Trade Protection, Not Troll Protection?

Yesterday, U.S. Reps. Tony Cárdenas (D-San Fernando Valley, Calif.) and Blake Farenthold (R-Corpus Christi, Texas) introduced the “Trade Protection Not Troll Protection Act.” 

Seriously.  That's what it's called.  

The stated purpose of the Act is to make it harder for "trolls" to bring cases in the International Trade Commission.  Which raises the question:  what the what?

Maybe one of my friends out there with an ITC practice can explain this to me.  I thought to bring an action in the ITC, you had to meet some kind of "domestic industry"  standard.  How does a NPE meet that standard?  And if they do meet the standard, doesn't that mean that they're a "NNPE" (Non-Non-Practicing Entity) or just a "PE" (Practicing Entity)?

I don't get it.

North Carolina House to debate anti-trolling bill

In a continuation of the trend of states stepping into the anti-trolling parade, today the North Carolina House is expected to take up its own anti-troll bill.   According to the Raleigh News & Observer, 

Under the bill, companies targeted by NPEs in bad faith could seek attorney’s fees and damages in state court, and the people behind the NPEs could be personally liable for any awards. It also contains measures that would deter NPEs from sending “demand letters,” which often precede lawsuits, that accuse companies of infringing on a patent and demanding that they license the invention.

Beasties copyright infringement suit against Monster under way

Ad-Rock looking very corporate

Opening arguments yesterday in the Beastie Boys' suit against Monster over Monster's use of the Beastie's songs in a promotional video.

I'm really surprised that this is going to trial, since Monster concedes infringement, and the only fight is over the measure of damages.  

US Armed Forces suing veterans to protect their trademarks

Sounds bad, right?  But then there's this (click on photo to embiggen):

So maybe not.

Alabama banker thinks Alabama's anti-troll law is not enough

Say "Alabama Banker" and this guy's image will pop into your head

Scott Latham, the head of the Alabama Banker's Association, is very happy that Alabama has a new law making it a crime to send a demand letter in bad faith.

In an unsurprising development, Mr. Latham thinks the Federal Government needs to get its act together and pass it's own anti-"troll" law.  He'd like to see the law include:

1. A requirement that demand letters include more detail about the alleged infringement;
2. Protection for "end users" (otherwise known as "actual infringers;" and
3. A "loser pays" provision that would undoubtedly require plaintiffs to post big bonds when they bring suit, a requirement found nowhere else in U.S. civil practice.  

I'm sure Congress is going to get right on that.  Next year, maybe.  

Rader to Step Down as Chief

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Judge Rader will step down next week as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  

The stated reason is ... strange. 

Earlier this year, Randall R. Rader, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—one of the nation's highest federal courts—sent a laudatory email to Edward Reines, a patent lawyer at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP in Silicon Valley, said people familiar with the matter.

 ***

In the email, Judge Rader said he and other court colleagues had been impressed by Mr. Reines's skill as an appellate lawyer, according to people familiar with the details of the judge's note. The judge encouraged the lawyer to share the endorsement with others, a tool that could be used to impress clients, people familiar with the matter said. 

I'm not sure what to make of this.  I can't say that I see anything wrong with a judge complimenting an attorney on his courtroom skills.  I've been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of a couple of compliments like that.  If it's OK for a judge to compliment an attorney in open court, it's hard to argue that putting something like that in an email crosses any lines.

Now, for the judge to encourage the attorney, in that same message, to "share the endorsement with others" as the story suggests is a bit odd.  Unethical?  I don't know.  I can't help but wonder if there isn't more to the story than we've heard so far.  Because this is not enough, so far, that I can see how it's forcing Rader to step down.

USPTO Channels Proust in the Federal Register

Last week, the USPTO issued a Federal Register notice entitled "Revisions To Implement the Patent Term Adjustment Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections Act."  Nice title, right?  It gets better.  Check out this sentence:

The Office is further providing an optional procedure for requesting a recalculation of patent term adjustment, as an alternative to the petition and fee otherwise required to request reconsideration of a patent term adjustment determination, for patents issued between January 14, 2013 (the date of enactment of the AIA Technical Corrections Act) and May 20, 2014 (patents issued on or after this date will have patent term adjustment determinations consistent with the AIA Technical Corrections Act) that resulted directly from international applications.  

 Got that?  I hope somebody gets some recognition for that sentence.