Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

I have several smaller IP-related items today, none of which warranted a single post:

• The Wall Street Journal reported last Friday that the Patent Reform Act (S. 1145) will likely not reach the Senate floor -- click here for the story.  It was widely reported throughout the first quarter that the bill was expected to be brought to the full Senate by March or April of this year.  The WSJ reported that the Act's move out of the Judiciary Committee stalled because of a stalemate over the Act's controversial damages provision.
  
• Virtually Blind hosts a Blawg Review #156 focused on, no surprise, all thinks virtual and Second Life.
  
• The John Marshall Law School is hosting a free presentation by Southern Methodist University Law School Professor Shubha Ghosh tited IP as CP:  Competition Policy Norms in Intellectual Property Law.  Click here for registration information.
  
• The final edition of the 2008 Chicago IP Colloquium is this afternoon from 4:10 - 5:50 pm.  The presentation will be by Professor Mark McKenna of the Saint Louis University School of Law about his paper Testing Modern Trademark Law's Theory of Harm.  It looks like it will be another excellent IP discussion.
  
• The Lewis & Clark Law School has a new podcast up with Chicago-Kent College of Law's Associate Dean and Director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law Graeme B. Dinwoodie. Professor Dinwoodie speaks about developing trademark defenses.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tomorrow I will be back to case analysis, but there is some Northern District news and some excellent IP and litigation blog posts worth reading, here they are:

• Ninth Annual Pro Bono and Public Interest Awards -- The Northern District and the Federal Bar Association are seeking nominations for excellence in pro bono and public interest work. Nominations should be based upon work performed in civil cases before the Northern District which are no longer pending. Send nominations by March 28 to:

Amy Rettberg, Executive Law Clerk
Email: amy_rettberg@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Chambers of the Chief Judge James F. Holderman
219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2548
Chicago, Illinois 60604

• Patent Reform is Moving Forward -- The Senate is preparing to vote on the Patent Reform Act after its spring recess (yes, it is spring already in DC).  Here is some additional coverage of the Act's status:

271 Patent Blog -- looking at the latest amendments to the Act.

Maryland Intellectual Property Blog -- looking at the latest amendments and questioning whether proponents have the sixty votes necessary for cloture, thereby avoiding a filibuster.

Patent Docs -- taking sides, but asking you to call your Senators regardless of which side you take.

• Check out the newest entry to Chicago's law blog scene, the Lean & Mean Litigation Blog.  It is not IP-focused, but it is an interesting read for any commercial litigator or litigant.
  
• William Patry at Patry on Copyright has an interesting post about the difficulties of serving corporate entities based upon a District of the District of Columbia case involving a pro se plaintiff.  The best advice, of course, is to hire counsel because if you do not get the party served properly, you have no case.
  
• The Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge St. Eve's ground breaking opinion in the CLC v. Craigslist case.  The Seventh Circuit held that an ISP is exempt from cases based upon user content when the case attempts to treat the ISP as a publisher of the content.  This is considerably narrower than most of the other circuits, which have held that Section 230 exempts ISPs from essentially all suits based upon user content.  For more coverage, check out the WSJ Law Blog (which erroneously elevates Judge St. Eve to the Seventh Circuit), Internet Cases, and the Technology & Marketing Law Blog (very detailed analysis of Judge Easterbrook's opinion).
  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post have reported that the Senate confirmed Judge Filip as Deputy Attorney General yesterday, making Judge Filip the number two official in the Justice Department.  Congratulations Deputy Attorney General Filip.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Patent Reform Act is on the Senate’s calendar and is expected to be voted on in February. The version voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee is different than the version passed by the House. Experts expect that, instead of forming a joint committee to resolve the differences which generally requires a second vote by both chambers, the House will vote on any version of the Patent Reform Act passed by the Senate.

That means that it is time to take a close look at the Senate version of the Patent Reform Act. The damages and venue provisions continue to be some of the most significant and hotly-contested. And it is no surprise that the various stakeholders are making their positions heard loudly again. I considered analyzing each provision of the current Senate bill, but Patent Docs beat me to it and did an excellent job:

• First to File
  
• Assignee Filings, Mandatory Publication, and Third Party Submissions
  
• Interlocutory Decisions & Venue
  
• Damages
  
• Applicant Quality Submissions & Micro-Entities
  
• Post-Grant Procedures
  
• Inequitable Conduct Provisions
  
• Late Patent Filings         

Several other blogs are also keeping a close eye on the stakeholders and the sausage-making aspects of the Patent Reform Act, among the best:

• 271 Patent Blog
  
• Filewrapper
  
• IP Biz
  
• Patent Baristas
  
• Patently-O
  
• Maryland IP Law Blog (and here regarding the increased internet coverage of Patent Reform during February)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Judge Filip's nomination as Deputy Attorney General has cleared one of its final hurdles -- click here for the story.  Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed to remove a hold placed on Judge Filip's confirmation vote after Attorney General Michael Mukasey answered Senator Durbin's questions regarding the legality of interrogation techniques.  According to a Chicago Tribune story (click here for the story), Judge Filip is expected to be confirmed by the Senate.  Of course, that is not surprising since the Senate previously confirmed him to become a federal district judge.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Chicago Tribune has had a few IP-related articles this week. First, the Tribune reported – click here for the story -- that the House is about to take up a bill that would allow an abbreviated approval process for generic versions of biotech drugs, commonly known as biosimilars or biogenerics, similar to abbreviated new drug applications. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved a similar bill in June, called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2007.

Second, the Tribune reported – click here for the story – about a new book, "The Telephone Gambit: Chasing Alexander Graham Bell's Secret," by Seth Shulman -- which argues that Alexander Graham Bell, one of America’s most famous patentees, stole his most famous invention, the telephone, from his rival Elisha Gray. And Shulman argues that he was aided by attorneys and a corrupt patent examiner.  The book is due out January 7. It looks like it could be an interesting read.

Third, the Tribune reported – click here for the story -- that the Federal Circuit reversed in part the Western District of Wisconsin’s April 2007 decision which held that Google’s AutoLink and AdSense feature did not infringe HyperPhrase’s patents. The Court upheld Judge Shabaz’s decision that AdSense did not infringe the patents and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding whether the AutoLink feature infringed two of the patents in suit. Click here for a copy of the Federal Circuit decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

With Patent Reform not expected to be considered by the full Senate before January 2008, the House appear to be turning its focus to copyright reform.  The Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog has a series of posts on the new copyright legislation (click here and here to read them).  The most recent bill would prevent lawsuits from being dismissed for unintentional errors in copyright registration forms and would give courts discretion to treat compilations as more than one work for statutory damages purposes.  Treating compilations* as multiple works for damages is significant because it increases the potential award for infringing a compilation from a maximum of $150,000 (the maximum willful infringement award for a work) to multiples of $150,000 depending on how many separate works the court determines the compilation to be.

*  Compilations are grouped works such as collections of short stories, magazines with multiple articles or databases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Senate's Judiciary Committee set Judge Filip's confirmation hearing for Wednesday, December 19.  That is pretty quick turn around for this Senate and all indications are that Judge Filip will be confirmed.  Congratulations Judge Filip, the Northern District will miss you.

A tip of the hat to the BLT Blog for pointing us to the news.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The House of Representatives passed the Patent Reform Act 225-175 this afternoon.  I have not been able to find the final version of the bill yet or any information on the final version of the venue and damages provisions, but it appears that the bill includes revisions to current law in both areas.  I will post more once the final version is available.  The Senate is scheduled to consider the Act next month and it is unlikely the Senate will pass an identical version.  So, the Act still has a few hurdles before it makes its way to the White House.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This week the House Judiciary Committee sent its version of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 to the full body for a vote.  The damages provisions that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Michel publicly spoke against remained in the House bill, but the controversial post-grant review process was removed completely, instead of being limited as many interested parties are suggesting.  The Senate continues to markup its version of the Patent Reform Act, but so far has tightened venue requirements and is debating the damages provisions.  The Patent Reform Act feels like a long breakaway in the Tour de France.*  When a group of riders is leading the peloton (the large group consisting of most of the riders in the race) they each want to win the day's race, but in order to do that they must work together until the last 200-500 meters of what may be a 200 km ride.  If they stop cooperating before the last several hundred meters, they become disorganized, slow down and get swallowed by the peloton.  They are generally exhausted from their efforts in the breakaway and have no chance of winning once they rejoin the peloton -- all of their individual efforts are thrown away because they stopped cooperating with their competitors too early.  Cooperating with competitors is difficult and counter-intuitive, but is often the only way to achieve individual success.  The Patent Reform Act is just such an effort, but it looks like the interested parties may not win this race.

You can read more about Congress's deliberations at:

• Patently-O
  
• FileWrapper
  
• Patent Prospector
  
• Patent Baristas
  
• 271 Patent Blog
  
• Maryland Intellectual Property Blog -- a new regional IP blog & a new member of the LexBlog family.  Welcome to the conversation Brian.

* Forgive the analogy, but I love the Tour and today is the first individual time trial of this year's race.  Go Levi, Alberto & the rest of the Discovery Channel team!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began marking up the Patent Reform Act.  At the beginning of the Committee's public markup session, Committee Chairman Leahy (D-Vt.) stated that he wanted to finish the markup Thursday, vote on the bill and send it to the full Senate.  The Committee, however, only got through two amendments, one of which was a "manager's amendment" which just includes technical/clerical revisions."  And Leahy, prodded by several Republican senators and Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), agreed to provide the Committee additional time to consider the Act further.  The one substantive amendment (which you can read here) further limited venue in patent cases.  The amendment was strongly worded stating that in any patent case:

. . . a party shall not manufacture venue by assignment, incorporation, or otherwise to invoke the venue of a specific district court.

This preamble language is very interesting.  It has the potential to lead to a big increase in initial motion practice in which defendants argue that whatever entity sues them was created to create venue in the jurisdiction.  But this problem is seemingly resolved because in almost all cases plaintiff's principal place of business or state of incorporation will not create venue, it will almost always be based upon defendant's footprint and infringing activities.  The amendment goes on to specify that venue would be proper:

1. where defendant has a principal place of business or is incorporated;
   
2. where defendant has committed "substantial" infringing acts and maintains a physical facility constituting a "substantial portion" of defendant's operations; or
   
3. where plaintiff resides, if plaintiff is a university or an individual inventor.

The 271 Patent Blog also has a good post on the markup.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When the Patent Reform Act of 2007 was unveiled, the conventional wisdom was that the law would be enacted and remain largely intact, unlike the 2006 version which was never sent to the White House.  But it has hit its first delay, shortly after its first public hearings last week.  Earlier this week, five Senate Judiciary Committee (which is considering the Act) members -- Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Jeff Sessions of (R-Alabama), Chuck Grassley of (R-Iowa), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) -- sent a letter to the Committee's Chair Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and its Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania).  The Senators sought a delay in voting on on the Act and reporting it out of the Committee to allow time for additional hearings to explore, among other issues:

• Apportionment of damages;
• Post-grant opposition procedures;
• Granting the USPTO broad rulemaking authority;
• How to improve patent quality; and
• "[E]xamining the problem of speculative litigation and alternatives to stopping unnecessary and costly litigation."

Blogs have been actively covering the letter and its implications:

• Patent Docs
  
• Promote the Progress
  
• FileWrapper
  
• Patent Prospector
  
• Patent Baristas
  
• Phosita

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Wednesday, the Senate held its first hearings regarding the Patent Reform Act.  Both the main stream media and the legal blogs are busy handicapping the battle over the legislation and the Act's chances of success.  Here are some of the highlights:

The WSJ Law Blog handicaps the big players in Patent Reform's Battle Royale

The WSJ print edition featured the Senate hearings in a page-one story (subscription required).

FileWrapper provides a nice summary of each witness's positions.

The New York Times also ran a Business section story.

Patent Prospector takes a very strong position: 

The thankful result of today's Senate hearing is watching the Patent Reform Act of 2007 appear the statutory tub of lard that it is.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks