We usually don't focus on trademark intellectual property issues because, well, there is just too much low hanging fruit in the patent world. But today we just couldn't resist. Charles Coleman of NYU Law published an article about the most ridiculous trademark infringement case ever — William Faulkner's literary estate sued Sony Pictures over a nine word Faulkner quote used in the movie Midnight in Paris that was attributed to Faulkner. This four page paper will make your head explode while providing some great insight into the latest silliness in trademark land. (Oh, and no more photos with the car pinetrees.)
Senator Leahy invokes Bayh-Dole asking NIH to exercise march-in rights against Myriad Genetics in an attempt to improve access to BRAC genetic testing that is so important in early detection of beast and ovarian cancer. Myriad is a business built around patented technology. This will be contentious.
We read the Spangenberg patent troll article and thought some commentary was in order. The bottom line is that there will be lots of patent monetization revenue flowing until information patents are more specific and less obtuse. There will be plenty of money for Monets.
Patent Trolls have gone main stream. The top story in the business section of this week's Sunday New York Times is about Erich Spangenberg, the designated top patent troll. The article, "Has Patent, Will Sue: An Alert to Corporate America" notes, The number of patent-infringement lawsuits has soared, partly because of Erich Spangenberg. His firm has sued 1,638 companies in the last five years.
All of the non-practicing entities who have been taking a beating over their business models lately must be enjoying this week's patent litigation developments. Boston University filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple asserting an 18 year old invention. The same Boston University whose legal scholars published the oft cited and passionately embraced finding that NPE patent assertions are substantial, totaling about $29 billion accrued in 2011 alone. We are having a hard time keeping a straight face.
There are lots of reasons why patent assertion entities and their partners, investors, and other cohorts don't want the Real Party In Interest disclosed in the normal course of their patent monetization business activities. Today we'll save the rant about why those engaged in emerging patent-asset backed business models should support and would benefit from more transparency on how these businesses work and stick to the top reasons why most in the patent business don't want to disclose the Real Party In Interest.