney:

…is willing to continually and consistently invest his time to learn the business plan and objectives of his client

…manages the business knowledge he gains and applies it in his handling of the client’s legal matters (from claim drafting to license negotiations to litigation)

…provides valuable business information to the client regarding the intellectual property aspect of the client’s business climate (all done as part of his time investment)

…has a long-term outlook on the relationship with the client

…has or develops a passion for the client and the client’s industry  (I’ve seen this with ‘car guys’ in Detroit and ‘gene jockeys’ on the coasts — to effectively become embedded, I think the attorney must have passion; without it, he is unlikely to continually invest the required time)

…willing to put down the briefcase and roll-up his sleeves alongside the client’s inventive personnel (I’ve got great stories here…)

An embedded patent attorney is not:

…interested in billing every quarter hour of his time spent with/on a particular client (this kills it for oh so many reasons, cost being only one)

…someone with a huge “book of business” or a desire to build such a book (by definition, an attorney can truly be embedded with only a small number of clients.  Note, though, that attorneys with a large book can effectively be embedded with a small number of clients and have other attorneys become embedded with his other clients.  For this to work, the attorney must recognize his inability to become embedded with new clients and ensure that someone else at his firm is doing it.  This is truly a rare bird in law firms.  I’ve seen one.)

…someone with a big ego (see the briefcase/sleeves point in the first list)

I think these lists, together, provide a working model for the EPA concept.  I’m still working on the one-sentence definition.  Of course, the ‘P’ from EPA could really be any specialty…I’m just partial to patent attorneys.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 05:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

I’ve always thought ‘Smart & Biggar’ is the best law firm name out there.  “We’re Smart.  Oh, and we’re bigger than you too.”  It always makes me chuckle, anyways.

Now the firm has been recognized by Managing Intellectual Property magazine as the best intellectual property firm in Canada.  Smart & Biggar is Best!  Appropriate.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:35 PM | Permalink

Over the weekend, Doug Sorocco added to a post from Krajec’s excellent blog, Anything Under the Sun Made by Man.  Krajec’s post gives several excellent suggestions for saving money during the patent prosecution process.

Sorocco adds a point that may appear to run counter to the theme of Krajec’s post — saving money.  Doug adds the point that a patent attorney should attend the business planning and strategy meetings of his/her client to more effectively represent the client.  He also believes that the attorney should be familiar with the business plan of the organization.

I agree wholeheartedly with Doug.  I call it the “embedded patent attorney” approach.  Following this approach, the attorney does whatever it takes to learn about your business….walking the floor, routinely meeting with employees, reading everything he can about the business, its industry, and the competition.  Over time, the attorney develops a familiarity and, indeed expertise, in the field that will return huge dividends.  A well-educated (in your business, not a reference to his/her pedigree) patent attorney can help the business person steer the ship, so to speak.  The patent system provides a wealth of information about your industry, and a patent attorney that is integrated with your overall business strategy can sort through the vast amount of information available to provide meaningful insight on your strengths and weaknesses and to identify (and seize!) opportunities.

I have structured my practice around this concept.  I knew there was something I liked about Doug….

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 09:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

The first Rethink(ip) Aloud podcast is coming later this week.  Its in the can and on its way to the post-production studio (aka my laptop).

For the record, I’m on the right.  As for the others, you’ll have to either guess or ask Nipper or Sorocco.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 08:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Nipper has gone public, and identified himself as the mystery IP blogger joining me and Sorocco on our “wicked cool idea.”

So what is it?  Here’s a hint:

What makes it wicked cool (as if podcasting wasn’t enough)?

For that, you’ll have to stay TUNED.  The podcast is only the beginning…

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 11:43 PM | Permalink

We are blessed in the Toledo area to have a very friendly patent bar and an active association of patent professionals, the Toledo Patent Law Association (TPLA). For decades, TPLA has kept an active calendar of meetings with fascinating speakers, including local business people, representatives of the Patent and Trademark Office, and federal judges, among others. In many ways, TPLA rivals and, I think, bests the professional organizations available to patent attorneys in cities much larger than Toledo, Ohio.

I recently described Promote the Progress to TPLA members, and hope that many will become regular readers of the blog.

Soon I will be adding a special page designed specifically for TPLA members. The page will be accessible by clicking on a 'TPLA Quick Link' on the main page and will provide an overview of current legislative and/or regulatory issues affecting patent practice. The overview will mimic the summaries I will be presenting at future meetings. Keep an eye on the blog for this feature...

Welcome TPLA!

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 12:48 AM | Permalink

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today discussing AT&T’s inventive history.  The article is published on the heels of Monday’s decision by AT&T to be acquired by SBC Communications (originally an offspring of MaBell).

Along with describing several major inventions that came from AT&T (via Bell Labs), the article suggests that the downfall of the company is at least partially attributable to its inability to exploit its inventions (the government break-up didn’t help things, either).

“But AT&T’s monopoly status meant that it rarely exploited its inventions.  Constantly threatened with breakup, the company agreed to put its transistor patents in the public domain and submitted to regulations barring it from businesses that didn’t involve the telephone.  Besides, executives felt little need to seize on the lab achievements since AT&T already enjoyed steady profits from its lock on the phone business.”

A subscription is required to read the article online.  AT&T Inventions Fueled the Tech Boom, and Its Own Fall begins on the first page of today’s paper edition.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 09:01 AM | Permalink

I will be attending the ABA Techshow from March 31 through April 2 in Chicago.  Techshow is, of course, the “ world's premiere legal technology conference.” (according to the ABA).  It even has its own blog.

Dennis Crouch has also announced that he will be attending, and I have it on good word that Nipper will soon make a similar announcement. 

So come on out to the show!  This would be a great opportunity to meet and talk with any or all of us.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 08:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

American Lawyer Media's law.com is currently featuring an article I wrote about the possibility of the 109th Congress enacting a new post-grant review procedure for patents. All signs are pointing to activity on this issue in this session of Congress.

The article is featured in the IP Law Practice Center of the law.com website. A subscription is required to view the full text of the article.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 12:05 AM | Permalink

A slight diversion from intellectual property law...

I have GMail invites to give away. Five invites. First five readers to e-mail me.

Posted by J Matthew Buchanan at 09:59 PM | Permalink

The popular media often writes about and discusses intellectual property issues.  I sometimes cringe at things they write and say, and wonder why they don't consult with someone prior to publishing their work.

Two of my pet peeves follow:

1.  "The patent on...."

How many times have you heard the phrase "He has THE patent on the so-and-so..."?  While someone or some entity may have a patent on an invention, anyone who has ever performed a clearance investigation will tell you that this phrase is misleading.  Some products are covered by many patents.  This phrase may have been accurate more frequently during earlier times, but as we approach issuance of the seven millionth US patent, it is misleading and often incorrect.

2.  Trademarked/Trademarking

When discussing the filing of a federal trademark application, the media often says something like "He is trademarking his name..."  (Paris Hilton recently made such news...)

Not true, and, again, somewhat misleading.  When filing a federal application, the applicant is seeking to register their mark, not create the mark.