Saturday, July 29, 2017

A Boston firm labeled a ‘patent troll’ by some says it is actually performing a service; Boston Globe, July 29, 2017

Andy Rosen, Boston Globe; A Boston firm labeled a ‘patent troll’ by some says it is actually performing a service

"Whether known by the pejorative “patent troll” or the more plaintiff-friendly “patent assertion entity,” such repeat claimants generally keep a low profile.

Not Blackbird. Verlander and her staff display their pictures, bios, and links to social media on a company website that says Blackbird helps inventors who are outmatched by big companies with little incentive to respond to claims not backed by expensive lawyers.

Verlander sees herself as doing a service to combat rhetoric by what she calls the “infringer lobby,” which seeks to conflate all patent assertion work with the more dubious pursuits of unscrupulous trolls. There are bad actors, she said, on all sides.

“If in the end you can’t reward someone for their invention regardless of whether they make a product, then you’re discouraging people from inventing, and that’s bad,” Verlander said."

Friday, July 28, 2017

Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed, data analyst suggests; Science, July 27, 2017

Lindsay McKenzie, Science; Sci-Hub’s cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed, data analyst suggests

"Q: What were the main findings of your study? 
A: The most simple result was that Sci-Hub contains 69% of all scholarly articles. We also found that the site preferentially covers articles from closed-access publishers and high-impact journals. [Editor’s Note: A breakdown can be found here.] I think it's interesting that Elsevier and the American Chemical Society had some of the highest coverage and those are the publishers that have sued Sci-Hub. Maybe they realized that basically their entire corpus was in Sci-Hub. There were a lot of journals where Sci-Hub has every single article.
Q: What about the other 31%?
A: Just because an article isn’t in Sci-Hub’s database, that doesn’t mean it can’t get it for you. We estimated that Sci-Hub was able to fulfill requests 99% of the time—that suggests the 31% of articles that aren’t covered by Sci-Hub are things that people really aren’t requesting."

Caution: misleading notices; U.S Patent and Trademark Office, July 2017


Don't be fooled by potentially misleading offers and notices from private companies

Some trademark applicants and registrants have paid fees to private companies, mistakenly thinking they were paying fees required by the USPTO. We do not endorse any of these private companies and you are not required to use them.
Keep reading for information on potentially misleading offers and notices—also called solicitations—and how to identify them. You can also watch our "Solicitation Alert" video below. 
On this page:

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Mississippi man files trademark for slang version of N-word; Clarion-Ledger, July 27, 2017

Sarah Fowler, Clarion-Ledger; Mississippi man files trademark for slang version of N-word

"Curtis Bordenave, who is black, filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for commercial use of n---a.

Bordenave's application comes on the heels of a June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a federal law that prohibited trademarks of disparaging words and symbols. 

"We plan on dictating the future of how we define this word," Bordenave said. "A young, black businessman from Mississippi has acquired the rights to the word. I think that’s a great ending to that story.""

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Bondi Beach at centre of trademark tussle between Sydney cosmetics company and Abercrombie & Fitch By Jano Gibson; ABC, July 26, 2017

Jano Gibson, ABC; Bondi Beach at centre of trademark tussle between Sydney cosmetics company and Abercrombie & Fitch

"The United States retailer, which has no presence in Australia, is the registered owner of the 'Bondi Beach' trademark in the US for a range of products, including beauty lotions, body sprays and fragrances.

When Sydney company Bondi Wash applied to trademark its name in the US, it was prevented from doing so because of the similarity to Abercrombie & Fitch's existing rights.

The case has raised concerns about foreign companies gaining exclusive ownership of high-profile Australian place names in their branding."

Apple ordered to pay $506 million to university in patent dispute; Reuters, July 25, 2017

Jan Wolfe, Reuters; Apple ordered to pay $506 million to university in patent dispute

"A U.S. judge on Monday ordered Apple Inc to pay $506 million for infringing on a patent owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison's patent licensing arm, more than doubling the damages initially imposed on Apple by a jury.

U.S. District Judge William Conley in Madison added $272 million to a $234 million jury verdict the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation won against Apple in October 2015. Conley said WARF is owed additional damages plus interest because Apple continued to infringe the patent, which relates to computer processor technology, until it expired in December 2016."

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

The Case For Nations To Act On Medicines Access; Intellectual Property Watch, July 23, 2017

William New, Intellectual Property Watch; The Case For Nations To Act On Medicines Access

"A range of speakers, including top health officials from both a developed and developing country, last week laid out the case for why the world’s leaders must now launch a shift in the way medicines all populations need are developed and priced. The need for global collaboration is clear, speakers said, but who will lead?

The 17 July event was titled, “UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines: Advancing Health-Related SDGs through Policy Coherence.” The panel came in the context of the UN High Political Forum on Sustainable Development taking place during the week at the UN headquarters in New York...

Voice of Contention

Speakers ran over time so there was not time for questions. A US delegate in the audience told Intellectual Property Watch afterward that the critical statement by the US on the High-Level Panel from 16 September 2016 “still stands,” arguing that the panel report is “flawed” and is overly narrow."