Podcasts about america invents act

On this day in legal history, September 29, 1983, the War Powers Act was invoked for the first time – by President Ronald Reagan in order to keep a U.S. Marine presence in Lebanon.On September 29, 1983, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 270 to 161 to invoke the War Powers Act concerning the deployment of American Marines in Lebanon for an additional 18 months. The resolution had bipartisan support, including from President Reagan. This marked the first time the House invoked the War Powers Act, a law designed to limit the President's war-making powers, which was enacted a decade earlier. The Senate would go on to approve the resolution.President Reagan thanked the House for its bipartisan vote, emphasizing the importance of cooperation between the legislative and executive branches. However, the vote also revealed concerns among lawmakers about the U.S.'s role in the Middle East and the potential for the Marines to be drawn into a larger conflict. Some representatives warned that the resolution was tantamount to a declaration of war and could result in American casualties.The debate in the House was marked by a sense of urgency but also caution. Lawmakers were torn between the risks of pulling out and staying in Lebanon, with some describing it as a "very unhappy choice." Despite reservations, the prevailing sentiment was that Congress had to back the resolution to support the President during a crisis.The War Powers Act mandates that the President must notify Congress when American troops face combat and withdraw them within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes their continued deployment. Interestingly, President Reagan had not made such a notification, but the compromise resolution asserted the Act's applicability, making Reagan the first President to acknowledge its validity. This failure to abide by the initial notification requirement, coupled with the later request for an extension, in full light of history, was a major step forward in placing the power to declare war in the office of the presidency.At the time, the Senate was also debating an amendment requiring more detailed reporting from the President on the Marines' mission in Lebanon. The House had rejected a similar amendment, which would have postponed a decision on the Marines' future for 60 more days. The debate touched on the balance of power between Congress and the President, the definition of success in Lebanon, and the long-term implications of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. In the ensuing 40 years, every president has either explicitly or tacitly leaned on the War Powers Act to substantiate action abroad. By way of brief background, the War Powers Resolution mandates that the U.S. President can only deploy armed forces abroad through a formal declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in the event of a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S. or its armed forces. The President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and cannot keep them deployed for more than 60 days without an additional 30-day withdrawal period, unless Congress authorizes the use of military force or declares war. The resolution was enacted by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, overriding President Richard Nixon's veto. Despite its provisions, allegations have been made that the resolution has been violated in the past, such as George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Bill Clinton's involvement in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. While Congress has disapproved of these incidents, no successful legal actions have been taken against any President for such alleged violations.Suffolk University Law School in Boston has a significant impact on the Massachusetts legal landscape despite its lower ranking in national lists. As of 2021, the school is the leading source of judges in the state, contributing 118 out of 440 judges on the Massachusetts bench. Additionally, three of the seven justices on the state's highest court and Judge Gustavo Gelpí of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit are Suffolk alumni. High-profile roles in the state, such as the Secretary of State and Chief Public Defender, are also filled by Suffolk graduates.However, Suffolk Law ranks fifth in the Boston area and falls in the bottom third nationwide, according to U.S. News & World Report. Despite this, the school has a high retention rate for local graduates, which is crucial for Boston's legal market that faces competition from larger cities like New York and Washington, D.C. In 2022, 73% of Suffolk Law graduates took their first-year job in Massachusetts, a higher percentage than graduates from Boston University, Northeastern, and Boston College law schools.The school's strong presence in the state judiciary and public service sectors has created a cycle that attracts students interested in these fields. For example, state Sen. John Cronin chose Suffolk for its reputation in producing practice-oriented lawyers with distinguished careers in public service. The school's curriculum focuses on experiential programs, allowing students to gain real-world experience.Suffolk Law School also addresses a growing need in Boston's legal market by training scientists to become lawyers for biotech clients. The school offers a nighttime program in intellectual property law, attracting individuals with doctorates in science. Firms like Foley Hoag LLP and Foley & Lardner LLP have hired these specialists and sponsored their education at Suffolk's evening program.In summary, Suffolk University Law School plays a pivotal role in Massachusetts' legal ecosystem, particularly in the judiciary and public service sectors, despite its lower national ranking. Its strategic programs and high local graduate retention rate make it a cornerstone in the state's legal community. It stands as a clear example of the shortcomings and difficulties in trying to reduce a school's educational worth to a hierarchical ranking scale. Underdog Boston School Churns Out Judges, Big Law Partners (1)The IRS has released a plan outlining its operations in the event of a government shutdown, which appears increasingly likely if Congress fails to reach a funding agreement by October 1. The plan involves furloughing approximately 60,000 IRS employees, a change from last year's contingency plan. About one-third of the workforce will continue to work, funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, special compliance funding, and user fees. Essential functions like mail processing, criminal law enforcement, disaster relief transcript processing, and income verification for mortgage lenders will continue.However, the IRS will halt all audit functions, return examinations, non-automated collections, and will not answer taxpayer phone calls. Doreen Greenwald, President of the National Treasury Employees Union, expressed concern over the stress and financial insecurity that furloughed IRS workers would face. She also warned that a shutdown could exacerbate the agency's existing backlog by preventing new hires.Initial discussions had suggested that the IRS would remain fully operational by using funds from the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act, which are not subject to annual appropriations and are available until September 2031. During the last government shutdown in 2018-2019, many IRS operations were halted, but tax refund checks would have been issued if the shutdown extended into tax-filing season. Eileen Sherr of the American Institute of CPAs advised taxpayers to use e-filing for error-free and direct-deposit refunds, as these will be the only ones processed during a shutdown.IRS to Partially Close, Furlough Staff in Federal Shutdown (2)A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge has ruled that Starbucks violated federal labor law by increasing wages and benefits only for employees in non-unionized stores across the U.S. This marks the first nationwide ruling against Starbucks, which has been resisting a wave of unionization for the past two years. The judge, Mara-Louise Anzalone, stated that Starbucks engaged in a "corporate-wide effort to manipulate its employees' free choice" by tying their pay and benefits to their willingness to avoid organizing. The ruling orders Starbucks to compensate thousands of unionized workers who were unlawfully denied increased wages and benefits.This decision is significant as it is the first to find Starbucks in violation of labor laws on a nationwide scale, as opposed to previous rulings that were limited to individual stores. The unionization campaign against Starbucks has led to nearly 350 organized cafes in 37 states, and the NLRB has filed almost 100 complaints against the company. Of these, at least 75 are still pending.Starbucks has publicly denied any legal wrongdoing and argued that increasing pay for unionized workers would itself be illegal, as federal law prohibits unilateral changes to union workers' conditions. However, Judge Anzalone dismissed this argument, stating it wasn't made in good faith. She also ruled that Starbucks' actions illegally discouraged other workers from joining the union. While the judge did not order additional training for Starbucks managers on labor laws, she did mandate that the CEO read a notice of employee rights to U.S. workers and post it in every store.Starbucks Illegally Kept Wages, Benefits From Union Workers (1)The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has enough funds to continue operations for about three months in the event of a government shutdown. The agency plans to use its $1.04 billion operating reserves to cover patent and trademark expenses. The PTO is primarily self-funded through patent and trademark filing fees but still requires annual appropriations from Congress. In the past, the PTO has remained open during government shutdowns, including the 35-day shutdown from December 2018 to January 2019.However, some patent attorneys have expressed concerns about the PTO's long-term ability to function if appropriations are not made. The agency's financial stability during short-term shutdowns is a change from the past when Congress would divert part of the PTO's revenue to fund other government activities. Although a provision to prevent such diversion was removed from the America Invents Act of 2011, Congress has since committed not to divert PTO fees.Legal practitioners seem largely unconcerned about a potential shutdown affecting the PTO, as the agency has successfully weathered past shutdowns. The Patent Public Advisory Committee and PTO officials have planned for such contingencies by increasing the reserve fund. If a shutdown were to last beyond the reserve's capacity, most PTO employees would be furloughed, and the agency's regional offices would close.A prolonged shutdown could also affect the rulemaking process, including proposed changes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and requests for comment on artificial intelligence issues. Other agencies involved in the rulemaking process, like the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, could be impacted by furloughs. Finally, while the PTO would continue to collect fees, it would not be able to use those funds without congressional authority.Patent Office Has Funds to Stay Open Three Months Amid ShutdownThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Zackey Rahimi, who argues that his Second Amendment rights were violated by a law preventing individuals under a domestic violence restraining order from owning firearms. This case could have broader implications for where guns can be carried, including in malls and parks. The court's decision will be its first opportunity to clarify its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, which has led to varying interpretations in lower courts.In Bruen, the Supreme Court established that the government must prove a law restricting gun access aligns with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. However, this has led to inconsistent rulings, as judges lack clear guidance on how closely a modern law must resemble historical laws to pass constitutional muster. The ambiguity has particularly affected laws prohibiting gun possession in "sensitive places" like parks and libraries.Judges have been divided on what counts as a "sensitive place," leading to contrasting rulings. For example, a New Jersey judge ordered the state to stop enforcing provisions that prohibit gun possession in parks and libraries, while a similar challenge in New York received the opposite treatment. Legal experts anticipate that the Rahimi case could provide much-needed clarity on how to apply the Bruen test.If the court sides with Rahimi, it could have far-reaching implications for existing gun legislation, including laws about carrying firearms in "sensitive places." The case also raises questions about linking modern rights to historical contexts that did not contemplate contemporary issues, such as domestic violence, which was not prosecuted as a crime until the late 20th century.New Supreme Court Case a Test for Carrying Guns in Malls, Parks Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

An American inventor is speaking out about a law he says has significantly affected the country's ability "to lead the world in innovation and stay ahead of our adversaries.""We're a 501(c)(4) [tax-exempt organization], and our mission is to restore to America something that has been actually just totally destroyed by Big Tech," Randy Landreneau, president of US Inventor, tells The Daily Signal. "And what that is is that if you're an inventor and you invent something really valuable, and you get a patent on it, you're supposed to have the legal ability to stop a large entity from just taking it, and that is what our patent system was created for."Landreneau has numerous patents and owns Complete Product Development, which is "a product design and prototyping company based in Clearwater, Fla.," according to his US Inventor biography page. "That's what worked so well in America for 200 years, what enabled us to lead the world in innovation and stay ahead of our adversaries, etc.," Landreneau says. "And Big Tech got a law passed about 10 years ago that really drastically destroyed that. It made it virtually impossible now to stop a large entity from simply taking what you had invented and patented."Landreneau was referring to the America Invents Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2011 by then-President Barack Obama, who at the time said the “much-needed reform will speed up the patent process so that innovators and entrepreneurs can turn a new invention into a business as quickly as possible.”Landreneau joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to further discuss the U.S. patent system and some of the challenges he and other U.S. inventors are facing today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

To keep patent disputes out of the courts, Congress formed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board a few years back in the America Invents Act. A survey of patent judges conducted by the Government Accountability Office came up with a disturbing finding. Three quarters of the judges said U.S. Patent and Trademark Office management pressured them to change their decisions. To get more on this story, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with Candice Wright, GAO's Director for Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

To keep patent disputes out of the courts, Congress formed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board a few years back in the America Invents Act. A survey of patent judges conducted by the Government Accountability Office came up with a disturbing finding. Three quarters of the judges said U.S. Patent and Trademark Office management pressured them to change their decisions. To get more on this story, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with Candice Wright, GAO's Director for Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As global crises abound, from pandemics to war, society cries out for myriad new technologies, from healthcare and high tech to manufacturing, energy, environment, and food. This panel will explore how the antitrust and patent systems can best foster competition and innovation in each of these vital areas. What are the key ideas to bear in mind when sculpting these specific legal systems? What are the agencies like the PTO and DoJ Antitrust Division best able to accomplish; and what legal rules help them do their best work? How do the courts fit in? What roles are best played by large business firms compared to small and medium enterprises? This panel will explore the lessons that can be drawn from big changes made over the past century to the patent-antitrust interface such as the 1952 Patent Act and the 2011 America Invents Act with an eye towards how best to use them to shape the legal systems for tomorrow.Featuring:Hon. Makan Delrahim, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP; Former Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of JusticeProf. Christine Haight Farley, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of LawHon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Irell & Manella LLP; Former Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeHon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Former Commissioner, U.S. International Trade CommissionModerator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims

China is vying to become the world's No. 1 superpower, a distinction long held by the U.S. The communist country "is threatening American innovation and national security by exploiting weaknesses in U.S. patent protection, and Big Tech is letting them get away with it," according to a synopsis for a new documentary film, "Innovation Race," which opens in theaters Wednesday.Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding, author of "Stealth War: How China Took Over While America's Elites Slept," says that "the movie itself really talks about the importance of the patent system to innovation in the United States, how that's kept our country secure throughout the almost 240-plus years of existence, and how that security was negated by the America Invents Act."And how in this competition that we face today, with China in particular, that it's creating a challenge for America in terms of innovation and keeping its rightful place at the top of science, technology, and research and development," Spalding says. The America Invents Act was passed and signed into law in 2011 by then-President Barack Obama, who at the time said the "much-needed reform will speed up the patent process so that innovators and entrepreneurs can turn a new invention into a business as quickly as possible."Spalding also discusses what he found to be the most surprising takeaway from the "Innovation Race" documentary."Well, I in particular like the stories of the inventors. And I think understanding the personal calculations that they went through in terms of trying to protect their intellectual property and then realizing that they're not able to, to me was ... I think, the most important part of the film," he says.Spalding added:One of the things about America is, innovation relies on individual initiative, and if you're not certain about the ability to protect your intellectual property, then you're going to be less likely to go out there and take all the financial risks and personal risks that are associated with being an entrepreneur and or inventor.And so, hearing those stories, understanding the implications across our economy as you multiply those by 330 million, really just gives you a sense of the gravity of the challenge that this American Invents Act created for our country.Spalding joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss the "Innovation Race" movie, what's at stake for U.S. national security, and the so-called Made in China 2025 plan. ("'Made in China 2025' is an initiative to comprehensively upgrade Chinese industry," Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and trustee chair in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explains.) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us on July 27 to hear three experts give a response to our April 26th event on The America Invents Act and the role of Patent Trial and Appeal Board in resolving patent disputes. Featuring:-- Prof. Thomas D. Grant, Senior Research Fellow (Wolfson College); Fellow (Lauterpacht Centre for International Law), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge-- Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School-- Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the American Invents Act (AIA) into law. The first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system since the 1952 Patents Act, the AIA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers when enacted. But, with the recent ten-year anniversary of the AIA, a new director poised to take the […]

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the American Invents Act (AIA) into law. The first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system since the 1952 Patents Act, the AIA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers when enacted. But, with the recent ten-year anniversary of the AIA, a new director poised to take the helm at the USPTO, and Congress ramping up debate on reforms to the AIA, is now the time for a reexamination? Our speakers will consider the role of the PTAB in resolving patent disputes and the legality of the exercise of significant discretionary authority by the USPTO Director to implement policy outside the authority granted the director under the AIA.Featuring:-- Joseph Matal, partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Haynes and Boone, LLP-- Paul Brian Taylor, who served over 20 years as Counsel and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. He also served as Senior Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight.-- Moderator: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Former Congressman, United States House of Representatives

A 2011 law called the America Invents Act established something called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And it changed the system from first-to-invent, to first-to-file. Randy Landreneau said the law is a mistake and needs to be changed back. He is president of a group called US Inventor, which lobbies Congress to rewrite the law, and he joined Federal Drive with Tom Temin for more discussion.

The decision in United States v. Arthrex was extremely fractured, with a mix of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions that cut across traditional jurisprudential divisions on the Supreme Court. Although the split majority held that the appointment of the Administrative Patent Judges at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) violates the Appointments Clause, the Court ultimately remedied this constitutional violation by revising the America Invents Act to give the Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) more direct review and control over the decisions reached by the PTAB concerning the validity of patents. Although this makes the PTAB decision-making process at the USPTO more like the adjudicatory processes at other agencies, in which agency heads have direct oversight and control over their administrative law judges, it raises fundamental questions about the PTAB process created by Congress, which was supposed to consist of solely legal analyses of the statutory conditions for patentability, free from political influence.Some have criticized the PTAB's operations for significant due process problems and other "shenanigans," but others have defended the PTAB as serving an important function as a corrective mechanism for mistakenly-issued patents that undermine the efficient operation of the innovation economy. This panel of experts discussed Arthrex and the ultimate effects that it may have in patent law, administrative law, and the innovation economy.Featuring:- Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law- Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law- Jonathan Stroud, Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents- [Moderator] Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

"Necessity is the Mother of Invention" and "I believed in the patent system." These 2 quotes are the basis of the story of today's guest, Josh Malone, Founder of Tinnus Enterprises and the Inventor of Bunch of Balloons. He is also the Father of 8 and was recently featured in an Amazon Movie titled, " Invalidated" because of all of the work he has put in fighting the patent system since the passing of America Invents Act of 2011. Patents started being invalidated by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) once this Act was passed. Josh's strength, courage and persistence to fight the system is inspiring. It is a modern-day David vs. Goliath story. As in the story, the little guy finally won despite the unbelievable odds against him. Please tune in to hear his story and learn what he continues to do daily to fight for inventor's rights. Please join Josh and all other inventors in this fight to preserve our patent system by going to USInventors.org Invention and the patent system are foundations of our country and they MUST be preserved. Thank you for listening to another episode of the Perky Collar Radio Show. Warmest Regards, David M. Frankel Perky Collar Inventor, Perky, LLC Founder & Perky Collar Radio Show Host, Commercial Real Estate Broker & Business Broker www.PerkyLLC.com, www.BBOTC.net Feel free to join my Entrepreneur Group on Facebook www.Facebook.com/Groups/CharlotteEntrepreneurThinkTank Feel free to learn more about The Fenx and join fellow successful Entrepreneurs https://entrepreneurs-maclackey.thrivecart.com/the-fenx-monthly/?ref=cettsupport Feel free to connect with me on Linkedin www.Linkedin.com/in/DavidMFrankel --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/perkycollaradioshow/support

Josh is well educated how to help people get patent. He went through alot now he helps other people. He wants to make a difference and now working with legislators to do so. ABOUT JOSH MALONE:  Josh Malone quit his corporate job in 2006 to take his shot at the Inventor's Dream. Eight years later, savings depleted and kids college unfunded, he took one last swing before trudging back to the corporate world. And hit a homerun with Bunch O Balloons. His solution to the 63-year-old problem of filling and sealing water balloons instantly became the number one selling summer toy. His invention was stolen by a notorious infringer who convinced the USPTO to revoke his patent under a controversial procedure of the 2011 America Invents Act. A brutal and costly legal battle combined with an anti-corruption crusade ultimately resulted in a $31 million award and restoration of his patent rights. He is now a full-time volunteer with the inventor advocacy organization, US Inventor.     ABOUT US INVENTOR: US Inventor is a non-profit association of inventors devoted to protecting the intellectual property of individuals and small companies. It represents its 13,000 inventors and small business members by promoting strong intellectual property rights and a predictable U.S. patent system through education, advocacy, and reform. US Inventor was founded to support the innovation efforts of the “little guy” inventors, seeking to ensure that strong patent rights are available to support their efforts to develop their inventions, bring those inventions to a point where they can be commercialized, create jobs and industries, and promote continued innovation. Bunch O' Balloons creator Josh Malone, spokesman for US Inventor, reveals how a corrupted US Patent Office helps Big Business steal intellectual property and crush the spirit and dreams of America's inventors.   For more than two centuries, the United States patent system has incentivized, protected, and rewarded America's most brilliant innovators by guaranteeing them exclusive ownership and the right to profit from their new life-bettering products and technologies. Fueled by the increased productivity these inventions provided and the jobs they spawned, America flourished and prospered. Tragically, the 200-year-old-mission of the US Patent Office quietly changed with the passage of the 2011 America Invents Act and the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  Now, because of that legislation, the US Patent Office is no longer a place where patents are born -- it's a place where patents belonging to small inventors are taken to die at the hands of big corporations and PTAB administrative judges.   JOSH'S STORY: Josh Malone invented the number one selling outdoor toy Bunch O Balloons, a hose attachment that allows kids to fill up 100 water balloons in under a minute. Shortly after launching his invention and raising close to $1M from 21,000 backers on Kickstarter, a knock-off called Balloon Bonanza was featured in a TV commercial from the “As Seen on TV” company, Telebrands. Emails obtained in court proceedings years after the fact revealed a deliberate scheme – “this is only the first proto so assume this will have 37 filler rods and balloons (or more or less) like theirs and work exactly like the original ‘Bunch of Balloons." More Telebrands knockoffs and a series of injunctions and court appearances followed over the next few years. Telebrands proved itself to be a world class patent infringer. You can go to www.usinventor.org to find out more information and to follow Josh on social medias you can find him as Josh Malone or Josh The Balloon Guy

ABOUT JOSH MALONE Josh Malone quit his corporate job in 2006 to take his shot at the Inventor’s Dream. Eight years later, savings depleted and kids college unfunded, he took one last swing before trudging back to the corporate world. And hit a homerun with Bunch O Balloons. His solution to the 63-year-old problem of filling and sealing water balloons instantly became the number one selling summer toy. His invention was stolen by a notorious infringer who convinced the USPTO to revoke his patent under a controversial procedure of the 2011 America Invents Act. A brutal and costly legal battle combined with an anti-corruption crusade ultimately resulted in a $31 million award and restoration of his patent rights. He is now a full-time volunteer with the inventor advocacy organization, US Inventor. ABOUT US INVENTOR US Inventor is a non-profit association of inventors devoted to protecting the intellectual property of individuals and small companies. It represents its 13,000 inventors and small business members by promoting strong intellectual property rights and a predictable U.S. patent system through education, advocacy, and reform. US Inventor was founded to support the innovation efforts of the “little guy” inventors, seeking to ensure that strong patent rights are available to support their efforts to develop their inventions, bring those inventions to a point where they can be commercialized, create jobs and industries, and promote continued innovation.

Jessica O. Matthews is the Founder & CEO of Uncharted Power, an award-winning, full-service power and data infrastructure company. The Company’s proprietary suite of technologies enables it to build, own and operate decentralized power infrastructure for communities with various applications for edge colocation, power, and sensing. Developing technologies in energy generation, transmission and storage, the Company also has mastered harnessing kinetic energy, enabling it to engineer consumer products for Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. and various international governments. The Company was founded by Jessica when she was only 22 years old.Jessica was invited by President Barack Obama to the White House to represent small companies for the signing of the America Invents Act in 2012. In 2016, she raised the second-largest Series A ever raised by a black female founder in history and was selected to ring the NASDAQ opening ceremony bell, representing all Forbes 30 Under 30 alumna.Jessica’s research and career centers around the intersection of disruptive technology, renewable energy, human behavior, and the psychology of self-actualization. A dual citizen of Nigeria & the U.S., Jessica has a degree in Psychology and Economics from Harvard University, an MBA from Harvard Business School, and is listed on over 10 patents and patents pending—including her first invention of the SOCCKET, an energy generating soccer ball, at the age of 19. Her list of accolades includes Fortune’s Most Promising Women Entrepreneurs, Forbes 30 under 30 list, Inc Magazine 30 under 30, and Harvard University Scientist of the Year.

Gary Michelson is on the show....Dr. Gary Michelson is a board certified orthopedic spinal surgeon, inventor of more than 990 patents throughout the world, the founder and funder of three private foundations, recipient of numerous awards, and among a small group of individuals to ever be inducted into both the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Academy of Inventors. SOCIAL LINKS (twitter, facebook, linkedin) if applicable:Michelson Medical Foundation: www.twitter.com/MichelsonMedRFwww.facebook.com/michelsonmedicalwww.instagram.com/garymichelsonmmrf20MM Foundation:www.twitter.com/michelson20mmwww.facebook.com/Michelson20MMwww.instagram.com/michelsonimpactFound Animals Foundation:www.twitter.com/FoundAnimalsOrgwww.facebook.com/foundanimalswww.instagram.com/foundanimalsDr. Gary Michelson is a board-certified orthopedic spinal surgeon and a Diplomat of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, as well as an inventor, entrepreneur, philanthropist and humane advocate. As a child, Dr. Michelson was always coloring outside the lines, infinitely curious about how things worked, and uncommonly sensitive to the needs of others. Raised by his mother and grandmother in Philadelphia, he was exposed to spinal disorders at a young age—his grandmother suffered from Syringomyelia, a debilitating spinal deformity. The disruption of the nervous system caused by this disease allowed his grandmother’s hand, resting on a hot stove, to catch fire without her noticing. Witnessing this was a pivotal event in Dr. Michelson’s young life, where he began formulating a plan to help people afflicted with similar infirmities.Despite his modest upbringing, Dr. Michelson worked his way through Temple University and medical school at Drexel University, and following a successful surgical fellowship at St. Luke’s Medical Center in Houston, entered private practice in California as an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery. Over the next 25 years, he became world-renowned as a surgical innovator and the most prolific inventor in medical history, with over 990 patents worldwide issued to date.In the field of spinal surgery, where outcomes were unpredictable and recovery could be long and painful, Dr. Michelson’s revolutionary advancements in procedures, instruments and implants consistently led to better patient outcomes, and significantly reduced post-surgical pain, blood loss, complications and recovery time. The surgical techniques and materials developed by Dr. Michelson remain the industry standard around the world.In 2005, after selling his patents to Medtronic, the world’s largest medical device company, those proceeds, together with the resolution of related intellectual property litigation, earned Dr. Michelson a place on the Forbes 400 as a self-made billionaire. The litigation, which established new precedents in the field of patent law, later became a stimulus for Dr. Michelson to create a comprehensive textbook on the subject (The Intangible Advantage: Understanding Intellectual Property in the New Economy), which he released digitally free of charge. Later, he developed an undergraduate college course, The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Intellectual Property, which has been adopted by many colleges and universities throughout the country. This inspired Dr. Michelson to create the Michelson 20MM Foundation (formerly, Twenty Million Minds Foundation), funding the dissemination of free, peer-reviewed, openly-licensed digital textbooks for essential college general education courses. These textbooks, now in use in half of all U.S. colleges and universities, and more than 70 countries, have already saved students hundreds of millions of dollars. Among its related initiatives, 20MM also provides digital textbooks for the remedial education of individuals serving time in prison.After retiring from private practice, Dr. Michelson’s passion pivoted exclusively to philanthropy, advancing his philosophy that sharing knowledge and supporting the research of others can change the world. That same year, he made an introductory donation of $100 million to his private Michelson Medical Research Foundation (which does not accept outside donations). Among the Foundation’s other activities, the Michelson Neglected Disease Vaccine Initiative supports research for obscure and lesser-known diseases that are deemed too esoteric for conventional funding, but nonetheless affect billions of people, particularly in poorer countries throughout the world. As a medical student, Dr. Michelson was nearly expelled over his objection to removing healthy organs from living dogs in a surgical lab. His lifelong passion for animals led to a new philanthropic endeavor, the Found Animals Foundation. This Los Angeles-based animal welfare organization provides grants for the rescue and placement of shelter animals, operates adopt-and-shop centers for homeless pets, provides free microchips, subsidizes stationary and mobile low and no-cost spay/neuter clinics, and funds the $25 million Michelson Grant for the development of non-surgical sterilization for cats and dogs. Through its various programs and services, Found Animals Foundation has assisted over 1.5 million companion animals over the past 14 years.In 2014, Dr. Michelson and his wife Alya personally gifted $50 million to the University of Southern California to fund the creation of the USC Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, bringing together the best and brightest of scientists, researchers and engineers from around the world to work collaboratively on solutions to the most pressing public health issues of our time. This unique interdisciplinary research site aspires to become a model for other prominent research universities, bringing the world closer to the medical breakthroughs that will define the 21st century.Among his many awards, citations and accomplishments, Dr. Michelson is one of a handful of individuals to ever be inducted into both the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Academy of Inventors. In 2006, he was recognized as the world’s leading scientist of spinal research by the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Among a group of prominent inventors who supported the America Invents Act of 2011, Dr. Michelson was invited to the White House by President Obama to witness the signing of that historic legislation. In 2015, he was awarded both the Albert B. Sabin Humanitarian Award for his contributions toward neglected disease vaccine research, and the Distinguished Achievement Award from B’nai B’rith International for his leadership, philanthropy and humanitarian endeavors. He also received the honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters (alongside Will Ferrel and Dame Helen Mirren), at USC’s 134th Commencement Ceremony for the Class of 2017.Dr. Michelson lives in California with his wife Alya, their three children, and their two rescued dogs. They are active members of the Giving Pledge, a campaign founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, that encourages the wealthiest individuals and couples to contribute the majority of their fortune to philanthropic causes.1-2 Topics Talking Points * conversation topics you want us to discuss that are important to you.:Topics: Philanthropy and the Michelson Foundations (all three are self-funded by Gary):-Michelson Medical Foundation-20MM Foundation-Found Animals FoundationSample questions-could you give us some specific examples of what each of the foundations do, and how it might directly affect our lives?-your 20MM Foundation funds high quality, interactive, open license, freely downloadable and printable, textbooks to support higher education, and in particular the college space. Please tell us about that.The Positive Phil Podcast Show, a podcast, available on iTunes, Spotify, iHeartRadio, where Positive Phil talks about personal stories, events and engaging interviews; with famous people, celebrities, entrepreneurs, athletes, authors, spiritual educators, thought leaders, as well as others in the social, business and entertainment industry.Airing on over 300 digital channels, including iHeart Radio, Spotify, StitcherFm, Google Podcast and published online via RSS feeds globally. (metrics, guests, info) The show has been around for almost 4 years and is one of the most popular podcast shows on the internet in the business-motivation space.www.positivephil.com

Gary Michelson is on the show....Dr. Gary Michelson is a board certified orthopedic spinal surgeon, inventor of more than 990 patents throughout the world, the founder and funder of three private foundations, recipient of numerous awards, and among a small group of individuals to ever be inducted into both the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Academy of Inventors. SOCIAL LINKS (twitter, facebook, linkedin) if applicable:Michelson Medical Foundation: www.twitter.com/MichelsonMedRFwww.facebook.com/michelsonmedicalwww.instagram.com/garymichelsonmmrf20MM Foundation:www.twitter.com/michelson20mmwww.facebook.com/Michelson20MMwww.instagram.com/michelsonimpactFound Animals Foundation:www.twitter.com/FoundAnimalsOrgwww.facebook.com/foundanimalswww.instagram.com/foundanimalsDr. Gary Michelson is a board-certified orthopedic spinal surgeon and a Diplomat of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, as well as an inventor, entrepreneur, philanthropist and humane advocate. As a child, Dr. Michelson was always coloring outside the lines, infinitely curious about how things worked, and uncommonly sensitive to the needs of others. Raised by his mother and grandmother in Philadelphia, he was exposed to spinal disorders at a young age—his grandmother suffered from Syringomyelia, a debilitating spinal deformity. The disruption of the nervous system caused by this disease allowed his grandmother’s hand, resting on a hot stove, to catch fire without her noticing. Witnessing this was a pivotal event in Dr. Michelson’s young life, where he began formulating a plan to help people afflicted with similar infirmities.Despite his modest upbringing, Dr. Michelson worked his way through Temple University and medical school at Drexel University, and following a successful surgical fellowship at St. Luke’s Medical Center in Houston, entered private practice in California as an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery. Over the next 25 years, he became world-renowned as a surgical innovator and the most prolific inventor in medical history, with over 990 patents worldwide issued to date.In the field of spinal surgery, where outcomes were unpredictable and recovery could be long and painful, Dr. Michelson’s revolutionary advancements in procedures, instruments and implants consistently led to better patient outcomes, and significantly reduced post-surgical pain, blood loss, complications and recovery time. The surgical techniques and materials developed by Dr. Michelson remain the industry standard around the world.In 2005, after selling his patents to Medtronic, the world’s largest medical device company, those proceeds, together with the resolution of related intellectual property litigation, earned Dr. Michelson a place on the Forbes 400 as a self-made billionaire. The litigation, which established new precedents in the field of patent law, later became a stimulus for Dr. Michelson to create a comprehensive textbook on the subject (The Intangible Advantage: Understanding Intellectual Property in the New Economy), which he released digitally free of charge. Later, he developed an undergraduate college course, The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Intellectual Property, which has been adopted by many colleges and universities throughout the country. This inspired Dr. Michelson to create the Michelson 20MM Foundation (formerly, Twenty Million Minds Foundation), funding the dissemination of free, peer-reviewed, openly-licensed digital textbooks for essential college general education courses. These textbooks, now in use in half of all U.S. colleges and universities, and more than 70 countries, have already saved students hundreds of millions of dollars. Among its related initiatives, 20MM also provides digital textbooks for the remedial education of individuals serving time in prison.After retiring from private practice, Dr. Michelson’s passion pivoted exclusively to philanthropy, advancing his philosophy that sharing knowledge and supporting the research of others can change the world. That same year, he made an introductory donation of $100 million to his private Michelson Medical Research Foundation (which does not accept outside donations). Among the Foundation’s other activities, the Michelson Neglected Disease Vaccine Initiative supports research for obscure and lesser-known diseases that are deemed too esoteric for conventional funding, but nonetheless affect billions of people, particularly in poorer countries throughout the world. As a medical student, Dr. Michelson was nearly expelled over his objection to removing healthy organs from living dogs in a surgical lab. His lifelong passion for animals led to a new philanthropic endeavor, the Found Animals Foundation. This Los Angeles-based animal welfare organization provides grants for the rescue and placement of shelter animals, operates adopt-and-shop centers for homeless pets, provides free microchips, subsidizes stationary and mobile low and no-cost spay/neuter clinics, and funds the $25 million Michelson Grant for the development of non-surgical sterilization for cats and dogs. Through its various programs and services, Found Animals Foundation has assisted over 1.5 million companion animals over the past 14 years.In 2014, Dr. Michelson and his wife Alya personally gifted $50 million to the University of Southern California to fund the creation of the USC Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, bringing together the best and brightest of scientists, researchers and engineers from around the world to work collaboratively on solutions to the most pressing public health issues of our time. This unique interdisciplinary research site aspires to become a model for other prominent research universities, bringing the world closer to the medical breakthroughs that will define the 21st century.Among his many awards, citations and accomplishments, Dr. Michelson is one of a handful of individuals to ever be inducted into both the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Academy of Inventors. In 2006, he was recognized as the world’s leading scientist of spinal research by the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Among a group of prominent inventors who supported the America Invents Act of 2011, Dr. Michelson was invited to the White House by President Obama to witness the signing of that historic legislation. In 2015, he was awarded both the Albert B. Sabin Humanitarian Award for his contributions toward neglected disease vaccine research, and the Distinguished Achievement Award from B’nai B’rith International for his leadership, philanthropy and humanitarian endeavors. He also received the honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters (alongside Will Ferrel and Dame Helen Mirren), at USC’s 134th Commencement Ceremony for the Class of 2017.Dr. Michelson lives in California with his wife Alya, their three children, and their two rescued dogs. They are active members of the Giving Pledge, a campaign founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, that encourages the wealthiest individuals and couples to contribute the majority of their fortune to philanthropic causes.1-2 Topics Talking Points * conversation topics you want us to discuss that are important to you.:Topics: Philanthropy and the Michelson Foundations (all three are self-funded by Gary):-Michelson Medical Foundation-20MM Foundation-Found Animals FoundationSample questions-could you give us some specific examples of what each of the foundations do, and how it might directly affect our lives?-your 20MM Foundation funds high quality, interactive, open license, freely downloadable and printable, textbooks to support higher education, and in particular the college space. Please tell us about that.The Positive Phil Podcast Show, a podcast, available on iTunes, Spotify, iHeartRadio, where Positive Phil talks about personal stories, events and engaging interviews; with famous people, celebrities, entrepreneurs, athletes, authors, spiritual educators, thought leaders, as well as others in the social, business and entertainment industry.Airing on over 300 digital channels, including iHeart Radio, Spotify, StitcherFm, Google Podcast and published online via RSS feeds globally. (metrics, guests, info) The show has been around for almost 4 years and is one of the most popular podcast shows on the internet in the business-motivation space.www.positivephil.com

Summary: In this episode of "Ask The Patent Attorney," Martin Schweiger interviews Craige Thompson, JD, EE, PE explains his thoughts on the America Invents Act.  This show was originally posted in full here: ip-lawyer-tools.com Martin Schweiger´s firm Schweiger & Partners

Cameron Kerry joined Governance Studies and the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings as the first Ann R. and Andrew H. Tisch Distinguished Visiting Fellow in December 2013. In addition to his Brookings affiliation, Cameron Kerry is Senior Counsel at Sidley Austin, LLP in Boston and Washington, DC, and a Visiting Scholar the MIT Media Lab. His practice at Sidley Austin involves privacy, security, and international trade issues. Kerry served as General Counsel and Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, where he was a leader on a wide of range of issues laying a new foundation for U.S. economic growth in a global marketplace. He continues to speak and write on these issues, particularly privacy and data security, intellectual property, and international trade.While Acting Secretary, Cameron Kerry served as chief executive of this Cabinet agency and its 43,000 employees around the world, as well as an adviser to the President.  His tenure marked the first time in U.S. history two siblings have served in the President's Cabinet at the same time.As General Counsel, he was the principal legal adviser to the several Secretaries of Commerce and Commerce agency heads, and oversaw the work of more than 400 lawyers across these agencies.  He was a leader in the Obama Administration's successful effort to pass the America Invents Act, the most significant overhaul of the patent system in more 150 years.  As co-chair of the National Science Technology Council Subcommittee on Privacy and Internet Policy, he spearheaded development of the White House blueprint on consumer privacy, Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World.   He then led the Administration's implementation of the blueprint, drafting privacy legislation and engaging on privacy issues with international partners, including the European Union.  He helped establish and lead the Commerce Department's Internet Policy Task Force, which brings together agencies with expertise in the 21st Century digital economy.He also played a significant role on intellectual property policy and litigation, cybersecurity, international bribery, trade relations and rule of law development in China, the Gulf Oil spill litigation, and many other challenges facing a large, diverse federal agency.  He travelled to the People's Republic of China on numerous occasions to co-lead the Transparency Dialogue with China as well as the U.S./ China Legal Exchange and exchanges on anti-corruption.Before his appointment to the Obama Administration in 2009, Cameron Kerry practiced law at the Mintz Levin firm in Boston and Washington.  His practice covered a range of complex commercial litigation and regulation of telecommunications.  He tried cases involving significant environmental and scientific evidence issues and taught telecommunications law as an adjunct professor at Suffolk University Law School.Prior to joining Mintz Levin, he was an associate at Wilmer Cutler Pickering in Washington, D.C. and a law clerk to Senior Circuit Judge Elbert P. Tuttle of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  During the 2004 presidential campaign, Cameron Kerry was a close adviser and national surrogate for Democratic nominee John Kerry. He has been deeply involved in electoral politics throughout his adult life. He is a magna cum laude graduate of Boston College Law School (1978), where he was winner of the school's moot court competition and a law review editor. and a cum laude graduate of Harvard College (1972).Cameron Kerry also has been actively engaged in politics and community service throughout his adult life.  In 2004-04, he was a senior adviser and national surrogate in the U.S. Presidential campaign, traveling to 29 States and Israel.  He has served on the boards of non-profits involved in civic engagement and sports.

Here we discuss the implications of the --America Invents Act of 2011 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/naliniglobal/support

With the passage of the America Invents Act in 2011 and a string of Supreme Court decisions in recent years, the landscape for intellectual property filings and dispute resolution was supposed to become clearer.  But they have also brought new issues and uncertainty. Jeremy Taylor with Baker Botts discusses some of the most important IP considerations that are commonly overlooked, or that companies fail to take into consideration and land them in hot water.

The America Invents Act (AIA) significantly affects the Constitutional separation of powers by creating a new inter partes review (IPR) regime for challenging an issued patent under an Article II Executive Branch entity, the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB). In practice, the PTAB has become an alternative forum for accused infringers to attack patent claims with less risk and expense than in U.S. federal district courts. Combined with the reluctance and sometime refusal of Article III courts (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) to exert authority over final application of patent law, the statutory adjudicative powers given PTAB judges give rise to separation of powers issues. -- As a result, patents that have successfully overcome validity challenges in a “final judgment” of a court are now subjected to double jeopardy in the PTAB, and those valuable but limited patent property rights can be challenged and taken away entirely within an Article II administrative forum. At least two cases pending cert before the U.S. Supreme Court challenge provisions of the AIA on separation of power bases (Cooper v. Lee and MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.), while another (Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee) challenging the differences between the PTAB’s and the courts’ claim construction regimes has already been decided. In Cuozzo, the Court upheld the PTAB/USPTO’s application of a different claim construction standard from the courts, tipping the scales against patentees who face a validity challenge during IPRs as compared against in federal district court. Critics of the AIA rules –and particularly IPRs– as applied by the USPTO/PTAB assert that they weaken patents and the patent system, and undermine the incentives for innovation that have driven economic growth for much of this country’s history. This teleforum will include a discussion of the Constitutional challenges to the AIA’s patent review provisions, including the Court’s hints in Cuozzo that it is aware of other Constitutional issues. -- Featuring: Mr. Rob Greenspoon, Founding Member, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs, Senior Scholar,Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Partner, Goldstein & Russell. Moderator: Mr. Trevor K. Copeland, Shareholder, Brinks Gilson and Lione.

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee. In 2011, the America Invents Act created an expedited procedure, known as inter partes review, to provide a cost-effective alternative to litigation for resolving certain challenges to patent validity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, contained within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), hears these disputes rather than a federal district court. When construing patent claims, the Board applies a “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard rather than the “plain and ordinary meaning” standard typically applied by federal courts. -- Here, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. (Cuozzo) owns a speed limit indicator patent. Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin) petitioned the Board for inter partes review (IPR) of claims regarding the patent. The Board found that certain claims were unpatentable and denied Cuozzo’s request to replace those claims with several others. Cuozzo appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which (1) held that it lacked authority to review the PTO’s decision to institute IPR, and (2) affirmed the Board’s final determination, finding no error in its application of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. -- There were two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the Board may, in IPR proceedings, construe claims according to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than their plain and ordinary meaning; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the decision to institute the IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable. -- By a vote of 8-0 and 6-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the underlying statute precluded judicial review of the kind of claim at issue here, involving the PTO’s decision to institute IPR. The Court further concluded that the PTO was authorized to issue the regulation, setting forth the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. -- A unanimous Court joined Justice Breyer’s opinion with respect to Parts I and III. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan joined the opinion with respect to Part II. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin, who is Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law at University of Baltimore School of Law.

On April 25, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee. In 2011 the America Invents Act created an expedited procedure, known as inter partes review, to provide a cost-effective alternative to litigation for resolving certain challenges to patent validity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, contained within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), hears these disputes rather than a federal district court. When construing patent claims, the Board applies a “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard rather than the “plain and ordinary meaning” standard typically applied by federal courts. -- Here, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. (Cuozzo) owns a speed limit indicator patent. Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin) petitioned the Board for inter partes review (IPR) of claims regarding the patent. The Board found that certain claims were unpatentable, and denied Cuozzo’s request to replace those claims with several others. Cuozzo appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which (1) held that it lacked authority to review the PTO’s decision to institute IPR, and (2) affirmed the Board’s final determination, finding no error in its application of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. -- There are two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the Board may, in IPR proceedings, construe claims according to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than their plain and ordinary meaning; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the decision to institute the IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable. -- To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin, who is Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law at University of Baltimore School of Law.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 164. Friday, Sep. 23, 2011, I conducted a Mises Academy Webinar discussing the America Invents Act, signed into law Sept. 16 2011 by President Obama. I discussed the webinar in a Mises Daily article, Obama's Patent Reform: Improvement or Continuing Calamity? and discussed the AIA in further detail in The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly. In the webinar, I: summarized the basic problem with patent law from a free-market perspective; presented a series of real patent reforms that could make significant improvement in patent law (short of abolition); explained and critiqued the relevant changes made by the America Invents Act; briefly summarized other imminent IP legislation and treaties on the horizon; and responded to questions from attendees. The slides used in the webinar are provided below. Video Slides:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 164. Friday, Sep. 23, 2011, I conducted a Mises Academy Webinar discussing the America Invents Act, signed into law Sept. 16 2011 by President Obama. I discussed the webinar in a Mises Daily article, Obama’s Patent Reform: Improvement or Continuing Calamity? and discussed the AIA in further detail in The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly. In the webinar, I: summarized the basic problem with patent law from a free-market perspective; presented a series of real patent reforms that could make significant improvement in patent law (short of abolition); explained and critiqued the relevant changes made by the America Invents Act; briefly summarized other imminent IP legislation and treaties on the horizon; and responded to questions from attendees. The slides used in the webinar are provided below. Video version below:

Is The Clock Ticking on essociates Patent Lawsuits? Ben Davidson of the Davidson Law Group talks about the recent associate cases, patent reform legislation and what to expect from the Supreme Court.  Ben was recently interviewed by the Los Angeles Daily Journal about how 2011 America Invents Act has reshaped patent challenges.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 105. This is an interview I did a couple years ago with my friend, Dr. John McGinnis, on his radio show, “Open Mike with Dr. John McGinnis,” WRTA  (Sep. 19, 2011), discussing the America Invents Act. I met John when I lived in Philadelphia in the 90s, when we were both involved with the Freeman Society of Valley Forge (FEE-related), which helped me meet Hans Sennholz and Jacob Hornberger. A former economics professor, he is now a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. For background information on the AIA, see my Mises Academy webinar, The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly (audio and slides).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 105. This is an interview I did a couple years ago with my friend, Dr. John McGinnis, on his radio show, “Open Mike with Dr. John McGinnis,” WRTA  (Sep. 19, 2011), discussing the America Invents Act. I met John when I lived in Philadelphia in the 90s, when we were both involved with the Freeman Society of Valley Forge (FEE-related), which helped me meet Hans Sennholz and Jacob Hornberger. A former economics professor, he is now a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. For background information on the AIA, see my Mises Academy webinar, The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly (audio and slides).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 103. This is my appearance as a Guest panelist on This Week in Law, Episode 133 (Oct. 13, 2011), entitled "Beyonce, Bad Laws, and Breastaurants." The two hosts and fellow guest panelist were all lawyers. We had a wide-ranging two-hour discussion about a variety of legal and policy matters, including a number of IP problems covering patent, copyright, trademark, and even trade secret. We also discussed the Occupy Wall Street movement, Apple's use of IP to squelch clones and competition, copyright threats against Beyonce for her dance moves, and many others as indicated by the links on the episode's show notes. The video is below; it's also on the TWiL page for this episode; you can also subscribe to the audio or video podcast for this show; here's their FaceBook page. A few more backup links and points below about some of the issues discussed. At one point we got into a discussion of Obama's use of a signing statement to approve ACTA as an "executive agreement" (see ACTA, Executive Agreements, and the Bricker Amendment), I noted that under international law, violation by a host state of the citizen of another state gave rise to a right for the violated citizen's home state to use military force against the host state. I remarked that one danger of internationalizing intellectual property by means of executive agreements and treaties is that it could give western nations an excuse to military force against countries that allow piracy. However, this was a bit of an overstatement since, as I explain in International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide (see this excerpt), this type of "gunboat diplomacy" is ostensibly no longer permitted since the founding of the UN in 1945: "Today, some investors hailing from militarily and politically powerful States might favor the threat or use of force to obtain restitution or compensation for expropriated property. Such an option is no longer available, however, due to fundamental changes in international law and politics. In particular, the United Nations Charter has since 1945 prohibited the use of force to resolve disputes, except in the case of self-defence. Today, it is generally accepted that a State may not use force against another State in response to a taking of the property of one of its nationals." The quote I mentioned about the problem with making law by legislation is by James Carter, who wrote, in 1884, in opposing the attempt to codify New York's common law: At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle! I mentioned the tension between antitrust and patent/copyright law; more discussion of this issue can be found in endnote 1 here; We discussed the America Invents Act; I've since completed a detailed writeup about this: The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly;

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 103. This is my appearance as a Guest panelist on This Week in Law, Episode 133 (Oct. 13, 2011), entitled "Beyonce, Bad Laws, and Breastaurants." The two hosts and fellow guest panelist were all lawyers. We had a wide-ranging two-hour discussion about a variety of legal and policy matters, including a number of IP problems covering patent, copyright, trademark, and even trade secret. We also discussed the Occupy Wall Street movement, Apple's use of IP to squelch clones and competition, copyright threats against Beyonce for her dance moves, and many others as indicated by the links on the episode's show notes. The video is below; it's also on the TWiL page for this episode; you can also subscribe to the audio or video podcast for this show; here's their FaceBook page. A few more backup links and points below about some of the issues discussed. At one point we got into a discussion of Obama's use of a signing statement to approve ACTA as an "executive agreement" (see ACTA, Executive Agreements, and the Bricker Amendment), I noted that under international law, violation by a host state of the citizen of another state gave rise to a right for the violated citizen's home state to use military force against the host state. I remarked that one danger of internationalizing intellectual property by means of executive agreements and treaties is that it could give western nations an excuse to military force against countries that allow piracy. However, this was a bit of an overstatement since, as I explain in International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (see this excerpt), this type of "gunboat diplomacy" is ostensibly no longer permitted since the founding of the UN in 1945: "Today, some investors hailing from militarily and politically powerful States might favor the threat or use of force to obtain restitution or compensation for expropriated property. Such an option is no longer available, however, due to fundamental changes in international law and politics. In particular, the United Nations Charter has since 1945 prohibited the use of force to resolve disputes, except in the case of self-defence. Today, it is generally accepted that a State may not use force against another State in response to a taking of the property of one of its nationals." The quote I mentioned about the problem with making law by legislation is by James Carter, who wrote, in 1884, in opposing the attempt to codify New York's common law: At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle! I mentioned the tension between antitrust and patent/copyright law; more discussion of this issue can be found in endnote 1 here; We discussed the America Invents Act; I've since completed a detailed writeup about this: The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly;

In this episode of IP Soundings, David Gryce talks with Intellectual Property attorney Yelee Kim about the implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA).

Here about the micro entity discounts available for filing your patent, learn about the Pro Bono program, get help and support with your patent protection with new initiatives shared on our show and find out about upcoming innovation and inventor workshops to attend and more on this show with your host Brian Fried and guest from the USPTO, John Calvert, Acting Associate Commissioner for the Office of Innovation Development, Elizabeth Dougherty, Director of Inventor Education Outreach and Recognition and Janet Gongola, Associate Commissioner of Patent Examination Policy.

Back on September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the America Invents Act (AIA) into law, vastly changing the core of the patent system and patent law. Now, a year later, some of the key provisions are going into effect. Lawyer2Lawyer host Bob Ambrogi talks with Attorney Matthew I. Kreeger, the Co-Chair of Morrison Foerster’s Patent Interferences Practice Group and Dennis Crouch, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law and editor of Patently-O, about the implementation of some of the most important provisions of the America Invents Act and their impact.

5/17/12-Tonight on Got Invention Radio...US Patent and Trademark Office will provide basic Patent & Trademark information and resources for independent inventors. We will also discuss updates from the recently passed the America Invents Act with Anthony Knight, USPTO Director of Petitions.Join host Brian Fried tonight on Got invention Radio at 8pmEST/5pmPST- click on the listen live button at showtime www.gotinvention.comThanks for listening! The Staff @ Got Invention Radio

Fox Rothschild LLP, Suffolk University, Suffolk University Law School, America Invents Act, Leahy-Smith Act, Patent Law, Patent and IP Law, Intellectual Property, Barack Obama, President Obama, Higher Education, Micro-Entity Status, US PTO, Patents

Janet Macleod and Christopher Kinkade of Fox Rothschild LLP, discuss their recent article America Invents Act: Micro Entity Status for Institutions of Higher Education. Read the article at http://bit.ly/vFi69v.

Suffolk University, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, Virtual Marking, Patent Law, United States Patent Office, Patent Portfolio, Constructive Notice, Classical Marking, Virtual Marking Statute, Electronic Age, Consistent and Constructive Marking

Ryan C. Smith, Intellectual Property Associate at Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., discusses his recent article, "Update on the America Invents Act: Virtual Marking." To read this article, visit http://bit.ly/uznhav.

On this edition of IP Counsel, host Attorney Peter Lando, partner at the firm of Lando & Anastasi, LLP, welcomes Mike Crosby, Intellectual Property Counsel at Saint-Gobain Corporation in Worcester, MA, to discuss important aspects of the new United States Patent Statute, the America Invents Act, which is the most significant revision of the U.S. patent laws in over 50 years! Peter and Mike take a look at the new pre- and post-grant review procedures and discuss strategic considerations involved in using them.

The Patent Reform Bill is now law. Patent Attorney Michael Blake explains many of the changes that innovators should be away of.

President Obama today signed the America Invents Act. Will this bipartisan legislation address abuses of patent protection and make the US more competitive with China?

In this week's Intellectual Property podcast, Dr. Eldora Ellison, an IP Director at Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, discusses the America Invents Act of 2011 and its implications. Learn more about Dr. Ellison at http://bit.ly/qk4xON.

The America Invents Act of 2011, Barack Obama, USPTO, Suffolk University, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, Patent Law, Intellectual Property