Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog : Maryland Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Brian Wm. Higgins : Serving Baltimore, Columbia, Frederick

     The US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) agreed on a common patent application format (CAF), which is shown below.

     The USPTO states that its rules and procedure are consistent with the CAF, and that while some of the requirements of the CAF go beyond what the USPTO requires, the USPTO will accept an application in the CAF. It is noteworthy that the CAF does not include U.S.-specific requirements and optional content, including (1) cross-reference to related applications, (2) a statement regarding federally sponsored research or development, and (3) the names of the parties to a joint research agreement. Items (1), (2), and (3) may still need to be included in an application that otherwise follows the CAF.

     The EPO is planning to implement the CAF in the beginning of 2009 (paper, PDF and XML format will be accepted). The JPO is preparing for the introduction of the CAF in early 2009, except that the sequence listing is a separate part of the description, and that the request contains the number of the figure of the drawings which the applicant suggests should accompany the abstract are scheduled to be introduced in 2011.

ACCEPTABLE COMMON APPLICATION FORMAT FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS 

Description

Title of Invention

Technical Field

Background Art

Summary of Invention

Technical Problem

Solution to Problem

Advantageous Effects of Invention

Brief Description of Drawings

Description of Embodiments

Examples

Industrial Applicability

Reference Signs List

Reference to Deposited Biological Material

Sequence Listing Free Text

Citation List

Patent Literature

Non Patent Literature

Claims

Abstract

Drawings

Sequence Listing

Notes:

• Link to the PTO notice
• Link to the MPEP showing the current acceptable application format

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

     Below are links to and highlights of recently published blog posts discussing current events relating to the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (s.1145). It appears from all accounts that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his Republican caucus, may block pending patent reform legislation until there is a "fair and equitable treatment" on the confirmation of federal judges, and resolution of provisions concerning apportionment of damages for patent infringement.

• Patent Bill Hits Impass in the Senate, Wall Street Journal (April 18, 2008)

     Gret Hitt, noting that Patent Reform efforts appear to be stalled in the Senate due to an impass over provisions in S. 1145, quotes Sen. Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as saying, "This was a missed opportunity."

• S.1145: "Not dead, but on ice", IPBIZ (April 17, 2008)

     Quoting a Reuters report, Lawrence Ebert points out that Barack Obama and his patent advisor, Mark Lemley, favor patent reforms, while U.S. trade unions oppose the bill.

• US Patent Reform Stalls as Senate Negotiations Break Down, IP Watch (April 15, 2008)

      Describes how Sen. Leahy's plan to bring s.1145 to a vote was derailed when he failed to agree on several provisions with the panel’s ranking member, Sen. Arlen Specter.

• Cracks Forming in the Passage of Patent Reform Act, 271 Patent Blog (April 9, 2008)

     Peter Zura, one of the first to blog that Sen. Specter was pulling his support for s.1145, quoted a report stating that the Senator "cannot join" his colleagues "on some parts of the bill," citing apportionment of damages as a "principle sticking point."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• IP Forum Webinar Announcement: "DELAWARE: Epicenter for U.S. IP Dispute Resolution"
  
       This from a soon-to-be released announcement from my law firm, Blank Rome:  "Join a knowledgeable team from Blank Rome on April 30, 2008 for an in-depth look at the Top 5 Things You Need Know when litigating a patent case in the U.S. District of Delaware Court. Learn why today’s most significant IP matters are being litigated in this jurisdiction from a panel of experts who know how Delaware’s unique rules and procedures work.  J.C. Boggs, Keeto Sabharwal, Steve Caponi, Charles Wolfe, Dale Dubé and Vincent Poppiti will examine several key cases and lead an interactive discussion over the web.  Date: April 30, 2008; time: 1030 to 1200 EDST US."   
  
  
• Rockville, MD-based Nabi Biopharmaceuticals announced on April 3, 2008, that it had settled a patent lawsuit it had filed against Ohio-based Roxane Laboratories over its drug product PhosLo(r). According to a Nabi statement, Nabi had filed the lawsuit on September 27, 2005, under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to a Paragraph IV Certification letter submitted by Roxane to Nabi concerning Roxane's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to market a generic version of PhosLo GelCaps.  Nabi sold its PhosLo drug product to Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. in 2006. 
  
  
• The Baltimore Business Journal announced Wednesday that Sarah Djamshidi, a University of Maryland business development official, was named Executive Director of the Chesapeake Innovation Center, which is an Annapolis-based incubator that assists startups developing homeland security technologies.
  
  
• Conference announcement: "Copyright Monopoly: Playing the Innovation Game"

     This from the Center for Intellectual Property, University of Maryland University College (UMUC):  "Since 2001, the Center for Intellectual Property (CIP) has provided premier conferences focusing on the intersection of copyright, technological innovation, and higher education. In its Eighth Annual Symposium, the CIP continues its tradition of convening a rich conversation on copyright policy that includes voices from higher education, business and industry, law, policy, government, and nonprofit sectors, and that also spans the spectrum of opinion and perspective."  8th Annual Symposium, May 28-30, 2008, in Metro Washington, D.C.

• Kevin O'Keefe at LEXBLOG provided a State of the AmLaw 200 blogosphere, March 2008, a few weeks ago, in which he noted that over 25% of the AmLaw 200 law firms (53) now have blogs. The Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog (a "non law firm branded" blog) is counted among the total. According to Kevin's statistics, there were only 39 blogs being published by the AmLaw 200 in August 2007.

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

    The table below identifies the top 10 states having the most copyright, trademark, and patent lawsuits filed in their respective U.S. district courts during the first quarter of 2008 (source Justia.com). The numbers show that California had the most filings, followed by, in order, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan.  The table shows Maryland's ranking: 24th overall, but 15th for trademark and copyright filings. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for the period January through March 2008, the PTO received 15 trademark applications from Maryland resident or entities (based on a search of "owner address" records using TESS). That number is a 38% decline in the number of applications received for the same period in 2007 (24), and a 6% decline over 2006 numbers (16).

     The number of registrations to Maryland individuals or entities in the first quarter of 2008 was down compared to last year. According to the PTO, 8 registrations were effective during the period January through March 2008, which is a 43% decline in the number of registrations for the same period in 2007 (14 registrations), and an 11% decline over 2006 numbers (9).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• #20: Staggs v. West, No. 8:2008cv00728; filed March 20, 2008; assigned to J. Messitte

     Dayna D. Staggs, III, a Prince Georges County, MD, resident and music recording artist who, as reported by On the Record, reportedly performs and produces under the alias D'Mystro, filed this copyright infringement lawsuit against singer Kanye West ("one of the worlds biggest Hip Hop Rap artist[s]") and co-defendants Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, Good Music Carter Administration, Shawn Carter Records, LLC, and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) (representing individually several defendants), for allegedly using Staggs' 1984 sound recording and composition entitled "Volume of Good Life." In particular, Staggs alleges that,

"Kanye West didn't obtain a license to use 'Volume of Good life' which has repeated melody's and uncleared vocal samples and compositional parts of sound recording with drum elements, including (45) lyrics from the original volume of good life."

     According to the complaint, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) "reports that the Kayne West 'Good Life' master with mixed parts of 'Volume of Good Life' was a tremendous success, selling millions. Attaining multi-platinum status selling more then [sic] 5 million units." The Complaint goes on to allege that,

"The vulgar, sexual and racially-charged nature of the infringing master work is directly counter to Dayna D. Staggs long established public persona, utterly inconsistent with the musician, artist clean image , [sic] And harms the reputation of the Dayna D. Staggs Copyrighted Rock/Pop master work clean titled 'Volume of Good Life.'"

     Count I of the Complaint alleges copyright infringement, contributory infringement, and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act.  Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, "impoundments."

     The Complaint appears to have been filed by Mr. Staggs pro se as CEO of Dayna Paryss Entertainment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for the period January through March 2008, the PTO granted 468 patents naming at least one Maryland resident as an inventor or joint inventor (based on residence addresses supplied by patent applicants to the PTO). However, that is a 7% decline in the number of patents issued to Maryland inventors for the same period in 2007 (502), and a 4% decline over 2006 numbers (485).

     The number of published patent applications naming at least one Maryland inventor in the first quarter of 2008 was up compared to last year. According to the PTO, 857 patent applications naming at least one Maryland inventor were published during the period January through March 2008, which is an 11% increase in the number of patent applications published for the same period in 2007 (773 patent applications), and a 15% increase over 2006 numbers (743).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• #19: CoStar Realty Information, Inc. v. Field, No. 8:2008cv00663; filed March 13, 2008; assigned to J. Williams

     This copyright lawsuit involves Plaintiffs CoStar Realty Information, Inc., and CoStar Group, Inc., which are Delaware companies with their principal places of business in Bethesda, MD, and Defendants Mark Field (allegedly a California resident and sole proprietor d/b/a Alliance Valuation Group), Lawson Valuation Group, Inc. (allegedly a Florida entity), Russ Gressett (allegedly a Texas resident d/b/a TGC Realty Counselors), Gerald A. Teel Company, Inc. (allegedly a Texas entity), and John Does 1-5. 

     Plaintiffs assert that they provide users with access to one of the most comprehensive commercial real estate information databases available. Alliance reportedly entered into a Licensing Agreement with CoStar to access CoStar's databases, but allegedly breached the agreement by providing user names and passcodes to Defendants Lawson, Gressett, Gateel, and Does 1-5. CoStar asserts, against one or more defendants, copyright infringement, criminal copyright infringement, breach of contract, fraud, and tortious interference with contract and prospective business relationship. With regard to the copyright infringement allegation, CoStar is seeking an award of statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

     Shari Ross Lahlou of Crowell & Moring (Washington, DC) filed the complaint on behalf of CoStar.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link