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

Calling for Copyright Reform

• "Given where we are on the patent reform debate, is it time to move patent reform off the table and work on copyright reform?" That is the question posed by Kristie Prinz at the Silicon Valley IP Licensing Law Blog.

No More Committee on Intellectual Property

• "House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) will abolish the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property in the new Congress and instead keep intellectual property issues at the full committee level, a Judiciary aide told Congress Daily today." (source: Congressional Daily)

District Court Clarifies How PTO Should Compute Patent Terms

• Wyeth v. Dudas, No. 07-1492 (D.D.C. 2008): on September 30, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision concerning 35 U.S.C. § 154, the procedure the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) uses to calculates a patent's term.  Sec. 154 states that a patent grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains certain specific references to an earlier filed application or applications, from the date on which the earliest such application was filed. The 20-year term may be adjusted by the PTO to account for certain delays during prosecution. The Wyeth decision means that the PTO must alter its methods for adjusting patent terms, especially where prosecution lasts longer than three years as measured from the filing date. For a detailed analysis of Wyeth, see Down a Rabbit Hole: Court Slaps Down Patent Office’s ‘Explanation’ of PTA Rules (Patent Baristas).

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

     On September 10, 2008, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) added his support to S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, one day before the Senate Judiciary ordered the bill "to be reported with amendments favorably." Cardin joins eight other co-sponsors of the legislation (Senators Leahy, Bayh, Cornyn, Hatch, Voinovich, Specter, Feinstein, and Whitehouse). Next stop for the bill in consideration by the entire Senate (once placed on the Senate Calendar).

• Enforcement of copyright laws

     S.3325, introduced July 24, 2008, would authorize the U.S. Attorney General to commence a civil action against any person who engages in conduct constituting a criminal offense under the copyright laws, 17 U.S.C. § 506, upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence (compared to the much high criminal standard, the preponderance standard is estimated to result in more enforcement of copyright laws). A person found liable may be subject to a civil penalty under section 504 which shall be in an amount equal to the amount which would be awarded under 18 U.S.C. 3663(a)(1)(B) (i.e., the amount of the loss sustained by each victim as a result of the offense, considering the financial resources of the defendant) and restitution to the copyright owner aggrieved by the conduct.

• Enforcement of trademark laws

     S. 3325 would enhance remedies for trademark violations. Section 35(b) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117(b)) would require a court, in assessing damages for any violation of section 32(1)(a) of the Act, or or in a case involving use of a counterfeit mark or designation, to enter judgment for three times profits or damages, whichever amount is greater, together with attorney’s fee, unless the court finds extenuating circumstances. Treble damages and attorney's fees are authorized where the violation consists of:

(1) intentionally using a mark or designation, knowing such mark or designation is a counterfeit mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services; or

(2) providing goods or services necessary to the commission of a violation specified in paragraph (1), with the intent that the recipient of the goods or services would put the goods or services to use in committing the violation.

     The court may also award prejudgment interest beginning on the date of the service of the claimant’s pleadings and ending on the date entry of judgment is made.

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

     In an earlier post this week--Seagate vs. Patent Reform Act of 2007--I included a link to R. David Donoghue's Chicago IP Litigation Blog and his post "Is the Patent Reform Act Stalled?"  David may have been onto something, as only a day later blogger Dennis Crouch reported in his post "Congressional Patent Reform is Dead; Long Live Adminstrative Patent Reform" that Congressional Republicans have asked Speaker Pelosi to put the brakes on patent reform legislation. In their letter to Pelosi (D-CA) dated August 30, 2007, available here, Representatives Boenner (R-OH) and Blunt (R-MO) asked for the reprieve to allow additional consensus building "so that all U.S. companies benefit from reforming the patent system rather than advantaging one business model over another." 

Comments:

• The introduced Senate and House versions of patent reform legislation are: S.1145 and H.R.1908, respectively
  


• A search of the Internet revealed Patent Reform Acts of 2005, 2006, and 2007; perhaps we should start looking forward to the 2008 or 2009 versions
  


• The Pelosi letter was copied to Representatives Conyers (D-MI), L. Smith (R-TX), Berman (D-CA), and Coble (R-NC), all members of the House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property)

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