Tweet of the Week @bgalvin137

Brian Galvin, of Galvin Patent Law, who's on Twitter @bgalvin137 and describes himself as a thinkaholic, former CTO (twice) now solo patent agent and tech/innovation strategy consultant, posted a series of tweets we think is nothing short of an innovative use of Twitter. And it's on a topic that's all the buzz among patent attorneys and law reformers.  So, it's our pick for the Tweet of the Week. Here's how Brian Galvin breaks down the Patent Reform Act of  2009 on Twitter.

#PatReform2009 introduces (again) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as replacement for BPAI

#PatReform2009 Introduces new damages section. Royalty approaches include apportionment based on value of invention to infringing product

#PatReform2009 Provides meaningful limits to willful infringement determination (this is a good thing I think)

#PatReform2009 Although much of the willfulness doctrine changes has already been made by CAFC, proposed Patent Reform bill seals the deal.

#PatReform2009 the bill contains strengthening of means for third parties to challenge patents....§301 allows anyone to introduce new art

#PatReform2009 the bill allows for post-grant opposition by any party within 12 months of issuance or reissuance of a patent.

#PatReform2009 post-grant oppositions are to be decided within one year although PTO can extend 6 months.

#PatReform2009 patentee can still enforce patent during PGO; existence PGO cannot be used as evidence against patent validity in other case

#PatReform2009 no free lunch: if you challenge via PGO and lose, can't assert invalidity in any other proceeding including civil actions

#PatReform2009 converse also true: you can't "appeal" a failed invalidity assertion in a civil case via PGO in PTO (§334)

#PatReform2009 Either party may appeal adverse ruling of PTAB in a PGO (more acronyms for patent afficionados!)

#PatReform2009 no constitutional issue (it was already fixed, but reiterated in proposed bill): Commerce Secretary must appoint PTAB judges

#PatReform2009 Preissuance submissions by third parties is allowed with some time limits and some statement of asserted relevance

#PatReform2009 Has section to limit effectiveness of manufactured venues and venue shopping by plaintiffs

#PatReform2009 introduces "micro-entities" as part of venue reform; must be small entity with fewer than 5 patent apps and <2.5x avg income

#PatReform2009 Overall, the bill could help improve patent quality, but will weaken the force of good patents as well.

#PatReform2009 PGO can be used to create FUD concerning validity of patents (even if they really are good) and reduce value/certainty

#PatReform2009 Willfulness, venue, and damages reforms will reduce effectiveness of "troll business model"

#PatReform2009 for you anti-software patent zealots: go back to bed there's nothing here for you. Quality software patents still count!

Brian Galvin has been a Patent Agent since early 2002. He has been a CTO (twice), a chief engineer of a nuclear ship, and has degrees in Biochemistry and Physics. Mr. Galvin is the inventor on several issued US patents, and on about two dozen pending patents. More information on Mr. Galvin's background and his thoughts on software patents, in particular, is available here on his website/blog.

For more discussion of the Patent Reform Act of 2009 by patent law bloggers, we're reading:

Anticipate This!: Patent Reform Act of 2009

Patently-O: Patent Reform Act of 2009

Patent Docs: Senate and House Introduce New Patent Reform Legislation

Patent Baristas: And They’re Off: Patent Reform Act of 2009 Unleashed

Patent Baristas: Patent Reform 2009: Reactionary Causes

Tweet of the Week: @IP_Updates

Tarun Kumar Bansal, of Sagacious Research in India, tweets @IP_Updates, where he manually collates data from very broad Google Alerts and over 120 blogs on IP to come up with summarized versions of each story that he publishes on Twitter in a steady stream of information we follow. From that perspective, he was quick to notice the informative "Quick Links" in the sidebar column on IP.com's company blog, Securing Innovation, where selected articles about intellectual property are linked and made available as a separate subscription.

While it's convenient to subscribe to the various RSS feeds on Securing Innovation and read them in your favorite feed reader, we hope you'll stop by and read this corporate blog in your web browser, too, where you'll find featured guest blogger articles, executive blog posts, quick links to interesting articles and posts about intellectual property, as well as the latest tweets @ipdotcom that are displayed on the company blog for those of our readers who are not yet on Twitter, themselves, but are interested in what we're finding relevant there.

Tweet of the Week: @IPStrategist

Jackie Hutter has over 13 years experience in advising innovation-driven corporations, investors and universities on how to maximize intangible asset value by developing and executing on IP and patent strategy. In a post on her IP Asset Maximizer Blog, she says,

I often facetiously refer to myself as a "recovering patent attorney." This somewhat tongue-in-cheek phrase seems appropriate to my present professional state of mind because, after many years of drafting and prosecuting patents for clients of all sizes and degrees of sophistication, in the end, I became disillusioned with the way the patent business traditionally operates.

Too often, I found that the patents I worked so hard (and was paid handsomely) to obtain failed to serve my client's business needs. In searching for the source of the disconnect between my efforts, the client's expenditures and the ultimate value of the patent to my client's business, I realized that those responsible for the client's business often did not participate adequately in the patenting process. Instead, at many organizations, inventors and patent attorneys served as the gatekeepers for most patent decisions. While the relevant client business unit typically held some say in patenting decisions, at many companies, the process effectively operated within a R&D/patent attorney "silo."

Upon reflection, I found this situation akin to the proverbial "fox guarding the hen house" because those with the most riding on the patenting process i.e., R & D managers and patent attorneys, held de facto decision rights as to their company's patents. Patent decision-making at many corporations seemed therefore to often rest on the perceived scientific value of the invention covered by the patent, not whether a patent for that invention served to effectively execute on the client's business strategy. In short, many patents that I obtained covered cool ideas, but were nonetheless effectively worthless to serve the client's business needs.

Continue reading Confessions of a "Recovering Patent Attorney" and Why I Have Joined the Growing Ranks of IP Strategists on Jackie Hutter's IP Asset Maximizer Blog.

Tweet of the Week: @JeffreyHayzlett

Kodak's Chief Business Development Officer, Jeffrey Hayzlett, who's on Twitter @JeffreyHayzlett, shakes his head and wonders what vendors are thinking when they send him photo holiday cards NOT printed by Kodak. Makes you wonder.

Tweet of the Week: @patentbaristas

Click on the image above for a gift idea for women patent attorneys.

@ipdotcom recommends following @patentbaristas on Twitter.