Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patent Preparation Costs: How Low Can You Go?
According to recent statistics, approximately 342,441 utility patent applications were filed in 2003 in the United States, and 169,028 utility patents were granted. These totals have nearly doubled over the past decade. Nonetheless, patent prosecution costs have seemed to trend lower or remain flat in recent years, even as courts are requiring more and more from application drafters. Does this prosecution revenue squeeze portend an increased economic risk for the patent practitioner? Does this pose more trouble for patent quality in general? Is a market glut of patent attorneys creating downward pressure on patent prosecution costs and resulting patent quality? Besides refusing to enter into a pricing war that is ultimately bad for our patent system, patent attorneys may wish to consider implementing changes to the patent system that help improve patent quality by reducing the recent flood of patent attorneys and agents entering the market.
Falling Costs vs. Increased Risk/Exposure
“You get what you pay for” has never been more apropos than in the current IP environment. As early as 1997, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recognized a premium on forethought in patent drafting. See Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Federal Circuit warned:
This court recognizes that such reasoning places a premium on forethought in patent drafting. Indeed this premium may lead to higher costs of patent prosecution. … Given a choice of imposing the higher costs of careful prosecution on patentees, or imposing the costs of foreclosed business activity on the public at large, this court believes the costs are properly imposed on the group best positioned to determine whether or not a particular invention warrants investment at a higher level, that is, the patentees. Id. at 1425.
While this forethought premium has translated into more stringent requirements regarding expertise and accountability, it has not translated into increased prosecution costs.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.