One of the things I like best about Acrobat is the ability to apply electronic stamps to documents.  These allow you to mark a document in much the same manner as you would with a rubber stamp — “sign here,” “draft,” “confidential,” etc.  The new version of Acrobat Professional makes it even easier to add and organize custom stamps.  I have already created a group of patent prosecution stamps and organized them into a category.  When viewing a .pdf document, I can apply any of these stamps simply by choosing the “Patent Prosecution” category and picking the stamp from a set of handy previews in a menu.  So simple.

I designed the two stamps in this post for utility applications.  The DRAFT stamp, appropriately enough, is intended for applications sent to clients for review.  It can easily be modified to include a version number and revision history, if necessary.

The AS FILED stamp is intended to clearly mark the version that was filed with the patent office.  Ever look at two versions of an application and wonder which the Examiner has?  Have your clients?  I avoid this situation by using a file naming system.  While this works for me, it does not give any visual indicator on the document itself and it conveys no information to people not familiar with my naming conventions.  The new stamp, which I use in conjunction with the naming conventions, eliminates these problems.

Clients, by the way, love them.  A simple technology solution that is incredibly effective.

While intellectual property didn’t top either of the Republican or Democratic agendas for the 109th Congress, the first month of the new session did, indeed, produce a few interesting bills. The first section of this CapitolIP post summarizes a few of the more interesting bills that have been introduced, and the second section gives details on expected bills that are still waiting in the wings.

1. Bills introduced
A. The Affordable Health Care Act

Senator Ted Kennedy introduced the Affordable Health Care Act (109 S. 16), which, among other provisions, amends the infringement section of the patent law to create an exception for the importation of drugs:

(1) In general.–Section 271 of title 35, United States Code, is amended–
(A) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as (i) and (j), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
“(h) It shall not be an act of infringement to use, offer
to sell, or sell within the United States or to import into
the United States any patented invention under section 804 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that was first sold
abroad by or under authority of the owner or licensee of such
patent.”.

(2) Rule of construction.–Nothing in the amendment made by
paragraph (1) shall be construed to affect the ability of a
patent owner or licensee to enforce their patent, subject to
such amendment.

Note that section 804 is added to the FDCA by S. 16 and establishes a regulatory framework for the commercial and personal importation of drugs into the United States from specified countries, including Canada.

B. The Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act

Representative Joe Knollenberg (MI) introduced the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act (SCIMGA)(109 HR 32) (xml) on January 4, the first day of the 109th Congress.

The bill changes trademark law to provide for the forfeiture of property used in the counterfeiting upon conviction. Also, the bill clarifies that current law on trafficking in counterfeit goods and services applies to counterfeit labels, patches, medallions and the like.

C. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act

Senator Hatch introduced the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (FECA) of 2005 (109 S. 167). The FECA is a conglomeration of previously-presented bills, including:

The Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention Act
The Family Movie Act
The National Film Preservation Act
The Preservation of Orphan Works Act

UPDATE: Text of FECA available here.

2. Bills waiting in the wings

The most interesting intellectual property bills appear to be waiting in the wings.

At the end of the last session, Howard Berman vowed to set patent reform as a priority. His Patent Quality Assistance Act, which includes a new post-grant review procedure, is expected to be introduced at some point in this Congress. Its introduction might be timed to coincinde with the patent reform activities scheduled for later this year.

Lastly, Senator Norm Coleman has stated his intentions to introduce the Collaborative Opportunities to Mobilize and Promote Education, Technology, and Enterprise (COMPETE) Act. While no bill text is available yet, the bill is expected to include the anti-fee diversion language of HR 1561 (The Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act) from the 108th Congress. Remember that these controversial provisions, which enjoyed overwhelming support from patent stakeholders, were ripped from the bill when it was dumped into the omnibus appropriations bill late last year. The COMPETE Act is expected to be introduced sometime in February.

Today I am launching a new series of posts — CapitolIP — intended to provide a summary of current and expected legislation surrounding intellectual property law.  I will regularly update the series but have not settled on a final schedule.  As of now, updates will be posted on an as-needed basis.

And now, for the first summary…

I’ve been using the full version of Adobe Acrobat for several years and am a firm believer that it is a true power tool in the practice of law.  I always upgrade when a new version of Professional is released, and have realized new benefits in my practice with each new version.

Adobe recently released Acrobat Professional 7.0, and, without hesitating, I upgraded.  Earlier this week I installed the upgrade and read the brief ‘manual’ provided by Adobe.

In the 30 minutes it took to thoroughly read the manual (with highlighting and notes — it is indeed only an overview), I developed several ideas for improving my practice based on new and/or improved features of the software.  This seems to always happen with each new version of Acrobat, but the number of ideas I have surrounding 7.0 is amazing.

I think, in time, 7.0 will prove itself transformative to my practice, allowing me to deliver my services more effectively, and more efficiently.  I’ll soon post a list of ideas I plan to implement.  Feel free to ask questions and/or provide comments on any of them.

January 21, 2005, was the one-year anniversary of Promote the Progress.

In December and January, as the anniversary date approached, I asked myself a very tough question about the blog:  Why?  I actually struggled with the question for several weeks.  Eventually, though, an answer that now seems so very obvious came to me.

Passion.

This blog allows me to combine several of my passions:  intellectual property law, computers, technology, and writing.  Each of these subjects, independently, has occupied a portion of my life for many years, but I have never had a singular activity that allowed me to touch all of them.  Now I do.

I didn’t realize this when I started the blog last January.  I was still clueless in December.  But now I know.  Promote the Progress is about passion, and that is why I blog.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently issued its report on the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act.

The report does not provide any new information on the Act or its implementation, but does provide a detailed look at the background and purpose of the Act.

Click on the .pdf icon below to download the report.

India recently satisfied its TRIPs obligations in the 11th hour by issuing an ordinance amending the patent law to expand the scope of patentable subject matter to include pharmaceuticals and other products.  The ordinance was used, as opposed to a legislative effort, because political differences in the Indian Parliament prevented introduction of an appropriate bill in a timely manner (the law had to be amended by January 1, 2005).

While the ordinance appears to satisfy India’s TRIPs obligations for now, it still must be approved by Parliament to be made permanent.  This article reports that the amendments made by the ordinance will be introduced in Parliament in March and that government officials are indicating that “fine-tuning” can still be done:

 “We are open even today to ideas and suggestions to fine-tune the amendments to patent rules and law,’’  Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion A.K. Jha.

For more on the Indian patent law changes, visit the permalink for this entry and review the prior PTP posts listed for keyword “INDIA_TRIPS.”

Steve Nipper, the proprietor behind The Invent Blog and fellow law.com columnist, has published his first article on the law.com IP Law Practice Center.  In  Five Things Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patents, Nipper gives five bullet points all corporate counsel should know about patents — a great primer for the “jack of all trades” attorney not familiar with patent practice.

A subscription is required to read the article.

Yesterday, Senator Norm Coleman (MN) held a series of summits in his home state to introduce the Collaborative Opportunities to Mobilize and Promote Education, Technology, and Enterprise (COMPETE) Act.

According to this summary from the Minnesota Precision Manufacturing Association (MPMA), the bill contains the anti-fee diversion provisions of The Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (HR 1561) from the 108th Congress:

Title III – U.S. PTO Fee Modernization 

Section 301-307 – Increase Patent Trademark Office (PTO) Fees and Funding

 

This section increases fees, makes all fees available to be appropriated for use by the Patent Trademark Office, and provides for refunds to fee payers of fees not appropriated.

…

This section would increase the fees that the PTO collects for activities related to the processing and filing of patent and trademark applications and would grant PTO permanent authority to collect and spend those fees.  It creates a PTO Reserve Fund into which fees collected in excess of PTO appropriations in a fiscal year would be deposited.  In the following year, the Director of the PTO would refund the excess fees to those PTO users who paid fees during the first fiscal year.

 

This section is basically H.R. 1561, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 379-28.

…

 The FY2005 Commerce-Justice-State (CJS) appropriations bill includes $1.5 billion for PTO, which is $322.3 million above the FY04 level.  The CJS bill includes language that raises the amount of fees PTO may collect by $208 million. These additional funds are necessary for PTO to fully implement the Twenty-First Century Strategic Plan and to put an end to the pendency problems that have plagued the agency for so long.  While the CJS bill provides a one-year solution to the PTO funding issue, a long-term solution is needed.

According to Senator Coleman, the Act will:

• Improve the ability of American companies to stay on the forefront of the technological revolution by expanding the R&D tax credit and improving the patent and trademark process;
• Establish partnerships between institutions of higher education and those in the private sector that have expertise in math, science and technology. These partnerships will provide training, technical assistance, professional development opportunities, and disseminate math and science education materials to teachers and students in the surrounding region;
• Provide a tax credit to help businesses and individuals upgrade their information technology and communication skills;
• Create a $3,500 tax credit for graduate students who study engineering, science, or mathematics, which will help to ensure that America continues to produce the best engineers and scientists in the world;
• Establish a bonus grant of $500,000 to the top five elementary and secondary schools in each state who improve the most in their math and science state assessment test scores.

The legislation has not yet been formally introduced.  I will post a review of the patent and trademark provisions following formal introduction.

Today, the Senate confirmed Carlos Gutierrez as the new Commerce Secretary.  Nothing too interesting in the confirmation from an intellectual property standpoint.